| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 484.1 | see 43.* | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jun 27 1988 16:32 | 1 |
| see note 43.* about "Jews 4 J".
|
| 484.2 | They are NOT JFJ | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 17:07 | 47 |
| < Note 484.0 by DECSIM::GROSS "David Gross" >
-< What are "Messianic Jews"? >-
May I try to answer this?
>Messianic Jews are those who affirm the faith of Yeshua (Jesus) and
>closely follow in the footsteps of the earliest followers, according
>to Nichol. His congregation has been meeting in the Wellesley Baptist
>Church in Wellesley.
This is, indeed an accurate definition. Messianic Jews are those
Jews who have come to recognize/acccept Jesus as the promised
Messiah. They are also sometimes called Hebrew Christians, or
Jewish Christians [sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? ;-)]
I can understand your concerns [Dave, and undoubtedly others], if
these people are not Jewish. Be assured that they *are* Jewish,
they are *NOT* a JFJ type of organization, and are simply seeking
to economize on the costs of a house of worship by sharing a
building with another group. Practices between the two are
sufficiently different [e.g. days of worship] that there are
no schedule conflicts.
From estimates I've heard, there are over 100,000 Messianic
Jews in the US alone, and that number is growing. Included
are also rabbis of Chassidic, Orthodox and Reform backgrounds.
These are Jews who wish to retain their form of worship, making
only the necessary adjustments to add some new dimensions of
worship into the services and traditions, based on their new
understanding of Yeshua. If you wish to understand this a
bit better, I would say they've returned to Biblical Judaism
[as opposed to following Rabbinical Judaism].
The way I've heard these Jews describe it, they are Jews who have
come home to Judaism, and Messiah.
I know what kind of feelings that will produce among some, perhaps
most of you. However, facts is facts, and they *are* Jews. [How
does one stop being a Jew??]
Shalom,
Irena
|
| 484.3 | JFJ by another name | IOSG::LEVY | QA Bloodhound | Mon Jun 27 1988 17:46 | 23 |
| > These are Jews who wish to retain their form of worship, making
Hi Irena,
> only the necessary adjustments to add some new dimensions of
> worship into the services and traditions, based on their new
> understanding of Yeshua. If you wish to understand this a
> bit better, I would say they've returned to Biblical Judaism
> [as opposed to following Rabbinical Judaism].
By your definition they should then be stoning those who commit
adultery, not keeping kosher, not attending a synagogue,
and performing sacrafices for forgiveness of their sins.
They should also be keeping the literal explanation of an
eye for an eye. I pity them.
I must admit that I prefer the rabbinic variety.
Malcolm
PS do you know who was the first and greatest Rabbi?
Answer: Moses
|
| 484.4 | I find Satanists more fun than JFJs, personally | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:05 | 15 |
| I'm sorry, Irena, but that view of JFJ's reminds me of the smell
of a pork production facility. Jews don't accept it.
Semantically, JFJ's ("Messianic Jews") are either a) ethnic Jews
who are Christians, or b) Christians who pretend to be a) because
it helps them in their missionary work.
Judaism and Christianity are utterly incompatible. While a Jew
can eat pork, work Saturdays and eat sandwiches on Passover and
still be a Jew (albeit a non-observant one), one of Hebraic descent
who becomes a Christian moves into the category of "apostate", which
is a whole lot different.
Ergo, "messianic Jews" are not religiously Jewish, but may include
within their church some number of apostate Jews.
|
| 484.5 | You missed a key point, friend | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:12 | 25 |
|
Hello Malcolm,
I thought there might be some strong reactions, but I didn't
expect you to be first in line!
>By your definition they should then be stoning those who commit
>adultery, not keeping kosher, not attending a synagogue,
>and performing sacrafices for forgiveness of their sins.
>They should also be keeping the literal explanation of an
>eye for an eye. I pity them.
That is not what Yeshua taught as the revelation of G-d. I think you
missed this point in my previous reply:
>>only the necessary adjustments to add some new dimensions of
>>worship into the services and traditions, based on their new
>>understanding of Yeshua.
Those who know Yeshua, know that he came to show a better way.
Love and peace,
Irena
|
| 484.6 | She's unmasked herself! | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:17 | 21 |
| [Flame on]
Messianic "Jews" are just another form of J4J. A "Jew" who says
he/she believes in Jesus as the messiah is a Christian! Calling
Jesus Yeshua doesn't make Christians into "Biblical Jews".
I have NEVER heard of an orthodox rabbi becoming one. If one did,
he certainly would not remain an orthodox rabbi. Would a Moslem
who found Yeshua become a "messianic moslem".
"Biblical Judaism" has nothing whatsoever to do with "messianic
judaism". The way in which that term ("BJ") is being used
seems to imply its purity and superiority to "Rabbinic Judaism".
If Irena wants to see a synthesis between Judaism and Christianity,
that's her need not ours.
Irena, I think I now better understand your love for Jews.
[Flame lowered]
|
| 484.7 | | IOSG::LEVY | QA Bloodhound | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:19 | 7 |
| Irena,
You did say that they follow biblical Judaism and not Rabbinic.
Unless they accept the teachings of the Rabbis, starting with Moses,
then that is what they have.
Malcolm
|
| 484.8 | We're not talking about JFJ | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:28 | 38 |
| < Note 484.4 by DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "Resident curmudgeon" >
>Semantically, JFJ's ("Messianic Jews") are either a) ethnic Jews
>who are Christians, or b) Christians who pretend to be a) because
>it helps them in their missionary work
I didn't think we were discussing JFJ's.
All JFJ's are not Messianic Jews. All Messianic Jews are not JFJ's.
Let's not let emotionalism run away with us...I know the feelings
run strong on this issue, but how much of it is based on personal
objective assessment, and how much on what you've always been told?
>Judaism and Christianity are utterly incompatible. While a Jew
>can eat pork, work Saturdays and eat sandwiches on Passover and
>still be a Jew (albeit a non-observant one), one of Hebraic descent
>who becomes a Christian moves into the category of "apostate", which
>is a whole lot different.
I don't wish to try convince you otherwise. But, you'll admit that
you [most Jews in general] are expecting Messiah, right? What if,
when he comes, he has some changes to make. Are you going to call
all who subscribe to those changes "apostates"?
Furthermore, how can you [not you, personally, just in general]
say that a Jew who is an atheist [denies G-d] is still a Jew, but
one who believes in and loves G-d, and feels that Yeshua brings him
closer to G-d, is an apostate?
Why wouldn't an atheist be an apostate?
Don't bash me, guys...I didn't evangelize them all!
;-)
Irena
|
| 484.10 | gee, guys, all I did was answer a question... | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:35 | 14 |
| < Note 484.6 by GRECO::FRYDMAN "wherever you go...you're there" >
-< She's unmasked herself! >-
>Irena, I think I now better understand your love for Jews.
Like I said, don't bash me guys. I may not have *all* the
answers, but I don't think you do either...smoke and flames
tend to obscure vision anyway, so I wouldn't expect you to
understand, especially when you're flaming...
Irena
|
| 484.11 | | BOLT::MINOW | Je suis marxiste, tendance Groucho | Mon Jun 27 1988 19:53 | 18 |
| re: .8
Furthermore, how can you [not you, personally, just in general]
say that a Jew who is an atheist [denies G-d] is still a Jew, but
one who believes in and loves G-d, and feels that Yeshua brings him
closer to G-d, is an apostate?
Judiasm does not believe Jesus was the Messiah for theological reasons that
I believe have been discussed before, if not here than in some incarnation
of the Christian notesfile. Perhaps the participants could review that
discussion rather than start it up again.
Albert Einstein once said (in paraphrase) that "the religion I'm not
is Judiasm." When you understand that, you'll understand how an
atheist can still be a Jew, while a person who worships Jesus as the
Messiah cannot.
Martin.
|
| 484.12 | | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jun 27 1988 19:55 | 11 |
| You don't have all the answers?????
> 484.5
> Those who know Yeshua, know that he came to show a better way.
------------
> Love and peace,
> Irena
Did you mean to say "another way" ???
|
| 484.13 | different semantics of Messiah | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Mon Jun 27 1988 20:06 | 18 |
| Christians and Jews have totally different ideas of what a "Messiah"
is.
In Judaism, a "Moshiach" is an "anointed king". That designation
occurs six times in the Tanach (anybody remember them all?), and
basically refers to one who leads the kingdom here on Earth.
Christianity belives in a spiritual "saviour" who washes away sins,
etc., and (depending upon branch) leads to a snazzy afterlife, or
causes cataclysms on Earth, or some other nifty tricks.
If a Moshiach came, a) Jews would know it; b) there would be peace
in the Middle East; c) the Temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt;
and d) there would be no conflict with the other occupants of that
location. And no, we don't understand how those last two take place,
it's just part of the definition that makes it so tough to fulfill
today! (And those aren't all, just part of it.)
Obviously, that other guy didn't hack it.
|
| 484.14 | why christianity isn't Jewish | IOSG::LEVY | QA Bloodhound | Mon Jun 27 1988 20:13 | 65 |
| <<< IOSG::LIB0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
-< The Christian Notes conference >-
================================================================================
Note 516.21 Christianity is Jewish 21 of 28
IOSG::LEVY "QA Bloodhound" 56 lines 10-MAY-1988 23:02
-< Valediction >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I will attempt to give answers to some questions, and then
bow out of this notes file. As I said earlier, I'm by no means an
expert and see no point in getting into theological arguments.
I can give a different perspective that you may choose to ponder
on, and can point out assumptions in beiefs where I see them.
>M Someone who rejects their heritage, and their people without even
>M knowing what they are all about?
> Why do you see this as a rejection of one's heritage? Do you see something
> in Christ and the teachings of the New Testament that reject the Jewish
> Scriptures? I'd be interested in your perspective on this.
The belief that a man could be G-d, part of G-d, or the son of G-d
is not part of Judaism, and never was. These ideas basically come from
Hellinism.
In Judaism the messiah was either seen as a messenger (instrument
of G-d), some Jews thought that the messiah would have miraculous
powers.
>M You cannot know that your belief in Jesus as the
>M fullfillment of biblical Judaism is any more than just a belief
>M until you've made extensive studies of Judaism and you know what it is.
> The converse is true. You cannot know that belief in Jesus as the
> fulfillment of biblical Judaism is *not* more than just a belief until
> you've made extensive studies of Christianity and you know what it is.
> ;-).
Christianity is a Hellinistic belief about the role of the messiah.
Christianity was also influenced by Mithraism. These are the major
ways in which Christianity differs from Judaism.
> Malc, could you tell me the what you see as the difference between
> biblical and rabbinical Judaism, how the two parted paths, and why?
Rabbinical Judaism is a development of biblical Judaism. To ask what
the difference is is like asking what the difference is between a
kitten and a cat. It is true that many of the great Jewish Rabbis lived
after the time of 2000 years ago. These Rabbis contributed many of the
major works and commentaries on the bible. To understand Judaism today,
you need some understanding of their books (Talmud, Gamarah).
> I think it's important to remember that when a Jew recognizes Yeshua
> it is a matter not of conversion [turning away] but a matter of
> repentance and turning *back to G-d* [of drawing closer to G-d].
This is a matter of opinion and I think we can agree to differ.
regards,
Malcolm
|
| 484.15 | Now I understand | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 20:57 | 45 |
|
re: .12, GRECO::FRYDMAN
>You don't have all the answers?????
>>485.5
>>Those who know Yeshua, know that he came to show a better way.
----------
>Did you mean to say "another way" ???
No wonder you're flaming...If you took this the way I think
you took it, I'm not surprised at your reaction. However,
that is not the way I meant it. You took it out of context.
I meant 'a better way' to this [which was a part of my reply
485.5] :
>they should then be stoning those who commit
>adultery, not keeping kosher, not attending a synagogue,
>and performing sacrafices for forgiveness of their sins.
>They should also be keeping the literal explanation of an
>eye for an eye.
Yeshua taught a 'better way' than this on how to treat
others, and this is what I was referring to. I'm truly sorry if
you misunderstood, and took offense where none was intended.
-----------------------
[BTW, I always understood the 'eye for an eye' to mean
that restitution was not to *exceed* the damage. It was
placed as a limit, not as a *requirement*, but that's an
aside, I realize.]
Again, my apologies, and I understand your reason for flaming.
It's OK if you flame at things I haven't stated clearly. Just
please don't flame at me for what exists out there in the world
'cause *I didn't do it*. ;-)
love and peace [still],
Irena
|
| 484.16 | meesianic jews=karites | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jun 27 1988 21:13 | 9 |
| re: .15
A "better way" than what Moses taught us??
Since we were NEVER to understand the words of the Torah (Written
Law) without the commentary (Oral Law) there is no such thing as
"biblical judaism". Without the Oral Law we would be called Karites.
|
| 484.17 | biblical judaism is also a historical term | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Mon Jun 27 1988 21:22 | 17 |
| re: .16
>A "better way" than what Moses taught us??
No, just alternatives to stoning people. You seem to
want to extend my comment and give it wider application
than its original use and intent.
[sigh]
Irena
|
| 484.18 | Moved by moderator... | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller | Tue Jun 28 1988 12:38 | 27 |
| <<< IAGO::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< SET SEEN/BEFORE=14-APR-1988 >-
================================================================================
Note 478.30 I've Had It 30 of 32
ULYSSE::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool" 19 lines 28-JUN-1988 04:23
-< Rhetorics and Styles... (Off subject) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Christianity belives in a spiritual "saviour" who washes away sins,
> etc., and (depending upon branch) leads to a snazzy afterlife, or
> causes cataclysms on Earth, or some other nifty tricks.
> Obviously, that other guy didn't hack it.
A ridiculing style does NEVER contribute to either the validity or
the importance of the forebrought arguments. Rather, it has a tendency
to be counterproductive.
Chris
P.S.: I'm not hurt in my feelings, since I am a (roman catholic) atheist.
It's this style of presentation which I repudiate, regardless
of the topic discussed.
Just think of one thing: what is it that you would call ME
if I were to speak about Judaism in this manner.
|
| 484.19 | Moved by moderator... | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller | Tue Jun 28 1988 12:38 | 33 |
| <<< IAGO::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< SET SEEN/BEFORE=14-APR-1988 >-
================================================================================
Note 478.31 I've Had It 31 of 32
MTBLUE::SPECTOR_DAVI 25 lines 28-JUN-1988 07:43
-< a cheap shot! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .30
> A ridiculing style does NEVER contribute to either the validity or
> the importance of the forebrought arguments. Rather, it has a tendency
> to be counterproductive.
> Chris
> P.S.: I'm not hurt in my feelings, since I am a (roman catholic) atheist.
> It's this style of presentation which I repudiate, regardless
> of the topic discussed.
> Just think of one thing: what is it that you would call ME
> if I were to speak about Judaism in this manner.
I absolutely agree ! An apology is in order!
David
|
| 484.20 | Eye for an Eye | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Tue Jun 28 1988 12:42 | 11 |
|
re: .15
> BTW, I always understood "eye for an eye" to mean that restitution
>was not to exceed the damage.
In case there is still doubt on this point--tho I'm almost positive
I've seen this very issue discussed elsewhere in this NOTES file--"eye
for an eye" refers to MONETARY compensation; not, as might be inferred
from taking the statement out of context, to any sort of physical
tit-for-tat, as, for example, is the case with the Code of Hamurabi.
|
| 484.21 | Thanks, Moderator, but it's OK. | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Tue Jun 28 1988 13:17 | 16 |
|
Re: .20, Fern
>"eye for an eye" refers to MONETARY compensation; not, as might be
>inferred from taking the statement out of context, to any sort of
>physical tit-for-tat
Agreed!
Thank you, Moderator, for .18 and .19.
Irena
|
| 484.22 | Are they JFJ or not? | DECSIM::GROSS | David Gross | Tue Jun 28 1988 14:43 | 18 |
| I have already seen the discussion on JFJ. I still don't know whether the
"Messianic Jews" are really Jews or not -- the responses sound like guessing
to me. I agree that Judaism and Christianity cannot be combined in this manner.
This group is either misguided or dishonest and I wish I knew which.
The rabbi at my synagogue pointed out that the Talmud has roughly the same
role in Judaism that the "New Testament" has in Christianity. The time period in
which they were written overlaps. They both present solutions to the same
problems presented by the Torah -- our inability to make the prescribed
sacrifies in the Temple, the death penalty for Sabbath-breaking to name a few.
However, Judaism is not just the The 5 Books of Moses, and just by being Jewish
we make a statement about which is the "better way".
The injustice of stoning individuals for Sabbath breaking was noted and
corrected 2000 years ago (thank G-d, else I'd be a goner). Talk about rehashing
old arguments...
Dave
|
| 484.23 | They are NOT JFJ. This is a recorded message ;-) | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Tue Jun 28 1988 16:03 | 46 |
|
re: 22. David,
>I have already seen the discussion on JFJ. I still don't know whether the
>Messianic Jews" are really Jews or not
They are people of Jewish extraction [Jewish parents]. I suppose
whether they are Jews would depend on the definition of what
is a Jew. I'm under the impression that you all aren't in total
agreement on that definition.
I always thought that if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish.
>This group is either misguided or dishonest and I wish I knew which.
;-) I'd grant you that your perception of them being misguided
would be a valid, from where you stand, and I'd allow you to hold to
that opinion. However they are not *dishonest* because, from where
they stand, their position is very sincere, genuine and also valid
for *them*. I don't know that there's any way for you to understand
that, or even accept that possibility. That's why I recommend reading
and learning about them, before you try to make up your mind.
I think you Jews are doing yourselves a real injustice if you cast
these thousands upon thousands of Jewish born people away. You
don't have to believe as they do, but I also don't understand the
need for such hatred and ostracism. Seems fear driven. If I'm
wrong, please explain it to me. There may be some attendant
concerns connected with this issue on your part that I don't
fully appreciate. [I know, I'm going to catch it for this one
again...;-) go ahead. I'm ready. ;-)]
I just want to mention that the term 'messianic Jews' denotes
a phenomenon, a movement, and not a structured, formal organization,
such as JFJ is.
I have an article on what Messianic Judaism is. Also an audio
tape from a conference held in Pennsylvania last summer, entitled
"Messianic Judaism Defined". I'll loan to anyone who wants to learn
what it is, and is not.
Irena
|
| 484.24 | Differences? | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Tue Jun 28 1988 17:09 | 22 |
|
Hi Irena--
Now I'm a little confused. Would you be able to explain exactly
how so-called "Messianic Jews" are *different* than "Jews for
Jesus"? I understand that they are not part of the same
organization--but how are their beliefs fundamentally (sorry)
different?
The way I understood it:
Jews Messianic Jews Jews For Jesus
consider themselves consider themselves consider themselves
Jewish Jewish Jewish (tho some seem
to be Christian.)
do not believe believe that Jesus believe that Jesus
that Jesus was was the Messiah was the Messiah
the Messiah
Thanks.
|
| 484.25 | | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | tilling the soil | Tue Jun 28 1988 17:26 | 24 |
| Fern,
I don't know that this is the place to discuss beliefs...I
really do prefer to stay away from that for obvious reasons.
And I wasn't making reference to their beliefs, per se, when I said
that Messianic Jews are not part of JFJ. I was referring to
*organizational purpose*.
I understand [and I may be wrong] that Jews for Jesus are
gentiles evangelizing Jews. There also are accusations that
some of these gentiles are making themselves 'more approachable'
by taking on the appearance/names etc. to appear "Jewish". I
don't know about the accuracy of these charges, and if this
is so I find it repugnant, and contrary to everything that Jesus
taught. So much for JFJ.
Messianic Jews are people of Jewish extraction, and are not
organized into any kind of formal structure for the purposes of
evangelizing. They just happen to have a common denominator, their
belief in Yeshua, that draws them together.
Irena
|
| 484.26 | | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Tue Jun 28 1988 17:37 | 3 |
|
OK, that's fair enough. I think by now most people have gathered
that the groups are organizationally different. Thanks Irena. /Fern
|
| 484.27 | They're not "Jewish". This is a recording,too. | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Tue Jun 28 1988 17:37 | 47 |
| Someone born of a Jewish mother or converted according to halacha
is a Jew. If this person believes in Jesus (Yeshuah) that does
NOT make that belief a Jewish belief. "Messianic Judaism" is an
oxymoron. People can call the faith anything they want...it does
not make it Judaism.
The "fear" you sense, Irena, is that we have so many assimilated,
un-"Jewishly"-educated Jews who don't understand that the message
and responsiblity of Judaism is different than that of Christianity.
They could be misdirected into what they think is Judaism but is,
in fact, something different. Even you believe one to be an extension
and enhancement of the other.
It is the Jewish community that is remiss in adequately educating
itself to confront these "Jewish" impostor faiths.
I also doubt your information about "thousands upon thousands" of
Jews being invloved in these movements. My experience is that Jews
who leave Judaism (which is extremely rare in the US) will convert
to a mainstream Christian denomination. Jews in the US tend to
decrease Jewish practices not convert. Even among intermarried
couples in the US, it is rare that the Jew converts.
Let's take a poll. Has any Jewish "Bageler" in DEC ever had a relative
become a "messianic 'jew'"? Are there substantial "mj" congregations
in your communities? Have any of you been to their services?
I have only heard about these communities from Christians who have
attended and joined these congregations. My in-laws live near one
in Massapequa, NY. My mother-in-law found out about it from a Christian
co-worker who belonged to it because he wanted to have a closer
tie to the way Jesus practiced his faith and celebrated his holidays.
That's one small congregation (mixed in membership) in all of Long
Island---one of the major Jewish communities in the US.
There was a small (under 20 member) J4J group meeting in Brookline,MA
a few years ago. It also had a "mixed congregation". So...there's
another tiny group in one of the largest "Jewish" metropolitan areas
in the US.
There is a 3000 year tradition of what is Jewish. The last time
a group of Jews decided that they believed in Yeshuah as the messiah,
they called themselves Christians. This happened 1900 years ago.
I think the label fits.
---Av
|
| 484.28 | they really do exist, though not numerous | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Tue Jun 28 1988 18:36 | 23 |
| In the interest of fairness and of answering .27's point, I will
note that there was one BAGELS noter who fit the bill that Av
was looking for; he left the company over a year ago, but if you
look up the old JFJ discussion (ca. 10/85), you'll find him. For
the record, he was a very nice person, grew up in a well-to-do suburb
with a large Jewish community, didn't have a very extensive religious
(Jewish) education, and married a devout Christian. I think I have
met others over the years, but not many.
With regard to "snazzy afterlife" et al, I'm sorry if I offended any
Christians or others. Still, the way some Christian teachers try
to influence their young has been to emphasize the afterlife, and
"solemn" language doesn't impress the masses as much as "fire and
brimstone" on the one hand and - you got a better way to describe
'the good place'? - on the other. This has historic significance;
when Christianity was used by ruling elites to placate the masses,
they were taught that suffering on Earth was their path to a "reward"
after death. Now that's utterly in contrast to Jewish tradition,
where the afterlife is basically His business to worry about. (It's
covered in the Jewish writings, but it's way down the list.)
Anybody remember the names of the messiahs in the Torah? (It was
covered during my confirmation classes, but I don't remember them.)
|
| 484.29 | Cultural bias! | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Wed Jun 29 1988 08:44 | 40 |
| re .28: As I said, I have no feelings harmed. Rather I have to blame
myself for an important omission. Your view of 'Christianity' is
of course subject to cultural bias.
What I mean? I remember very well when I have been to the US for the
first time in my life. On Sunday morning, whilst recovering from my
jetlag, I switched on the TV set and accidentally selected a
'Christian' channel. I listened for more than an hour to 'Piggy'
Swaeggart. Honestly, at the end I felt like if I wouldn't send him 100$
immediately, the final Armageddon would occur the next day.
This is INCREDIBLE brainwashing. The "do-this-or-that or you're
condemned to darkness" threatening has NOTHING to do with Christianity.
Coming back to your point: our roman catholic priest here, in Valbonne,
is about 50 years old, adores to circle around the area on his heavy
motorbike and is very often 'on tour' with some socially less fortunate
youths.
His preaching in Church is mostly concentrating on dayly life problems,
which he selects around the extract of the bible that is read this
particular Sunday. You can also contact him personally, whenever you
wish so, and he will give you guiding advices for solving your issue
without infringing on Christian rules. This behaviour may be more
similar to your concept of spiritual guidance, no?
Summary: your view of Christianity and its teaching and understanding
may be applicable to what you see in your environment. It is not for
most of Western Europe.
Chris
P.S.: I did tell my wife about this show, and she couldn't
believe it. So, a couple of weeks ago, when 'Piggy' Swaggaert appeared
on TV, here, I asked her to watch it. She couldn't cope with what she
saw, either. Her comment was: And this is Christianity for American
people? I didn't answer.
P.P.S.: The cardinal of Paris is a converted Jew, and a man
of grand charisma and with rather wise comments on political events.
|
| 484.30 | A fine distinction | HEART::SILVERMAN | | Wed Jun 29 1988 09:27 | 23 |
|
Nobody seems to have drawn the distinction between two views of
Jesus:
- That he was the messiah
- That he was the son of God
In the New Testament, he seems to be regarded as both. I'm sure it's
not wrong to say that Jews would regard the idea of a human being the
son of God as meaningless - not to say blasphemous. On the other hand,
as Jewish tradition does include a belief in the eventual coming of the
messiah - a human being, not a god or demi-god - the belief that Jesus
is the messiah is not meaningless or blasphemous -- merely mistaken.
Perhaps the Messianic Jews believe that Jesus is the messiah, but
not the son of God. If so, they would not really be Christians;
on the other hand they wouldn't be Jews either. I suspect that this
is what the early Jewish Christians believed - but of course, I
don't know.
|
| 484.31 | Can a Jew turned Christian still 'return home'? | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Wed Jun 29 1988 18:19 | 9 |
| On a slightly different tack, but still with respect to people of
Jewish decent ["full-blooded" Jews for the sake of argument], but who
have changed their religion (to any denomination of Christianity,
Islamism, or whatever): how does the law of return apply to them? Can
they emmigrate to Israel and apply for Israeli citizenship, though no
longer claiming to be Jewish by religion? (Why they might want to do
so is beside the point, I hope.)
-mark.
|
| 484.32 | ------------- | SUV029::FRIEDMAN | | Wed Jun 29 1988 20:04 | 25 |
| My understanding is that in the past there there were big "conventions"
of rabbis who decided which religious writings were scriptural and
which were not. Some of the writing that were not decided to be
"canonical" made it into the Apocrypha and similar collections.
The basic concepts of the nature of God and other theological
questions are not completely consist in the Old Testament; in fact,
modern biblical scholars think that there were several authors
("redactors") who had different theologies and wrote different
sections of the Old Testament.
Couldn't the rabbis have thrown out the fifth Book of Moses on the
basis that it was not totally consistent with the first four Books
of Moses? Isn't the selection of what religious writings are
scriptural to some degree arbitrary and dogmatic? The reason
that Jews don't accept the New Testament is that they assume
the Old Testament is true and find that New Testament concepts
(abandonment of Sabbath, God has a son, etc.) are inconsistent
with the Old Testament.
To what degree are the books and passages of the Old Testament
more consistent among themselves than the Old and New Testaments
are to each other, and to what degree were the selection of what
writings are canonical merely the arbitrary choice of mortal, fallible
men?
|
| 484.33 | Intermarriage was the key | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Wed Jun 29 1988 22:25 | 41 |
| RE: 484.30
>> - That he was the messiah
>>
>> - That he was the son of God
Some reading I've done on the history of the early Church suggests that the
earliest Christians--who were Jews--probably believed the first. In the
context of the times, resurrection would have been cited as proof that Jesus
was, indeed, the anointed one. The idea of the divinity of Jesus seems
to have come later. The earliest of the Gospels, Mark, was probably written
during the revolt of 66-70, about 40 years after the crucifixtion, although
most scholars believe that parts were based on earlier mss. The last, John,
was probably not done until the turn of the century, well after the
establishment of the Jewish center at Yavneh.
At the time at which Mark was written there may still have been a question
of which movement(s) the Jewish people would follow, but when John was being
written, that issue was pretty well settled and it must have been clear
that the future of Christianity would depend on the Gentiles rather than
the Jews, and John's outlook is distinctly different from Mark's.
What probably initiated the split was not the theological issues, but
intermarriage. Although the Jews had welcomed non-Jews who wanted
to participate in Jewish services, etc. (such a person was referred to as
a ger tsadik--a righteous Gentile), they required a full conversion of those
who desired to marry into the Jewish community. This seems to have been
true of the early Christians as well, but one branch, led by Paul, believed
that one could become Christian directly, and did not have to become Jewish
first. (Apparently, the early Church almost split over this issue.) Once
non-Jews were admitted as full-fledged members of the Christian fellowship,
it followed that they could marry one another, regardless of Jewish or Gentile
status. This, however, made their offspring ineligible (from a Jewish
viewpoint) to marry Jews. (It is not clear whether maternal descent had
yet become the key criterion for determining Jewishness, but ethnic
identification by birth or conversion was certainly important.)
Subsequently, of course, Jews denied the divinity of Jesus and Christians
affirmed it, reinforcing the break.
Aaron
|
| 484.34 | NT like Tanach if Roger Rabbit was Euripides | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Thu Jun 30 1988 15:12 | 16 |
| re:.32
I can see it now -- a few hundred rabbis gathering at Atlantic City,
listening to speeches on why this book or that should be canonized.
Sorry, I don't buy it; while there were Sanhedrins (rabbinical courts)
which decided many issues, "conventions" is a few thousand years
off the mark.
The distinction between New Testament and Tanach is a bit clearer
than the distinctions between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Torah.
For one thing, NT was written in Greek! It has little in the way
of Jewish origins. Saying that it was just a rabbinical judgement
call to keep it out of Tanach canon was like saying that it's just
a judgement call to distinguish between Shakespeare and Jacqueline
Suzanne.
Yes, it's a judgement call, but it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon.
|
| 484.35 | A different perspective | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Thu Jun 30 1988 23:38 | 59 |
| Shalom,
I have recently begun reading this file in order to learn more about
my Jewish roots (at the suggestion of one of the current members).
I would like to comment on some of the notes in this thread from a
potentially different perspective.
The term "messianic Jew" is not a well defined term. IMHO, it is a
term that is used to refer to any person who is Jewish (my current
definition: born of Jewish parents) who believes that Jesus is the
messiah. This includes everyone from Jews For Jesus (a very specific
non-profit religious organization, not a sect of Christianity) to the
individual Jew who believes that Jesus is the messiah but is not
currently allied with any particular group.
re .28?:
> Someone born of a Jewish mother or converted according to halacha
> is a Jew. If this person believes in Jesus (Yeshuah) that does
> NOT make that belief a Jewish belief.
But, given the assertion of your first sentence, is a person who
*does* believe in Jesus any less Jewish (at least culturally).
> On a slightly different tack, but still with respect to people of
> Jewish decent ["full-blooded" Jews for the sake of argument], but who
> have changed their religion (to any denomination of Christianity,
> Islamism, or whatever): how does the law of return apply to them? Can
> they emmigrate to Israel and apply for Israeli citizenship, though no
> longer claiming to be Jewish by religion? (Why they might want to do
> so is beside the point, I hope.)
The last I heard (in a radio news report, I'm not sure what station)
if they find out that the person applying for citizenship under
the law of return believes in Jesus, the person will not be granted
citizenship. However, in the last case which was brought before
an Isreali court the woman applying for citizenship was granted
it (this was the first time a Jew who believed in Jesus was granted
citizenship according to the report), but, not as a Jew. In other
words, her papers were stamped "non-Jew" (this last phrase was the
one the report used).
Now, so that I am not percieved as being deceptive:
I was born to Jewish parents and consider myself Jewish. I have
read both the Old and New Testaments and have come to the conclusion
that Jesus is the messiah spoken of in the OT. I am not here to
debate the issue, evangelize, or get anyone upset. I am here to
learn and not to teach (although I plan to contribute when
appropriate).
I would be willing to discuss this issue offline via MAIL as well
as publicly.
- Barry
|
| 484.36 | Denial of unity | BOLT::MINOW | It's not pseudo eclectic, it's real eclectic | Fri Jul 01 1988 01:38 | 53 |
| From "Judaism", by Isidore Epstein. Penguin Books, 1959. pp. 105-106:
He [Pilatus] also sought to weaken the power and influence of the religious
Sanhedrin by depriving them of the penal jurisdiction hitherto vested in
them in capital cases which were of no concern to Rome. On the other hand,
he saddled the political Sanhedrin with the responsibility of maintaining
the Roman rule in the province. Theirs was the duty to order the arrest
of any persons suspected of plotting against Rome, and where there was a clear
capital charge to hand over the defendant to the Romans for actual judgement.
It was before this political Sanhedrin that Jesus was brought for examination
on the political charge that he had attempted to make himself King of the Jews.
Fearing that, unless they followed the normal procedure in a capital charge
which was considered sufficiently proved, the Jews would lose the little
national independence they still retained (see John 11. 48-50), the Sanhedrin
handed over Jesus to Pilatus, at whose order, Jesus, like so many other
Jews charged with sedition, was nailed to the cross by Rome. <<Footnote:
see Tacitus, Annals XV,44: ... Christ the founder of the name [Christian]
had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of
the procurator Pontius Pilatus.>>
The Pharisees stood aloof from the whole affair. Their differences with Jesus
were essentially religious. Never once did they rebuke him for his messianic
claims. In every case where they did rebuke him is was because of his
disregard of their traditional interpretations of the laws of the Torah and
the 'fences' erected round it. As such their differences had no bearing
whatsoever on the political charge for which Jesus appeared before the High
Priest and his associates, and in which they could not intervene even if they
could. Consequently not a single Pharisee is found to have participated
in the trial, much less in the decision to hand over Jesus to the Romans.
The crucificion of Jesus put an end to all political-national hopes which his
followers had pinned on him. Instead they turned to apocalypse for an
explanation of his death and sought to reassure themselves by exalting him into
a heavenly Messiah who was to reappear speedily on earth as a supernatural
ruler. Thus arose in that century the Judeo-Christian sect which in time tore
itself away from Judaism to found the Christian Church.
The earliest adherents of this sect were Jews in all respects but one -- they
regarded Jesus as the Messiah. They made no other changes. They continued
to go to the Temple, and presumably to the Synagogue, as they had been
accustomed to do, and to all appearances conformed in every respect to the
usual Jewish observances. Their belief that the Messiah had come was not
a ground of division between them and other Jews.
But within a few decades the Christian church under the influence of Paul was
altering its conception of Jesus in a way that meant that he was no longer
thought of as merely human, and implied that he was in fact a second God --
a belief which was a denial of the unity of God as Jews understood the term.
Once this development had taken place accommodation of Jewish Christians within
Judaism was no longer possible and the final rift between the two became
inevitable.
|
| 484.37 | Here, have a monkey wrench! | ATSE::KASPER | Biology grows on you | Fri Jul 01 1988 16:59 | 30 |
| It seems to me that at least part of the issue here is what being a Jew
really is. Is Judaism a religion? A race? An ethnic subculture?
If it's a religion, then there are certain beliefs which one must hold
in order to be considered a member. One of these is a belief in one
indivisible God, right? Whatever attributes may be associated with
Him, that precept seems clear.
Okay, someone who believes that Jesus is part of God is then not a
member of this religion. But what about someone who believes that he
was a prophet? Or someone who is an agnostic? I'm willing to believe
that there *may* be a God, and that He may fit the traditional Jewish
description. I consider it unlikely, though, and find it impossible
to *believe* that; I don't believe in any other well-defined religious
system. I just don't know. No one has spoken to me from on high, and I
don't expect them to. Maybe I'll find out when I die; I find it more
likely (and, actually, preferable) that my consciousness will cease to
exist.
I was raised in the religion of Judaism, but I am not currently a
member. BUT I CONSIDER MYSELF A JEW. This is a cultural identity,
and an ethnic group, separate from the religion. Jewish religious
services give me a "fuzzy warm" feeling that has nothing to do with any
belief in a God up there listening and smiling. It's a result of the
familiarity, and the memories it evokes. If Judaism is strictly a
religion, then I'm not Jewish, and neither are a *lot* of people who
say they are.
Beverly
|
| 484.38 | Judaism is a culture | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Fri Jul 01 1988 21:19 | 20 |
| re: 484.37
> It seems to me that at least part of the issue here is what being a Jew
> really is. Is Judaism a religion? A race? An ethnic subculture?
Judaism has never been a "religion." Historically it has been
a culture with a (significant) religious component. Because it
has not been a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion,
it has been possible to define Jewish identity in non-creedal terms.
Because it does have a religious component, however, adherence to
another religion negates that identity. Non-adherence to Jewish
religious practices does not. In other words, Jews who are atheists
or agnostics are still regarded as Jews by the Jewish community;
Those who adopt Christianity, Islam, or another religion, are not.
Mordechai Kaplan's book _Judaism as a Civilization_ provides a good
(maybe more-than-you-wanted-to-know) discussion of this.
Aaron
|
| 484.39 | the OLD question: who is a Jew? | DECSIM::GROSS | David Gross | Fri Jul 01 1988 21:30 | 19 |
| Regarding whether Jeshua is the messiah: if you accept the other guys'
postulates, you get the other guys' theorems. Jeshua certainly fails the
Jewish requirements for the job as documented elsewhere in this conference.
This is why I said the Messianic Jews were misguided: proper Jewish guidance
would point out this discrepancy.
I am not sure that Judaism requires a belief in G-d. If you believe that the
sacred writings were written by inspired authors and if you believe that the
mitzvot are good and ought to be kept (even if you aren't up to keeping all
of them yourself yet), that may be sufficient. If Jewish services give you and
me a warm, fuzzy feeling then you may be more Jewish in the religious sense
than you realize. BTW, if you have not yet experienced a death in your immediate
family, you have not yet had the acid test of just how Jewish you are.
One problem I have had personally is that my Hebrew school never taught me that
becoming a good Jew requires a life-long attention to study. I know that Torah
study is one of the mitzvot, but somehow the point escaped me.
Dave
|
| 484.40 | how can a Jew not believe in God? | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Sat Jul 02 1988 17:01 | 25 |
| re .39
>I am not sure that Judaism requires a belief in G-d. If you believe that the
>sacred writings were written by inspired authors and if you believe that the
>mitzvot are good and ought to be kept (even if you aren't up to keeping all
>of them yourself yet), that may be sufficient.
Isn't it somewhat paradoxical to say that one can eschew belief in God
and yet still believe the sacred writings were written by inspired
authors? When one credits an author of a Bible book as having been
inspired, is that not the same as saying he was influenced directly by
God's spirit (hence, "inspired")? If so, then how can someone believe
in the "inspiration" of the Bible without believing in God?
I get the impression you might be trying to say that Judaism doesn't
require devotion to God, or strict loyalty to God in the sense of being
obliged to defend a belief in his existance. Though I am not a Jew, I
find it hard to believe that one can be a Jew and NOT believe in the
God of the Bible. I mean, the Bible itself makes it pretty clear that
Jews exist as a distinct people because God dealt with them personally,
as a means of fulfilling his promise to Abraham. What's the point of
claiming Jewish heritage if one is not seeking a relationship with God
through the Law?
-mark.
|
| 484.41 | Apples and Oranges | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Mon Jul 04 1988 03:42 | 8 |
| RE: .40
Mark,
You would be correct if Judaism were a religion in the sense that
Christianity is a religion, but it is not. (See .38)
Aaron
|
| 484.42 | | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Mon Jul 04 1988 12:52 | 30 |
|
There seems to be a belief held by some here that Messianic Jews
are so because they have not received a good Jewish education, that
their perception of Judaism is flawed which allows them to accept
the misguided teachings of those who would say that Jesus is the
Messiah. Well, this may be true for some, but not all. There is
a significant number of (ex)Rabbis around who accept the Messiahship
of Jesus (I can back this statement up if anybody wishes).
As an aside, can someone point me to the note which lists points
on which Jesus fails his claim to Messiahship. Thanks.
As a point of clarification, an earlier note mentioned that the
JFJ movement is made of of Jews and 'people who claim to be Jews
but who are really Christian'. By 'Christian' do you actually mean
'Gentile' for the Jews in that movement would be classed Christian
too? (Christian more literally means a follower of Christ, ie someone
who accepts Jesus as Messiah. This definition does not accurately
allow for someone to be an ethnic Christian as one can be an ethnic
Jew. Strictly one can only be a Christian is one professes Jesus
and follows him as the Bible tells).
None of these Messianic Jews seem to see any contradictions between
their Jewish and Christian faiths. They believe Jesus to be the
promised Messiah and (in their eyes) are simply practising Judaism
of their forefathers except that they are (again, in their eyes)
post-messianic whilst their forefathers (those who lived before Jesus)
were pre-messianic.
Paul V
|
| 484.43 | If the messiah came, wouldn't we notice? | HEART::SILVERMAN | | Mon Jul 04 1988 14:58 | 9 |
| re .42
A Christian does not simply accept Jesus as the messiah, but also
believes that he is the son of God. The messiah was never believed
to be anything but human.
Wasn't the messiah supposed to usher in the kingdom of God on earth?
The last 2000 years of history don't look particularly heavenly
to me.
|
| 484.44 | More clarification | BOLT::MINOW | It's not pseudo eclectic, it's real eclectic | Mon Jul 04 1988 23:29 | 49 |
| re: .42:
... Messianic Jews are so because they have not received a good Jewish
education.
Umm, no: they are Messianic Jews because they believe Jesus Christ is
the Messiah. (I assume you are not referring to Bar Cochba, Moses of Crete,
Serene, Abu-Isa Obaidia, David Alroy, Sabbatai Zevi or others who claimed
to be the Messiah.)
As an aside, can someone point me to the note which lists points
on which Jesus fails his claim to Messiahship. Thanks.
Sorry, you'll have to dig for it yourself. Some points that I remembered:
-- Not "perfect in the Torah"
-- Did not restore Kingdom of Israel.
-- Did not bring about the moral and spiritual regeneration of the whole
of humanity, making all mankind fit citizens of the Kingdom.
"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall
be one Lord with one name." (Zech. 14.9.)
As a point of clarification, an earlier note mentioned that the
JFJ movement is made of of Jews and 'people who claim to be Jews
but who are really Christian'. By 'Christian' do you actually mean
'Gentile'?
Some of the Jews For Jesus followers are Christians who have taken on
Jewish persona to further their prostelytizing: "Hi, I'm Moses David
and I want to tell you about Jesus" or something like that. These people
are not recent converts from Judaism.
None of these Messianic Jews seem to see any contradictions between
their Jewish and Christian faiths. They believe Jesus to be the
promised Messiah and (in their eyes) are simply practising Judaism
of their forefathers except that they are (again, in their eyes)
post-messianic whilst their forefathers (those who lived before Jesus)
were pre-messianic.
Fine for them, "but the Messiah in Jewish teaching is not a supernatural being,
nor a divine being, having a share in the forgiveness of sin; much less is he
to be confused with God." Messianic Jews are welcome to believe in the
Christian concept of the unity of Jesus and God, but they will find no
support for this belief within Jewish theology.
Martin.
(Quotes from Epstein, Judiasm, and the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh.
The list of pseudo-messiahs is from the Encyclopaedia Brittianica, 13rd ed.)
|
| 484.45 | Names of G-d, part I | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:12 | 112 |
| re: .44 by BOLT::MINOW
>Messianic Jews are welcome to believe in the Christian concept of
>the unity of Jesus and God, but they will find no support for this
>belief within Jewish theology.
The following is from the RELIGION conference, entered this past
weekend by another noter. It addresses this matter of how could
Jesus be divine, which is a source of confusion and a point of
argument always brought up. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this
information in reference to Jewish writings and the Hebrew language,
but I offer it for your consideration and testing, and drawing your
own conclusions.
------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Path: decwrl!purdue!mailrus!iuvax!inuxc!att!mtuxo!avram
Subject: JEWISHNESS AND THE TRINITY
Posted: 1 Jul 88 19:30:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
With the discussion of the trinity the past weeks (I've been busy so I
haven't been on for awhile) I thought that some of you might find this
article which I found interesting. If you want to respond
to the writer of the article you could write him at:
ISSUES
US:
P.O Box 11250
San Francisco, CA 94101-7495
Canada:
P.O. Box 487, STA. Z
Toronto, Ontario M5N 2Z6
================================================================
JEWISHNESS AND THE TRINITY
by
Arnold Fruchtenbaum
(Article appeared in ISSUES, Vol. 1:8)
In a recent question-answer article, Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple
Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:
"Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a
trinitarian conception of god, but their effort to base
this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the
face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible.
Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the
oneness of God...The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God
with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, an
uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of
the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism
and the unshakable faith of the Jew."
Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tri-theists or
whether it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a
form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the
Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it
still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true
Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg's article tends to reflect that thinking.
He went on to say, "...under no circumstances can a concept of a
plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the
Hebrew Bible." It is perhaps best then to begin with the very source of
Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: Hebrew Scriptures. Since
so much relies on Hebrew language usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.
I. God Is A Plurality
The Name Elohim
It is generally agreed that "Elohim" is a plural noun having the
masculine plural ending "im." The very word Elohim used of the true God in
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth," is
also used in Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods (Elohim) before
me," and in Deuteronomy 13:3, "...let us go after other gods(Elohim)..."
While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly
opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead since it is the
word that is used of the one true God as well as the many false gods.
Plural Verbs used with Elohim
Virtually all Hebrew scholars do recognize that the word Elohim as it
stands by itself is a plural noun. Nevertheless, they wish to deny that it
allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever. Their line of
reasoning usually goes like this. When Elohim is used of the true God, it
is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is
followed by the plural verb. Rabbi Greenberg states it as follows:
"But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of
Genesis is 'bara' which means 'he created' -- singular.
One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to
understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly
speaks of a singular God."
The points made, of course, are generally true because the Bible does
teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to
have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the
one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true
God and yet it is followed by a plural verb:
|
| 484.46 | Names of G-d, part II | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:13 | 93 |
|
Genesis 20:13: "And it came to pass, when God (Elohim)
caused me to wander (Literally: They caused me to
wander) from my father's house..."
Genesis 35:7: "...because there God (Elohim) appeared
unto him..." (literally: They appeared unto him.)
II Samuel 7:23: "...God (Elohim) went..." (Literally:
They went.)
Psalm 58:12: "...There is a God (Elohim) that
judgeth..." (Literally: They judgeth.)
The Name Eloah
If the plural form of Elohim was the only form available for a
reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the
writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the
word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However,
the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as
Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have
easily been consistently used. Yet, it is only used 250 times while the
plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form
again seems to turn the argument for plurality in the Godhead rather than
against it.
Plural Pronouns
Another case in point regarding Hebrew grammar is that often when God
speaks of Himself, He clearly uses the plural pronoun:
Genesis 1:26: "And God (Elohim) said, Let US make man
in OUR image, after OUR likeness."
He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in
the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis
recognized the strength of the passage and comments as follows:
"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan
said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah,
writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this
verse which says, 'And Elohim said, let us make man in
our image after our likeness,' Moses said, 'Master of
the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the
sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God).' God
answered Moses, 'You write and whoever wants to err,
let him err.'" [Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New
York; NOP Press, N.D.]
It is obvious that the Midrash Rabbah is trying to simply get around
the problem and fails to answer adequately why God refers to Himself in the
plural.
The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen in:
Genesis 3:22: "And Jehovah God (YHVH Elohim) said,
Behold, the man is become as one of US..."
Genesis 11:7: "Go to, let US go down, and there
confound their language..."
Isaiah 6:8: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord,
saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US?"
This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular "I" and
the plural "us" except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).
Plural Descriptions of God
One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often God is
described with plural adjectives. Some examples are:
Ecclesiastes 12:1: "Remember now thy creator..."
(Literally: creators.)
Psalm 149:2: "Let Israel rejoice in his maker."
(Literally: makers.)
Joshua 24:19: "...Holy God..." (Literally: holy Gods.)
Isaiah 54:5: "For thy maker is thine husband..."
(Literally: makers, husbands.)
Everything we have said so far simply reflects the Hebrew language of
the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we
have to say that on the one hand they affirm God's unity, but at the same
time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a
plurality in the Godhead.
|
| 484.47 | Names of G-d, Part III | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:14 | 97 |
|
The Shema
Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is
one Lord."
Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the SHEMA, has always been Israel's great
confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm
the fact that God is one and is often used to counteract the concept of
plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?
On one hand, it should be noted that the very words "our God" are in
the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean "our Gods." However, the
main argument lies in the word "one," which is a Hebrew word, echad. A
glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly
show that the word echad does not mean an absolute "one" but a compound
"one." For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and
morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come
together in marriage and the two shall become one (echad) flesh. In Ezra
2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of
course, it was composed of numerous people. A rather striking example is
Ezekiel 37:17 where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use
of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an
absolute unity.
There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is
yachid, which is found in many passages [Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34;
Psalm 22:21; 25:;16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah
12:10.], the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to
teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would
have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the
strength of yachid and chose to use that word in his Thirteen Articles of
Faith in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 does not use that word
in reference to God.
The Zohar, the great book of Jewish mysticism, recognized the concept
of plurality in the Shema and commented as follows:
"Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three
times in the verse? The first Jehovah is the Father
above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah
who is to come from the family of Jesse through David.
And the third one is the one which is below (meaning
the Holy Spirit who shows us the way) and these three
are one." [Quoted by Leopold Cohn, DO CHRISTIANS
WORSHIP THREE GODS? (New York: Sar Shalom Publications,
N.D.)]
II. God Is At Least Two
Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities
As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are
situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two
personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:7-8:
"Thy throne, which is of God, shall stand for ever and
ever:
The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness:
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil
of gladness above thy fellows."
It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the
second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God's God has
anointed Him with the oil of gladness.
"But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and
will save them by Jehovah their God, and will not save
them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses nor
by horsemen."
The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of
Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of Jehovah, their Elohim.
So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.
Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but
so is the very name of God. One example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:
"Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven."
Clearly we have Jehovah number one raining fire and brimstone from a
second Jehovah who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.
A second example is Zechariah 2:12-13:
"For thus saith Jehovah of Hosts; for your glory hath
he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he
that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For,
behold, I will shake my hand upon them, and they shall
be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that
Jehovah of hosts hath sent me."
Again, we have one Jehovah sending another Jehovah to perform a
specific task.
|
| 484.48 | Names of G-d, Part IV | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:16 | 101 |
|
The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton
["Personal Name of God of Israel," written in Hebrew Bible with the four
consonants YHWH. Pronunciation of name has been avoided since at least 3rd
c. B.C.E.; initial substitute was 'Adonai' ('the Lord'), itself later
replaced by 'ha-Shem' ('the Name'). The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading
of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of 'Adonai.' ( ENCYCLOPEDIA
DICTIONARY OF JUDAICA, pg. 593.)] and wrote:
"Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are
three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they
are One, and so united that one cannot be separated
from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with
three heads, which are united into one, and that head
is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as
being three: because the other lights emanating from
him are included in the three. But how can three names
be one? Are they really one because we call them one?
How three can be one can only be known through the
revelation of the Holy Spirit." [Zohar, Vol. III, pg.
288, Vol. II, pg. 43.]
III. God is Three
How Many Persons are There?
If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question
arises, how many personalities in the Godhead exist? We have already seen
the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going
through the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that, in fact, three and only three
distinct personalities are ever considered divine.
1. On one hand, there are the myriads of times when there is a
reference to the Lord Jehovah. This usage is so frequent that there is no
need to devote space to it.
2. A second major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God,
often referred to as simply the Ruach Hakodesh. There are a good number of
references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2, Job 26:13,
Psalm 51:13, Psalm 139:7, Isaiah 11:2, etc. The Holy Spirit cannot be a
mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality
(intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.
3. A third personality is referred to as the Angel of Jehovah. This
individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is
unique. In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as
both the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah Himself. For instance, in Genesis
16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of Jehovah, but then in 16:13 as
Jehovah Himself. In Genesis 22:11 He is the Angel of Jehovah, but God
Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given. [In Genesis 31 He is the
Angel of God in verse 11, but then He is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In
Exodus 3 He is the Angel of Jehovah in verse 2 and He is both Jehovah and
God in verse 4. In Judges 6 He is the Angel of Jehovah in verses 11, 12, 20
and 21 but is Jehovah Himself in verses 14, 16, 22, and 23. Then in Judges
13:3 and 21 He is the Angel of Jehovah but becomes God Himself in verse
22.] A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has
the power to pardon sin because God's own name YHVH is in Him, and,
therefore, He is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of
any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God's own name is in this angel
shows His divine status.
So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a
clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as
being God: the Lord Jehovah, the Angel of Jehovah and the Spirit of God.
The Three Personalities in the Same Passage
-------------------------------------------
Nor have the Hebrew Scriptures neglected to put all three
personalities of the God head together in one passage. Two examples are
Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.
Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:
"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am
he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also
hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right
hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them,
they stand up together. All ye, assemble yourselves,
and hear; which among them hath declared these things?
Jehovah hath loved him: He will do his pleasure on
Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. I,
even I, have spoken: yea, I have called him: I have
brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken
in secret from the beginning; from the time that it
was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah and his
spirit hath sent me."
It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who
is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear
that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16,
the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then
distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes
himself from the LORD JEHOVAH and then from the SPIRIT OF GOD. Here is the
Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures have ever chosen to
make it.
|
| 484.49 | Names of G-d, Part V | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:17 | 76 |
|
In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the
Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord
Jehovah is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of Jehovah in verse 9 and the
Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While Himself as being the one
solely responsible for Israel's redemption from Egypt, in this passage
three personalities are given credit for it. Yet, no contradiction is seen
since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.
Conclusion
----------
The teaching of the Old Testament then is that there is a plurality of
the Godhead. The first person is consistently called Jehovah while the
second person is given the names of Jehovah, the Angel of Jehovah and the
Servant of Jehovah. Consistently and without fail, the second person is
sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of
Jehovah or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the
first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second
person.
If the concept of the Tri-unity in the God head is not Jewish
according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Hebrew
Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold
to the fact that Jesus is a member of the Triune God. He is the same one
of whom Moses wrote when he said:
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in
the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have
prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke
him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:
for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey
his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an
enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine
adversaries. For mine angel shall go before thee, and
bring thee in unto the Amorite, and the Hittite, and
the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the
Jebusite; and I will cut them off."
--Exodus 23:20-23
New Testament Light
-------------------
In keeping with the teachings of the Old Testament, the New Testament
clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it
becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called God the
Father while the second person is called God the Son. The New Testament
answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: "What is his son's name?" His son's
name is Jesus. In accordance with the Old Testament, he is sent by God to
be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Further-
more, He is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence,
what happened is that God became a man (not man became God) in order to
accomplish the work of atonement.
The New Testament calls the third person, God the Holy Spirit.
Throughout the New Testament He is related to the work of the second person
in keeping with the teaching of the Old Testament. We see then, that there
is a continuous body of teaching in both the Old and New Testaments
relating to the Tri-unity of God.
==============================================================================
*******************************************************************************
* Avram * A fool does not delight in understanding *
* mtuxo!avram * But only in revealing his own heart. *
* * Prov. 18:2 *
*******************************************************************************
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA08466; Sat, 2 Jul 88 09:12:58 PDT
|
| 484.50 | should culture be more important that religion? | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Tue Jul 05 1988 03:49 | 57 |
| re .41 (Aaron)
> You would be correct if Judaism were a religion in the sense that
> Christianity is a religion, but it is not. (See .38)
Well I agree that it is far from identical to Christianity in form,
but I don't see that what you say in .38 is sufficient proof of your
view.
.38> Judaism has never been a "religion." Historically it has been
> a culture with a (significant) religious component.
When I read the Bible, it appears fairly obvious that the
"religious" aspect of Judaism, and it's profession of faith in One God,
is an essential -- if not THE essential -- element that set it apart
from the other cultures and religions of its day.
Didn't God favor Abraham as his "friend" (Isa 41:8) because of his
faith in, and worship of, the True God? Did not God deliver Israel
from Egypt to give them the freedom to worship their God unfettered by
oppression by unbelievers? How can a person truly be a Jew if he
cannot truthfully confess a belief in the fundamental tenet of the
Shema?
To look at the matter from the outside in, can one convert to
Judaism without believing in God? If not, why not? If so, then why
should any Jew believe in God?
Though not a Jew, when I read the Bible, and read such scriptures
as the following:
The benighted man thinks, "There is no God." *
...The LORD look down from heaven on mankind to
find a man of understanding, a man mindful of God.
(Ps 14:1a,2 JPS TANAKH 1985: [*] "There is no God"
is given in a footnote as the literally reading of
the text. "God does not care" is used as the reading
of the main text.)
it appears obvious that the Bible teaches that a necessary aspect of
Judaiasm is exactly the very "religious" tenet that God exists, and
expects his people to put faith in him. In fact, the word "benighted,"
which principally means "morally or intellectually unenlightened"
paints a poor picture of those who don't.
You emphasize the cultural aspect of Judaism, but how could there
be a Jewish culture if it were not for God's hand in Jewish affairs
from the start?
Sorry for being 'preachy,' if that's the way it looks, but I've
always had a great respect for the teachings of the Hebrew Canon, and
have always found incredulous the idea that one could be a Jew [in good
standing, whatever that means], and yet not believe in the "religion"
of the Jews.
ducking out,
-mark.
|
| 484.51 | Interesting, but irrelevant | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Tue Jul 05 1988 17:22 | 21 |
| RE: 484.45 ff
Irena,
I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter whether
(a) someone can argue that the usage of terms referring to
the divine in the Bible can be plural in form
(b) Jews misunderstand the nature of Christian belief in the
Trinity (which is probably true).
First, because--as several people have pointed out--Jewish tradition
has held that the Messiah would be a human, explicitly NOT a
manifestation of God, nor angel, nor any other supernatural being.
Secondly, Judaism has defined itself, since the second century,
as (among other things) not-Christian.
Aaron
|
| 484.52 | Why culture .ne. religion | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Tue Jul 05 1988 17:26 | 42 |
|
RE: .50
> You emphasize the cultural aspect of Judaism, but how could there
> be a Jewish culture if it were not for God's hand in Jewish affairs
> from the start?
Mark,
I think I understand your question, and there are two answers:
First, Jews have traditionally put a great deal of emphasis on the
idea that God chose the Jewish PEOPLE. Although there were certain conditions
under which a member of that people could be banned, there was always a
distinction (and still is, even among the most rigid Jewish sects) between
being a "bad" Jew and not being Jewish. (If, for instance, one reads
the periodicals of the Orthodox organization Agudath Israel, one can find
references to "bringing Jews back to Judaism.") The Jews distinguished between
belief in God and membership in the Jewish people. The prophets saw universal
acceptance of God as one of the features of the messianic age, but not
universal membership in the Jewish people.
Second, those of us who are more historically oriented (and by
implication, less fundamentalist) see a lot of evidence that Judaism has
assumed many different forms over the millenia. The Judaism of the Patriarchs
was not the same as that of the period of the Judges. The period of the
Monarchy resulted in significant changes in both practice and theology.
The Babylonian exile largely eliminated royalty and the prophetic schools,
leaving the priests in authority; the Humash as we have it today, was
filtered through all these groups. By the time of the first revolt
against Rome, there were several competing movements, all different from
the "Biblical Judaism" of the Tanach. Two of those movements survived,
Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, and both claimed to be the heirs of Biblical
Judaism. The Jews opted to follow the Rabbinic movement, in large part because
it integrated the religious component with the rest of the culture. (To
understand this one has to know something about the Mishna, but I think
that's another note...)
Does this help to clarify my meaning?
Aaron
|
| 484.53 | Echod means echod | DECSIM::GROSS | David Gross | Tue Jul 05 1988 18:30 | 16 |
| I am no Hebrew scholar, but I know a couple of things. In Hebrew, the plural
form of a noun is often used to express an abstract concept. Further, it is the
practice in many languages for the head of state to use first-person plural
pronoun in refering to him/herself. Given these two facts, it should not be
surprising to find plural forms being used in reference to G-d.
What I do find surprising is a defense of the Christian viewpoint, written
by non-Jews, in a conference concerned with Jewish affairs. As Jews, we
know what G-d said to us and we do not claim to know what G-d said to anyone
else. We consider the issue concerning the one-ness of G-d to have been
settled since the time of Abraham. I know of no Jewish scholar with a contrary
opinion. There are Jewish scholars who love to debate the meaning of individual
words and word-forms in scripture. But when we say "G-d is One", we mean exactly
that - it is the central religious belief in Judaism.
Dave
|
| 484.54 | but is culture .geq. religion? | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Tue Jul 05 1988 20:02 | 35 |
| re .52
Aaron,
Thanks for replying. I understand your point that the changing
circumstances under which Judaism has been practices has had a feedback
effect on the interpretation and practice, of the religion, but it
doesn't directly address the issue of whether Jewish culture is valid
without the Jewish religion, and particularly without a belief in the
God of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Without getting into specifics (i.e., quoting scripture), wasn't a
basic aspect of the messages of judgement against Israel by so many of
the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, plus most of the 'minor'
prophets) that Jewish culture was abandoning true worship, and thereby
earning God's disfavor, and risking his rath and divine punishment?
Wasn't the fact that God left them open to defeat and conquest the
literal evidence that God was displeased with them for their
"religious" failings?
If the events of the past are any kind of example, shouldn't one
assume that God would view any of his people today by similar criteria?
The question of the Messiah aside, should God not at least expect
someone who lays claim to the combined cultural and religious heritage
of the past to believe in him? The question is not, does Judaism
accept such disbelief among Jews today, since it's apparent that it
does, or at least tolerates it? Rather, it's OUGHT Judaism to allow
such disbelief, and stake it's future in cultural momentum alone?
It's obvious that culture and religion are two different things, but
should culture be the most prominent part of Jewish life, and is it's
mere existance justification for allowing exclusion of its religious
aspect and heritage?
ducking back in,
-mark.
|
| 484.55 | understanding dispels fear | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Tue Jul 05 1988 20:45 | 51 |
|
re: 484.53 by DECSIM::GROSS "David Gross"
>What I do find surprising is a defense of the Christian viewpoint, written
>by non-Jews, in a conference concerned with Jewish affairs.
might I add...in a topic, introduced by a Jew, which explores
the meaning of the term "Messianic Jew"...i.e. are they Jews
or Christians?
What was entered was not entered in 'defense of the Christian viewpoint'.
David, you entered the base note in with good intentions, and
a sincere desire to understand. I think you'll appreciate that
there has been an effort to answer your questions, and explain
something that is happening in your midst which is unpalatable...
very difficult for you to accept [or even understand]. The fact
that it's difficult to understand has been amply demonstrated by
a knee-jerk reaction on the part of some, flames, etc. which makes
me wonder whether there is a *desire* to understand...
Be that as it may, I think whenever arguments are presented by
*anyone* to support their views in a forum such as this, it is an
open invitation to examine closely the validity of such arguments,
or the lack thereof. It has been said that Messianic Jews are not
Jews...because of the incompatibility of the Jewish and Christian
faiths...the belief in the divinity of Christ, as the "Son of God"
was one such example of incompatibility cited.
We are merely taking a closer look at that argument, I thought.
You'll recall that at the beginning of those entries I made no
claims for their accuracy. In fact, I stated that I didn't know
how accurate that information is, and offered it for you to do
with as you wished.
David, Hebrew scholar or not, your comments are pertinent relative
to the plural/singular use of nouns. I've heard elsewhere the
example of heads of state using the first-person plural pronoun,
such as the 'royal we', and therefore the conclusion that it's
not surprising to find a plural form used in reference to G-d.
Thank you. And I truly hope that you will continue to seek to
understand who these people are, who call themselves Messianic
Jews, and while you don't have to embrace their views and beliefs,
it is my hope that you will discover you can live, unthreatened,
side by side in mutual understanding and respect.
peace,
Irena
|
| 484.56 | Interesting...but different religions | FLASH1::KIRSCHBAUM | OPUS for VEEP | Tue Jul 05 1988 21:06 | 18 |
| < Note 484.55 by TRACTR::PULKSTENIS "a clod in the Potter's hands" >
-< understanding dispels fear >-
>it is my hope that you will discover you can live, unthreatened,
Having read thru the comments so far, I personally do not in any
way feel threatened.... It is interesting to see other points of
view about OTHER religions....
J4J and `Messianic Jews' both seem to be fine religions, as is
Christianity, Budhism, Moslem etc....
HOWEVER, They are different religions than Judism...that doesn't
make them bad, good or whatever.
Maybe there ought to be a J4J notes file....
-dick
|
| 484.57 | surprising | TAZRAT::CHERSON | Ok,now jump through this hoop | Tue Jul 05 1988 22:22 | 6 |
|
re: .56
I'm surprised that there isn't a J4J notesfile!
David
|
| 484.58 | Clarification | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Wed Jul 06 1988 12:13 | 25 |
|
re .56
Dick, if I might clarify here -
> J4J and `Messianic Jews' both seem to be fine religions, as is
> Christianity, Budhism, Moslem etc....
J4J is *not* a religion. It is a movement of Jewish believers in
Jesus and Gentile believers in Jesus with an aim to evangelising
the Jewish people. As such it holds to Christian beliefs. It is
not a religion in its own right but a group of Christian people
with specific aims, the motives of which have been discussed aty
length elsewhere. (Christian here includes both Jew & Gentile).
It is not (as far as I know) a Christian denomination either.
"Messianic Jews" again is not so much a religion as a denomination
of Christianity. It is a term applied to Jews who believe in Jesus
as Messiah. As such this makes them Christian where the definition
of Christian means 'follower of Christ' (Christ being the English
translation of the Greek word christos which is itself the translation
of the Hebrew word meaning Messiah). Please remember that Christian
is not another word for gentile....
Paul V
|
| 484.59 | I won't argue the name, but IT is a Different Religion | FLASH1::KIRSCHBAUM | OPUS for VEEP | Wed Jul 06 1988 12:28 | 13 |
| < Note 484.58 by IOSG::VICKERS "Entropy isn't what it used to be" >
-< Clarification >-
> J4J is *not* a religion. It is a movement of Jewish believers in
> Jesus and Gentile believers in Jesus with an aim to evangelising
> the Jewish people.
I really DON'T wish to start an argument, but Jews who believe in
Jesus, and who claim they are NOT christians, ARE a different religion
than the one I belong to, which both my Mother and Father thought was
Jewish.
-dick
|
| 484.61 | Clarification of 'clarification' ;-) | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Wed Jul 06 1988 13:25 | 17 |
| RE: < Note 484.59 by FLASH1::KIRSCHBAUM "OPUS for VEEP" >
>Jews who believe in Jesus, and who claim they are NOT christians,
>ARE a different religion than the one I belong to,
;-) Here we go again. . .
Jews who believe in Jesus DO NOT claim that they are NOT Christians.
They DO claim that they are *still* Jews.
Yes, it is a religion that differs, in some major respects, from
the one you believe in. But then, we're back to whether religion is
the ONLY criteria to determine who is a Jew...in which case,
we're still left with the paradox of the Jewish atheist...
Peace,
Irena
|
| 484.62 | Crossed wires... | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Wed Jul 06 1988 13:29 | 17 |
|
re .59
Dick, what I tried to get across is that those people (Jews who
profess a faith in Jesus) *are* Christians by definition. What I
meant was that they are a different religion from what is commonly
held as Judaism, however, the J4J movement is not a religion in
its own right, but an organisation *within* the Christian religion.
Is this any clearer?
> I really DON'T wish to start an argument,
Neither do I, nor was I trying to...
Paul V
:-) :-)
|
| 484.63 | it's a marketing ploy | IOSG::LEVY | QA Bloodhound | Wed Jul 06 1988 13:49 | 19 |
| > ;-) Here we go again. . .
> Jews who believe in Jesus DO NOT claim that they are NOT Christians.
> They DO claim that they are *still* Jews.
The question is, so what? While these people are in the state of
being part of the Christian community, they are not part of the
Jewish community. If they wish, they have an option to return,
but while they are Christians, they are leading Christian lives
(not Jewish).
Christian organisations that include the word 'Jew' in their title do
so because they know it so unacceptable for Jews to become Christians
(consider how unsuccessful traditional missionary activity that aimed
at Jews has been).
Their aim is to convert Jews to Christianity, so they tout the idea
that converts will somehow remain Jewish.
Malcolm
|
| 484.64 | The problem is obviously mine... | FLASH1::KIRSCHBAUM | OPUS for VEEP | Wed Jul 06 1988 14:00 | 12 |
|
I suspect that the problem is mine, I can deal with Jewish Agnostic,
or Jewish Athiethist, it is just Jewish Christian that I don't
understand.
As I said at the start, I am willing to accept the problem as mine,
if it doesn't bother *you* so beit....
There is SO much in the world that I don't understand, I can live
with adding to it....
-dick
|
| 484.65 | I relate | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Wed Jul 06 1988 14:18 | 13 |
| Dick,
>There is SO much in the world that I don't understand
;-) Boy, can I ever relate to that! I, too, can live without
adding to it...I just need to learn to live *with* that which
I don't understand...
Irena
|
| 484.66 | Some more questions | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Wed Jul 06 1988 15:09 | 24 |
| Hi all,
I did some thinking on this question yesterday evening and decided
to look a little closer on the position that you can be an atheist
and be Jewish, but, you cannot be a Christian and be Jewish (this
idea was proposed in an earlier note in this stream).
On the surface this opinion may seem to have some merit, but, when
looking for a bible based definition there is a problem. When the
Jews in the OT decided to worship other G-ds did they cease to be
Jewish? It seems they remained Jewish (albeit ethnically) both
in their own eyes and in the eyes of G-d. If this is true, then,
a jew who converts to any other religion *may* still be Jewish (at
least ethnically) so long as he still identifies himself with the
Jewish people (whatever that means).
In another vein, if the definition of a Jew previously put forth
(one who is born of a jewish mother) stands, then, can someone who
is born Jewish ever stop being a Jew?
- Looking for answers and finding questions,
- Barry
|
| 484.67 | Some place for some answers | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Wed Jul 06 1988 16:13 | 12 |
| Barry,
There is a short booklet called "The Real Messiah" by Aryeh Kaplan
which can be found in any Jewish Bookstore. It may contain some
of the answers to your questions about what it means for a Jew to
become a Christian. It holds no punches. It's subtitled "A Jewish
Response to Missionaries".
This is written from an Orthodox/Traditional perspective and is
rather blunt about the relationship of Judaism to Christianity.
---Av
|
| 484.68 | Is this a Phase Review Mtg? | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Wed Jul 06 1988 16:21 | 30 |
|
Re. some previous: with slightly modifying the names of some role
holders, you come to quite surprising results (see attachment).
Furthermore, nobody 'defends' Christian viewpoints. As far as I
read the replies, it seemed to me that they were more informative
than declarative style.
Lastly, I personally dislike 'stay out of this' arguments. Neither
professionally, nor privately.
Chris
P.S.: Here comes the attachment. Have a thought, or two!
P.P.S.: About this 'NON-JEW' stamp: Are they serious? What then
entitles Israeli authorities to complain about a 'JEW' stamp in
Russian passports? It seems as if narrow minds will rule
this world forever...
What I do find surprising is a defense of the sales viewpoint, written
by non-engineers, in a conference concerned with engineering affairs.
As engineers, we know what Ken said to us and we do not claim to know
what Ken said to anyone else. We consider the issue concerning the
'Network is the System' to have been settled since the time of 'VAX
11/780'. I know of no Engineer with a contrary opinion. There are
Engineers who love to debate the meaning of individual words and
word-forms in handbooks. But when we say "the Network is the System",
we mean exactly that - it is the central engineering belief in
networking.
|
| 484.69 | Life was simpler in Exodus | YOUNG::YOUNG | | Wed Jul 06 1988 16:36 | 17 |
| In the Old Testament, in Exodus, there were a bunch of Jews who
worshiped another god - the golden calf. They became dead, which
probably doesn't answer the question of what they were called.
It sounds like the question is "when do you cease to be a Jewish
sinner and instead become a non-Jew?". I don't remember seeing
anything about conversion FROM Judiasm in the Torah, perhaps someone
who has studied Talmud has an answer?
J4J is a missionary organization. I have seen some of their
literature, and I find them and their tactics particularly repugnant.
I am polite to the Mormon with the survey outside the post office,
or even to the Adventists who go door to door. But I have few words
for a J4J Christian.
Paul
|
| 484.70 | Culture includes religion | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Wed Jul 06 1988 23:04 | 31 |
| RE: 484.54
Mark,
My point (I think I was not clear about this) is that religion is
PART of the culture. There are other elements as well, such as
ethnicity and nationalism. These are not, from a Jewish standpoint,
separate from Jewish culture. (I am using culture in the
anthropological sense, not in the "added-value" sense.)
For a number of reasons, Jews who don't participate in one aspect
or another of the culture, are still recognized as Jews as long
as what they are doing or not doing is not explicitly incompatible
with being Jewish.
> OUGHT Judaism to allow such disbelief [?]
My understanding of Christianity is that belief/faith is a sine
qua non for being part of the group. Although issues of faith are
important in Judaism, they are not the key criteria for membership,
except (as I and several other people have pointed out) where
they involve beliefs that are explicitly incompatible with Judaism.
BTW, there have been Jewish groups that have tried to impose such
yardsticks, but the bulk of the Jewish people have largely ignored
these efforts. Personally, I think one of the reasons we have
survived is that we have never been homogeneous in belief and practice.
At times of crisis we always seem to come up with a version of Judaism
that keeps us reasonably intact.
Aaron
|
| 484.71 | You need more than the Bible | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Wed Jul 06 1988 23:24 | 22 |
| re: 484.66
>when looking for a bible based definition there is a problem.
Because, for one thing, Judaism is only partly based on the Bible.
There have been a lot of changes since then. The Judaism we have
today is based on both Tanach and Mishna.
>In another vein, if the definition of a Jew previously put forth
>(one who is born of a jewish mother) stands, then, can someone who
>is born Jewish ever stop being a Jew?
There are, in fact, certain ways in which someone born a Jew is
always regarded as a Jew. (Admiral Rickover comes to mind. Despite
his conversion to the Episcopal church and his constant protestations
that he wasn't Jewish, both Jewish and non-Jewish media always
seemed to mention his Jewish origins :^) )
For the kinds of things we are discussing here, however, it is
possible.
Aaron
|
| 484.72 | My liberty starts here! | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Thu Jul 07 1988 10:00 | 24 |
| Somebody recently quoted Sartre somewhere in this notesfile. Let's
hold up with this tradition!
Amongst others, Sartre said (now I translate from French, the original
Xlation may read differently, in English): "The individual's liberty
ends where the other individual's liberty starts."
This includes the liberty of THINKING what you are. In previous
replies, several persons mentioned that they FELT being Jewish. In my
eyes, whatever any kind of book might say on their case, as long as
they FEEL being Jewish, they are. Feelings and beliefs are, by
definition, irrational. No rationale and no 'standard' can wipe out the
contents of these feelings, nor their justification, and furthermore,
has absolutely NO RIGHT TO DO SO. Whatever forebrought argument may
appear out of 'standards', it wouldn't affect this person's adopted
personal standards. You can put NON_JEW stamps all over this ladie's
passport, even in shrieking orange: will she stop feeling that she
is Jewish? And who's right? Her or the bureaucracy?
For G*d's sake, give people the freedom to BELIEVE!
Chris
P.S.: I _THINK_ I'm intelligent.
|
| 484.73 | NOBODY would know! | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Thu Jul 07 1988 10:47 | 21 |
| One more thing re. the previous discussion about tri-unity, mono-unity,
et.al.
IF there is a G*d, I would tend to believe that a large proportion of
his/her manifestations of existence would go way beyond my capabilities
of understanding and recognition. I also believe it would bypass
anybody else's.
Chris
P.S.: Personal help requested!!!
My daughter (10 yrs.) gave me a difficult one, yesterday.
"Is G*d almighty?"
"Sure, He is!"
"Then, can he make a rock that is so heavy that he can't
lift it? If so, he can't lift it, if not, he can't make
such a rock! Whatever the result: he can't be almighty!"
Although I claim to be an atheist, I do send my daughter
to the religion classes. Is there somebody that can
help me on this issue? Here or via personal mail? Thanks.
|
| 484.74 | I should have done that philosophy degree! | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Thu Jul 07 1988 11:19 | 24 |
|
I'll take a stab on this one Chris :-)
God is infinite therefore it is illogical to ask if He can make
anything which is beyond His limits - you can't have
infinity + 1.
When discussing an infinite being then the question your daughter
asked can not be applied. Such a question actually tests for
infiniteness. How? Well, if the question can logically be applied
to a being then that being is obviously finite in scope and capacity
for the answer will always be that the being is not 'almighty'.
(If he can't create the rock then he isn't all powerful. If he does
create a rock then he isn't all powerful as a mere rock is beyond
his capabilities.) However, when we remember that God *is* infinite
then the question becomes nonsensical as it is impossible for anything
to be greater than infinity. God could create a rock which is
infinitely large, but then, He being infinite could carry it. But
He could never create a rock beyond His capabilities because you
can't get beyond infinity!!!
Not bad for a first attempt eh? :-)
Back to the topic.....
Paul V
|
| 484.75 | Thanks! | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Thu Jul 07 1988 13:14 | 4 |
| re .74: I like it, and it helps me to proceed in the way of thinking
which my little 'smartie' generated. Thanks a lot.
Chris
|
| 484.76 | Since we're talking of philosophy | BOLT::MINOW | It's not pseudo eclectic, it's real eclectic | Thu Jul 07 1988 13:19 | 5 |
| With regard to the question of "atheistic Jews", it should be pointed
out that Jews are commanded to love God, but I don't recall that
they are commanded to believe in Him.
Martin.
|
| 484.77 | Huh ? | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Thu Jul 07 1988 13:24 | 9 |
|
re .76
With all respect Martin that sounds a bit odd. How can I love someone
in whom I do not believe??? If you don't believe in God then surely
you can't love him (with all your heart, all your mind, all your
strength and all your spirit)?
Paul V
|
| 484.78 | I don't believe you said that... | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Thu Jul 07 1988 14:06 | 27 |
| Note 484.76 by BOLT::MINOW
>it should be pointed out that Jews are commanded to love God,
>but I don't recall that they are commanded to believe in Him.
> -< Since we're talking of philosophy >-
With your permission, I'd like to copy your comment into the
PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE for discussion and [possible] understanding.
An additional comment: It's been emphasized to me that it wasn't
G-d who chose the Jewish people, but the Jewish people who
chose G-d.
Can someone elaborate on this?
Thanks,
Irena
[who never loves what she doesn't believe in...what's the point?]
|
| 484.79 | | DECSIM::GROSS | David Gross | Thu Jul 07 1988 16:12 | 17 |
| I wish to apologize for my previous entry; it was ill considered.
I am surprised by the number of responses to this topic. The topic seems to hit
on the issues of assimilation, proselytization, "what is a Jew?", and several
others all wrapped up in one.
Regarding belief in G-d: I think it is sufficient to accept G-d as a metaphor
for moral authority.
As a Jew, I regret that NON-JEW labeling incident. The Orthodox in Israel have
political power totally out of proportion to their numbers. Nevertheless,
Israel cannot be totally democratic when its reason for existance is to
make a 2nd Holocaust impossible. Israel is a Jewish state and this sometimes
conflicts with its goal of being a democratic state. There don't seem to be any
easy answers here.
Dave
|
| 484.80 | Luce loose lips | ATLAST::DROWN | SAD ):| SAD | Thu Jul 07 1988 16:34 | 14 |
|
I thought y'all might enjoy this piece from the June 'FORBES' magazine:
'Clare Boothe Luce never drank much, but when she did have a drink
or two, it knocked her off her elegant perch. Last year, after having
had a second martini for lunch, she was engaged in a conversation
with a close Jewish friend who had recently converted to Catholicism.
"You know," she said tipsily, "somtimes I get tied hearing about
the Holocaust." "I well understand, Clare," her friend replied.
"I often feel that way about the Crucifixion".
-Shirley P. Clurman, 'Vanity Fair'
|
| 484.81 | right to believe isn't right to be believed | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Thu Jul 07 1988 18:42 | 26 |
| Martin's point is well put: One expresses one's love for God
by one's actions, but actions are all that count in Judaism, not
belief. Hence the "righteous gentile". Christianity is very, very
different: Salvation is by faith alone or by faith plus acts, never
by acts alone. (Of course, Judaism isn't about salvation.)
re:.72
> This includes the liberty of THINKING what you are. In previous
> replies, several persons mentioned that they FELT being Jewish. In my
> eyes, whatever any kind of book might say on their case, as long as
> they FEEL being Jewish, they are. Feelings and beliefs are, by
> definition, irrational....
To follow up this argument, I THINK that I am the Messiah. In my eyes,
whatever any kind of book might say, then I AM the Messiah. Right? Now
I'll concede that all the non_Messiah stamps in the world won't change
my feelings, but does that make me the Messiah in anyone else's mind?
Is a society wrong for denying my Messianic authority? What about
all the other people who believe themselves to be the Messiah too?
By changing one word (Jewish) to another (Messiah), does the validity
of the logic change? I think not. Since I really don't expect the
Jewish people to accept my anointedness, then I don't expect the Jewish
people to accept Christians as Jewish. They can believe what they
want, but don't expect anyone else to believe along with them!
fred
|
| 484.82 | More detail, please... | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Thu Jul 07 1988 22:52 | 12 |
| re: .71
Aaron,
> For the kinds of things we are discussing here, however, it is
> possible.
Could you please provide more detail on how a Jew becomes a non-Jew
(in the case we are discussing here).
- Barry
|
| 484.83 | I'm a member of your club--by _my_ rules. | MINAR::BISHOP | | Sun Jul 10 1988 18:07 | 43 |
| One of the issues not brought out clearly here is that
definitions (e.g. "Jewish") sometimes have multiple bases,
and people disagree about which base is the correct one.
An identification as "X" needs a reason and a rationale:
One can "feel" oneself to be "X", and believe that "feeling"
is sufficient, therefore one is "X".
One can have the feeling, but believe that some other requirements
must be met, and therefore one is not "X", and so on.
Jewishness has been defined as:
Jews are born of Jewish mothers" (with appropriate
initializing conditions or defaults);
Jews believe <various things> (with disagreements
as to what the things are, of course);
Jews do <various things> (disagreements again)
<and others?>.
Self-identification does not imply acceptance by others.
A person who defines himself as Jewish because his
mother was Jewish, but believes in non-Jewish things will not
be though Jewish by that group which defines Jewishness as
following from belief (the Messianic and atheist Jews).
A person who has a Jewish mother, but belives that creed is
the important distinction will be called a Jew by those who
use the maternal definition (Admiral Rickover).
Messianic Jews are roughly in the same position with respect to
"mainstream" Judiasm as the Mormons are with respect to
"mainstream" Christianity; the Mormons claim to be Christians,
but many Christians reject their claim. The Druzes are in the
same position with respect to Islam (and the Northern Irish
with respect to the English--this is not just a religious
phenomenon, but one of self-identification).
-John Bishop
|
| 484.84 | What is "Messianic Judaism"? Christianity, not Judaism. | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Mon Jul 11 1988 06:13 | 55 |
| .83> Jewishness has been defined as:
.83>
.83> Jews are born of Jewish mothers
... or have converted to Judaism in a manner accepted by other Jews. This
is the correct definition. The American Reform Jews also accept those born
of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers, but that's a separate issue.
.83> Jews believe <various things> (with disagreements
.83> as to what the things are, of course);
This is not a definition that would be accepted by a traditional (orthodox)
Jew. One who is Jewish according the the previous definition, but does
not profess any of the traditional Jewish beliefs, will be considered Jewish
even by strictly-observent Jews.
On the other hand, acceptance of the beliefs of *other* religions may well
jeopardize his status as a Jew. A Jew for Jesus or Messianic Jew *may*
fall into this category.
.83> Jews do <various things> (disagreements again)
Again, this is not a valid definition. Traditional Judaism holds that Jews
are required to do and not do various things; it does not hold that doing
this things makes one Jewish. If the Pope were to observe Kashrut, for
example, this would not make him a Jew.
.83> Messianic Jews are roughly in the same position with respect to
.83> "mainstream" Judiasm as the Mormons are with respect to
.83> "mainstream" Christianity;
I disagree. The Mormons do not reject *all* of the last 2000 years of
Christian tradition, which is what the Messianic Jews do with Judaism.
It would be more correct to say that Messianic Jews are in a similar position
with respect to *Christianity* as the Mormons.
.83> The Druzes are in the
.83> same position with respect to Islam
The Druze do not consider themselves Moslem; they have a religion which
*they* believe different.
.83> (and the Northern Irish
.83> with respect to the English
The Northern Irish disagree among themselves over their relationship to
the United Kingdom, but at least they know that they live in Northern Ireland,
and not in England.
Personally, I am not bothered by a Messianic Jew or Jew for Jesus who claims
that his beliefs are Jewish, any more than I would be bothered by a bum
in the street who claims to be the heir to the British throne. I do object,
however, when either of these insists that I acknowledge this status.
|
| 484.85 | I disagree | IOSG::VICKERS | Entropy isn't what it used to be | Mon Jul 11 1988 09:10 | 13 |
|
re .84
>It would be more correct to say that Messianic Jews are in a similar position
>with respect to *Christianity* as the Mormons.
No it wouldn't. Messianic Judaism = (orthodox) Christianity - ie
belief in trinity, use *only* of Christian Bible as Scripture etc.
Mormonism however poses a problem for most (orthodox) Christians
as they have other books of Scripture besides the Bible and have
a belief in more than one God etc etc.
Paul V
|
| 484.86 | Pardon me, but... | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Mon Jul 11 1988 13:41 | 42 |
| re: .84
>The Mormons do not reject *all* of the last 2000 years of
>Christian tradition, which is what the Messianic Jews do with Judaism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not so. If you really believe this, you are laboring under a
great misconception.
>Personally, I am not bothered by a Messianic Jew or Jew for Jesus
>who claims that his beliefs are Jewish, any more than I would be
>bothered by a bum in the street who claims to be the heir to the
>British throne.
I read a lot of 'bothered' feelings in the above. ;-)
>I do object, however, when either of these insists that I
>acknowledge this status.
I think the only thing that is suggested [and not even insisted
upon], and quite reasonable to expect, is that one would
make *informed* decisions regarding such status.
I've seen some heartening signs of efforts to understand
by some in this topic. But, for the most part, this
has been full of programmed emotional reactions with little
evidence of a desire to consider the information offered
before rejecting it.
There's nothing *wrong* with the considered rejection of an idea or
concept, whatever the reason given.
There is nothing *right* with blind rejection no matter what the
justification.
Irena
|
| 484.87 | a considered rejection | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:14 | 4 |
| One "considered rejection" that does not seem to be valued is the
complete and unequivical rejection by Judaism of Jesus as messiah.;^)=
---Av
|
| 484.88 | Why so complex? | DELNI::GOLDBERG | | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:15 | 7 |
| .84 has my support. I sense the prosletyzer's unctuousness in .86.
I can't imagine why so many entries have been made to this conve
conference. The matter is quite simple. Those who believe in the
divinity of Christ are not practicing Judaism. Any arguments to
the contrary probably come from converts who may feel guilty about
their choice or from prozletyers.
|
| 484.89 | Side issue | MINAR::BISHOP | | Mon Jul 11 1988 15:58 | 33 |
| re .85 (rat-holes)
Of course some of those definitions are not accepted by some
people. Different people have different defintions, which was
one of my points, perhaps the main point.
As for the "does things" definition: if you came across a
family which kept kosher, went to synagogue and the members of
which said they were Jewish, would you doubt them unless you
had other reasons to do so? Would you ask about their mothers
first?
I stand corrected on the Druzes.
The idea with the Northern Irish is that the Protestants think
of themselves as "English" and thus part of Great Britain, while
(according to "The Economist" most of the inhabitants of England
Wales and Scotland think of them as Irish. I wasn't refering to
the ideas of the Catholics (and I recognize that the differences
in Northern Ireland are not simply religious and that I have
glossed over vast disagreements within the various communities
there).
As a thought experiment: imagine that in 1000 a group of
Japanese had become impressed with the idea of Judiasm, and
had copies of the Talmud. They then proceed to follow
the law, and call themselves Jews. They are "imitations"
purely--there is no connection with a "real" Jew.
Are they Jews? What about the second generation? The third?
If not, why not?
-John Bishop
|
| 484.90 | It's simple | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jul 11 1988 16:09 | 5 |
| They are not Jewish because they are neither born of a Jewish mother nor
converted according to Halacha. (and since they don't have Jewish
fathers, even the Reform wouldn't recognize them as Jews. :^})
---Av
|
| 484.91 | Just my opinion | PERISH::KIRSCHBAUM | OPUS for VEEP | Mon Jul 11 1988 16:56 | 10 |
| I do not believe that you can discuss the `acceptance' of Christ
as the messiah in a rational sense. This is something you either
believe or do NOT.
I do NOT...nor do I believe that a J4J or messianic `Jew' has anything
to say that I really wish to rationally accept...
sorry
-dick
|
| 484.92 | *That* folks, was my point | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Mon Jul 11 1988 17:42 | 11 |
| re: .91, Dick
>nor do I believe... messianic `Jew' has anything
>to say that I really wish to rationally accept...
Now, *that* I find to be a refreshingly honest and valid excuse for
rejection. *That* I can accept. ;)
Nice change of pace. Thanks!
Irena
|
| 484.93 | Hypothetical example? | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Mon Jul 11 1988 18:01 | 6 |
|
Re: 89
Are you talking about the Makuya here, John? I don't think there's
a lot of popular disagreement about the fact that they are *not*
considered to be Jews--no matter how Jewish they act or feel.
|
| 484.94 | Coming back to philosophy for a moment | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Mon Jul 11 1988 18:43 | 32 |
| re: 484.74
> God is infinite therefore it is illogical to ask if He can make
> anything which is beyond His limits...
> However, when we remember that God *is* infinite...
Actually, that's a classic medieval argument that Descartes
revived in his _Discourses on Method_ (I think that was the
book.) It is the same work in which he tried to prove the
existence of God, starting with the axiom "Cogito, ergo sum"-- "I
think, therefore I am." For good measure, he threw in another
"proof" in case not everyone had been convinced by his first.
Essentially, the argument is:
i. Part of the definition of X is that it has property p.
ii. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk of X as not having
property p.
iii. Therefore, X has property p.
The logical flaw is that it *assumes* (1) the existence of X and
(2) the association of property p with X. This is not a proof of
either the existence of X or a proof that X has property p.
Thus, the answer is valid if and only if one takes God's
existence and infinity as axioms. (I am not addressing that
question, just analyzing the logic.) Logically, one could also
postulate either the non-existence of a deity or a non-infinite
deity. (In fact, Harold Kushner has done something like the
latter in his book _When Bad Things Happen to Good People_.)
Aaron
|
| 484.95 | Life is stranger than fiction | MINAR::BISHOP | | Tue Jul 12 1988 01:13 | 10 |
| I was trying to be purely hypothetical! Who are the Makuya,
and what are they?
I chose Japan because I knew of the "hidden" Japanese
Catholics, who converted in the 1500's and then went
underground when there was an anti-European reaction.
From what I've read, they still exist, and are only loosely
connected to regular Catholicism.
-John Bishop
|
| 484.96 | Truth in fictin | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Tue Jul 12 1988 14:50 | 12 |
|
Hi John--
Great hypothetical example! The Makuya are a group of Japanese
who observe Jewish traditions and customs; they can be found both
in Japan and, increasingly, in Israel, where they migrate in numbers
way out of proportion to the general Japanese population! They
are pretty unequivocally Japanese non-Jews, but they do follow a
great many Jewish customs and laws.
Don't have time now but I'll fill in some more details next week.
/Fern
|
| 484.97 | "misconception"? | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Wed Jul 13 1988 07:47 | 15 |
| .84> >The Mormons do not reject *all* of the last 2000 years of
.84> >Christian tradition, which is what the Messianic Jews do with Judaism.
.86> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.86> Not so. If you really believe this, you are laboring under a
.86> great misconception.
.86>
.86> ...
.86>
.86> I think the only thing that is suggested [and not even insisted
.86> upon], and quite reasonable to expect, is that one would
.86> make *informed* decisions regarding such status.
It certainly is possible that you know more about Messianic Judaism than
I. Please tell me what parts of the last 2000 years of Jewish tradition
are accepted by Messianic Jews.
|
| 484.98 | We seem to have an answer. | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Wed Jul 20 1988 07:25 | 11 |
| Should I interpret the lack of a response to .97 as indicating that my
statement in .84 was correct? If so, then Messianic Judaism's rejection
of the last 2000 years of Jewish tradition puts it no closer to Judaism
than Christianity itself. Christianity has traditionally held that it is
the legitimate heir to Biblical Judaism; the Messianic Jews have just changed
the wording of this claim slightly.
The only distinguishing feature of Messianic Judaism appears to be that
its adherents, unlike the billion or so other Christians in the world, claim
to be practicing Judaism. I have heard nothing to indicate that their
practices and beliefs are any more Jewish than those of other Christians.
|
| 484.99 | For what purpose? | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | Living stones reflect His glory | Wed Jul 20 1988 13:15 | 57 |
| re: 98, Eric
>Should I interpret the lack of a response to .97 as indicating that my
>statement in .84 was correct?
If you wish. However, interpretations don't necessarily reflect
the facts.
Personally, I don't feel up to taking some of the stuff that's been
thrown at me here. I don't think some people want to consider this
objectively [indeed, can't do so], and I find no fault with that.
I accept it as the way things are.
I am not proselytizing and don't appreciate being accused of it.
But again, I accept that as coming with the territory. It's OK.
Your responses, Eric, tell me that there is much in this you're
missing. If you are genuinely interested, I will be glad to
try to offer this perspective, and again open up myself up,
rather reluctantly, to the myriad unpleasant responses my comments
evoke the past.
However, if you just want to 'drive your point home' then I
don't wish to pursue this. That's not conducive to mutual
respect, or acceptance, or appreciation of our differences and
diversity.
I've always had difficulty discussing such things with people
because they automatically assume that one of us has to come
out as 'winner' in a discussion. I don't *care* about proving
a point. All I care about is exploring, and discussing, and
understanding. I yearn for the freedom of discussion for its
own sake, for tossing ideas around, for looking at another's
point of view, and the freedom for both parties to agree on some
things without implying automatic compromise of one's own beliefs.
I can readily accept someone else's cool, calm and considered
rejection of an idea without taking it as a rejection
of me. I can also give another person the room to *agree* with
me without moving in to take possession of new ground. Perhaps
OBJECTIVISM is the only conference where this can be reasonably
expected.
[Although, to give credit where credit is due, I *have* been able
to discuss things with Jews without having to hold fire extinguishers
in readiness...some of you have demonstrated [on line and by mail]
remarkable richness and depth of intellect, wisdom, and *big* hearts.]
So, Eric, are you *really* interested? Shall I get my fire
extinguisher recharged? The burns from the last weeks are almost
healed...;-)
And, btw, I do love you *all*.
Shalom,
Irena
|
| 484.100 | Objectivism conference. Where? | MDRLEG::RUBEN | Kill your past, invade your future | Wed Jul 20 1988 13:48 | 5 |
| Was it a joke? Or is it true? Does there exist a conference on
OBJECTIVISM? And, if so, is all about that rubbish called 'Ayn Rand'?
I guess it was just a metaphore, but just interested... as I have
good enemies practising that 'philosophy' called 'objectivism'...
|
| 484.101 | Ayn Rand rubbish? How about that. Agreement, finally! | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | Living stones reflect His glory | Wed Jul 20 1988 14:00 | 6 |
| re: .100
I've just recently been given the pointer to TESLA8::OBJECTIVISM,
and will be exploring it. You're welcome to join me there.
Irena
|
| 484.102 | *All*? | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Wed Jul 20 1988 14:27 | 15 |
|
Re: .99
> And, btw, I do love you *all*.
I'm sorry, I can't resist any longer. What does that MEAN, Irena?
I've seen you say it in this conference before, and everytime you do
I wonder what exactly you mean by it.
Is that just a way of saying you *respect* everyone who writes into
this conference as a human being? How can you *love* us *all*?
(There are some great people in this conference, but I couldn't
even say I *like* us all!) This isn't meant to provoke anything,
I'm just really curious as to how to interpret this. Thanks. /Fern
|
| 484.103 | | ISTG::MAGID | | Wed Jul 20 1988 14:39 | 11 |
|
.102
Fern, people ( as we all have come to know ) express their feelings
in many ways. I believe Irena means only to be very sincere
in what it is she is saying to ALL of us and we should accept
it for that and it's apparent face value.
|
| 484.104 | Let me see if I can overcome the limitations of words | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | Living stones reflect His glory | Wed Jul 20 1988 15:06 | 39 |
| re: .103...Thanks!! I think you got it.
re: .102
>> And, btw, I do love you *all*.
>What does that MEAN, Irena?
>I've seen you say it in this conference before, and everytime you do
>I wonder what exactly you mean by it.
Fern, it's ok for you to ask. :-)
>Is that just a way of saying you *respect* everyone who writes into
>this conference as a human being?
Yes, it's that. It's unconditional acceptance as well. I don't
require anyone to agree with me, or even accept me, before I can
accept, respect, appreciate them. I do appreciate you all, and
the more I learn the more that appreciation grows. I love all
that I see in you.
Now, as for *liking* all of you, well that, sometimes, is
a bit difficult. Some peole make themselves difficult to *like*.
And, truthfully, I couldn't *like* you without knowing you personally
or at least having some meaningful interchange of thoughts, ideas,
feelings. I can, however 'love' you without personally knowing
you. And, while words don't quite convey my meaning, the 'love'
I speak of refers to things like respect, appreciation, acceptance,
all within a mindset, on my part, of allowing you the freedom to be
yourselves.
It bothers me when I'm forced into a mould that cramps *my* freedom,
you know?
;-)
Does that explain it better?
Irena
|
| 484.105 | Thanks | STRSHP::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Wed Jul 20 1988 15:26 | 5 |
|
Yes, that does explain it, thanks Irena. And if you really find
it possible to accept/respect/appreciate everyone unconditionally,
I'm very impressed. Is it a conscious decision of yours to maintain
those feelings, or is it an emotional thing?
|
| 484.106 | It's a quirk | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | Living stones reflect His glory | Wed Jul 20 1988 16:02 | 27 |
| re: 105
Fern,
>Is it a conscious decision of yours to maintain those feelings,
>or is it an emotional thing?
I'm not sure, Fern. It's just there; although I have to watch,
because sometimes I slip, and negative emotion tries to get in
the way. Then it becomes a very conscious decision, and takes effort.
The rest of the time it's just the way I am. It's an outgrowth
of my faith. Something to do with the way I view everyone as
being an integral, important, contributing part of the universe,
all interdependent, all equally important to G-d.
No need to be impressed, Fern. It's a quirk of mine. I just find life
a lot easier *and* a lot more fun that way. I can not only *get*
more out of it, but I can *give* more to it.
Sorry for the digression into a bit of philosophy here...
Irena
|
| 484.107 | facts? | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Thu Jul 21 1988 08:09 | 22 |
| .98>>Should I interpret the lack of a response to .97 as indicating that my
.98>>statement in .84 was correct?
.99> If you wish. However, interpretations don't necessarily reflect
.99> the facts.
It's now 10 days and 23 replies since I made the statement, and I have yet
to hear any facts that would tend to contradict it. I'm still waiting.
.99>Personally, I don't feel up to taking some of the stuff that's been
.99>thrown at me here.
Well, you've caught us at a bad time. We've had two thousand years of very
unpleasant experiences with people telling us that Jesus is the Messiah,
and we've gotten rather sensitive about the issue. Given a few centuries
without this unpleasantness, I'm sure that we would get over it. For now,
you'll just have to accept this as part of how we are.
Being an old-fashioned Noter from way back, I consider it constructive to
enter a reply that actually answers the question in the topic note. If
you have facts that indicate that my answer was in error, please let the
readers of this conference know what they are.
|
| 484.108 | On second thought, I'll wait a while...;-) | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | Irena MKO1-2/D27 264-7113 | Thu Jul 21 1988 14:17 | 72 |
|
Re: .107
Hello Eric...
Read this tongue-in-cheek, please....;-)
>It's now 10 days and 23 replies since I made the statement, and I have yet
>to hear any facts that would tend to contradict it. I'm still waiting.
>Well, you've caught us at a bad time. We've had two thousand years of very
>unpleasant experiences with people telling us that Jesus is the Messiah,
>and we've gotten rather sensitive about the issue. Given a few centuries
>without this unpleasantness, I'm sure that we would get over it. For now,
>you'll just have to accept this as part of how we are.
Should I wait a few centuries before replying? it's only been 10
days so far and feelings are still running strong...;-)
I understand. Yes, I accept this as part of how you are.
Notwithstanding, I could draw a parallel and say that I, too, come
from a people who have had a long history of horrendously 'unpleasant
experiences'...50% of my people, have been wiped out in a single
series of bloodbaths, including my own father. Yet I try to separate
the past from today because it's today, with today's people, that I
interface. I don't expect them to carry the burdens of the past, nor
do I blame them for it. I am wary, however, so I do understand you.
As for choosing the time to carry on a discourse about certain
sensitive matters, I like the harmony of 'perfect timing' and
your comments lead me to think I should wait a few centuries before
I reply to your questions...;-)
But seriously, I've offered articles, tapes etc. from the people
who call themselves Messianic Jews [whatever you call them, they're
[former, if you insist] Jews who accept Jesus as the Christ].
This material is NOT promotional in nature. It is an aid to
understanding for those who seek to understand. [Again, please
notice I said understand, not accept or endorse.] Anybody that
wants it is welcome to it, no salesman will call you. :-)
I don't see the purpose that would be served by keying in volumes
of information here. It would only launch a new debate of what's
wrong with what they're claiming. It can never be objective, and
you cannot see it from their spiritual perspective. It just isn't
possible to reason one's way through it or perceive it intellectually.
I think it's important to recognize that this is the way things
are. Now, if we can accept that, put our own emotions aside, and
explore each others' perspectives, then I think it is a
constructive, positive exercise and there's much benefit for
everybody. Anything else is sadly destructive. I cannot hurt another
without hurting myself, and vice versa. In the process, nobody wins,
and G-d is grieved.
I'm not contentious, and I don't wish to argue or prove a point,
nor am I out to convert anybody. I don't do conversions. :-)
I can't be provoked into pursuing the subject by implications that
since I haven't said anything then that must mean I haven't got
anything to say. I have the conviction and the confidence in the
validity of my own position [for me] that I can lay this discussion
down without feeling threatened by implication that silence means
consent.
Do I make reasonable sense?
Irena
|
| 484.109 | | NAC::RUBY | | Fri Jul 22 1988 14:13 | 39 |
|
1. I would like to point out that the central question discussed in
this note - what kind of entity is Judiasm - has been a central question
in the last few hundred years of Jewish history. Judiasm (more correctly
the Jewish people) was formed in pre-modern societies. It is well known
the Judiasm has had terrible problems in adapting to a world built on
the nation state (Christianity's adaptation is called Protestantism).
Hence Isreal's importance to Judiasm, it is an attempt to meet the
modern (modern meaning since 1789) world on its own terms.
2. We have a classic form/content problem here. Form/content problems
are simply occasions when we notice that certain kinds of thoughts, ideas,
or facts seem to require a certain form of expression; for example, we
might say that its incorrect to talk about computers anthropomorphically.
In many of the entries in this note people seem to be trying to
understand Judiasm in Christian categories. People talk about the Jewish
"faith" for example. There is certainly no such thing; "faith" in the
Christian sense is not a Jewish word or concept - it simply cannot be
translated into Jewish terms. Jews will be familiar with the opposite
sort of problem. How, for example, do you translate "mitzvah" into
English? Strictly speaking, you can't. Sometimes it's translated as
"good deed", sometimes as "commandment", but this is hardly right.
English is a Christian language; "good deed" has connotations of
grace/freedom and commandment connotes law/constraint. This opposition
is completely foreign to Judiasm (which, of course, has oppositions of
its own); a fact sometimes expressed by saying that, for Jews, the
giving of the law (a horrendous mistranslation of the Hebrew word
Torah) was an act of grace - but that's not right either as there is no
law and there is no grace in Judiasm.
It is really quite backwards to say "it makes no sense for Jews
to accept an atheist as a Jew but not a messianic Jew". It would be
much better to say "Ah, I see. Judiasm is the sort of thing to which
an atheist can belong but not a believer in the divinity of Jesus."
3. "All determination is negation." No one can be everything; people
have to be one thing or another; and, if you are one thing, than you
are not another. If I am a Jew, than I am not not a Jew; this is the
law of non-contradiction and it's pretty reliable. Being a Jew means
not being a Christian, a Moslem, or a Bhuddist.
|
| 484.110 | How to translate? | BLAZER::RADWIN | Gene, 276-8133 | Fri Jul 22 1988 15:54 | 38 |
| Re: 109
Would be very interested in further clarification of your remarks.
Specifically,
>>"faith" in the Christian sense is not a Jewish word or concept - it
>>simply cannot be translated into Jewish terms.
if "faith" does not connote a commitment Judiasm, what would:
belief? acceptance?
>>the law (a horrendous mistranslation of the Hebrew word
Torah) .... there is no law ... in Judiasm.
what would be better translation of Torah?
>> 3. "All determination is negation." No one can be everything; people
>>have to be one thing or another; and, if you are one thing, than you
>>are not another. If I am a Jew, than I am not not a Jew; this is the
>>law of non-contradiction and it's pretty reliable. Being a Jew means
>>not being a Christian, a Moslem, or a Bhuddist.
If being a Jew means you can't -- logically can't, that is --
be a Christian, etc., then how can someone be an Israeli and an
American -- which, regardless of its logic, is a political reality:
joint citizenship. Moreover, in some parts of the world, joint
religious affiliation is not uncommon. In the Far East, believing
in Shinotism does not preclude believing in Bhuddism.
The notion that "all determination is negation" only makes sense
when dealing with exclusive categories. And it seems to me
that the essence of the argument herein is about how exclusive
the concept of Judiasm is. Logical imperatives won't resolve
the argument.
|
| 484.111 | some religions are exclusive of othres | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Fri Jul 22 1988 18:30 | 15 |
| re:.109,.110
While it is clear that one cannot be a (non-apostate) Jew and be
a Christian or Moslem at the same time, I'm not totally sure about
Buddhism, since it tends to avoid matters of literal theology.
I wonder if that's been addressed, especially by the non-Orthodox.
Western religions, including Judaism and Christianity, are pretty
much mutually exclusive, though there are some African Christians
who also retain other faiths (not that Chrisitan authorities like
it). Ergo, the oxymoron "Messianic Jews". This is different among
some other religions which do not, by their own nature, exclude
others. Again, defining "religion" in Christian terms does violence
to the debate.
fred
|
| 484.112 | You Can't be both Jewish & Christian because... | SRFSUP::PLAUT | Milt | Fri Jul 22 1988 21:43 | 19 |
| re .110
One cannot be both Jewish and Christian because:
1. Judaism does not recognize the divinity of Christ while
Christianity does.
2. Judaism recognizes the divine origin of the commandments in
the Torah and as such they are not transmutable. Christianity recognizes
changes made by Jesus, his deciples, Popes, etc.
3. Judaism does not recognize the Trinity while Christianity does.
4. Judaism is waiting for the coming of the Messiah while Christianity
is awaiting his return.
These are mutually exclusive positions and as such one cannot be
both Jewish and Christian.
|
| 484.113 | Put up or shut up. | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Sun Jul 24 1988 06:08 | 22 |
| .108> But seriously, I've offered articles, tapes etc. from the people
.108> who call themselves Messianic Jews ...
I have read material produced by Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews, and
also have been the target of attempted conversions by them. It is on that
basis that I made the statement that they reject all of the last 2000 years
of Jewish tradition.
.108> I don't see the purpose that would be served by keying in volumes
.108> of information here ...
It should not require "volumes of information" to respond to a statement
as simple as the one that I made. Giving a few examples of ways in which
Messianic Jews accept some part of the last 2000 years of Jewish tradition
would be quite sufficient.
.108> I'm not contentious, and I don't wish to argue or prove a point ...
Obviously not. You prefer to tell other people that they are wrong, while
refusing to give evidence (which you claim to have) in support of this.
Whether you choose to love others is up to you, Irena, but you should show
some more respect.
|
| 484.114 | Go to the source for the answers | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Sun Jul 24 1988 19:29 | 184 |
|
RE: Note 484.113 by ERICG::ERICG "Eric Goldstein" >
> -< Put up or shut up. >-
I'm trying to 'shut up' and you won't let me. ;-) So, here's
another valiant effort to explain *why* I don't wish to pursue
this topic along *these* lines.
>Whether you choose to love others is up to you, Irena, but you should
>show some more respect.
You know, not matter how I try to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I just can't seem to see your remark as anything but a "cheap shot".
Was it really called for? Did I say something that indicated a lack of
respect? If so, I apologize. If not, apologies, while not required nor
expected, will be graciously accepted. ;-)
I'll tell you what, Eric. How about if *you* set the example for me,
would you? ;-)
So, you want to know, specifically, what the Messianic Jew believes that
is in common with Judaism?
I say, again: *Ask the Messianic Jew*. As much as I might like to, I
am not able tell you except superficially. And I don't think that's
fair to either one of us in such a discussion. I am convinced of what
I know to be truth [though I don't know ALL truth]. You are convinced
that I am wrong [though you don't know ALL truth either]. Those are
difficult attitudes to come the discussion table with. The only way we
can bridge the resulting gap is with a sincere desire to at least
*try* to understand where the other is coming from. Without that
desire, there's no point in discussing. [I'm not saying you don't have
that desire, just that without it discussion of any kind is a waste.]
I am reading Abraham Joshua Heschel's wonderful work on "God in Search of
Man: a Philosophy of Judaism," and I'm learning a lot. But, that doesn't
mean I will be able to discuss Judaism in depth with a Jew. I am, and
always will be, a Gentile and a Christian and I cannot divest myself of
my cultural and religious heritage any easier than you can. But, I am
*trying* in order that I may grow in my understanding.
>It should not require "volumes of information"....Giving a few examples
>of ways in which Messianic Jews accept some part of the last 2000 years
>of Jewish tradition would be quite sufficient.
Well, they still recite the Shema and have Torah readings. They
celebrate the festivals, and observe Shabbat...how's that for
starters?
And right there, that would raise questions. Consider the recitation
of the Shema. How can that be, you might well ask, thinking of the
Trinity.
You don't appreciate, Eric, that it would take volumes to give you
the understanding, just as it would take volumes for me to understand
Judaism. Just as a Christian does not appreciate the intricate relationship
between Judaism and Christianity without studying Judaism, so a Jew cannot
understand the relationship without studying Christianity.
I as a Christian am not *the best* source for information on what
Messianic Jews accept or reject of Judaic teaching. For that, your
best source is a Messianic Jew. I have much in common with them, but
there are aspects of religious practice that we do not share.
You can glean some understanding reading material they have written,
by listening to taped conferences and featured speakers, by reading things
that have been published *about* them. And, you can speak directly *with*
them, one on one. They are, after all, nice human beings with whom you
can have a polite, intelligent conversation. You can ask anything you
want and I'm sure they'll do their best to answer it.
I won't post a local telephone number here, but if you contact me by
mail, I can put you in touch with the area representative for Congregation
Israel Ruach in New England.
The tape I offered is from a major annual Messianic Jewish conference last
year. Among *all* the reading material I have on the subject, the
following addresses this topic most directly:
"Jews by Heritage, Christians by Faith"
[reprinted feature on a Messianic Jewish congregation,
from The Magazine of the Buffalo News]
"HADERECH - THE WAY", Newsletter published by former Chasidic
Rabbi Sam Stern in Brooklyn, NY. [Comparative discussions of
rabbinic and Talmudic writings...Sabbath, Sukkah,
Erubin, Yoma, Taanat, Jerusalem Talmud, etc...and how
they integrate with Christianity.]
Special Rabbis' Edition of "Good News: The Magazine with
a Message." [the accounts of more than a dozen rabbis...
[Rabbis Max Werheimer, Philip Philips, Rudolf Hermann Gurland,
Asher Levy, Leopold Cohn, Charles Freshman, Chil Slostowski,
Isaac Lechtenstein, George Benedict, Empraim Ben Joseph
Eliakim, Dr. T. Tirschtiegel, Henry Bergman etc.]
I highly recommend "Jewish Roots, a Foundation of Biblical Theology
for Messianic Judaism" [Daniel Juster, Beth Messiah Congregation,
Rockville, MD, Davar Publishing (301) 770-2494]. It is an extensive,
serious treatment of Torah foundations, Mosaic revelation,
Messianic prophecy, the prophets, the covenant nature of the Tenach
and the New Testaments, the feasts, Shabbat, common worship practices,
Biblical and extra-biblical practices, Biblical food and cleanliness
laws, Kabbalism and Chasidism, etc.
Historically, Jews who continued coming to Christ assimilated. The resulting
sad fact was that no Hebrew Christian distinctive was maintained.
This assimilation also undoubtedly contributed to the sense of loss
that Jews felt was represented by 'conversion' [which, by the way, is
viewed by Messianic Jews not as a "turning away from" but a
"return to" G-d].
The 19th century saw a reversal from that policy of assimilation to one of
distinction. The origin of the modern Hebrew Christian movement as we
know it today coincides with the time of the national reawakening of the
Jewish people about a hundred years ago.
In 1966 the Hebrew Christian Alliance of Great Britain was founded on
the premise:
Let us not sacrifice our identity. When we profess Christ, we
do not cease to be Jews. Paul, after his conversion, did not
cease to be a Jew. Not only Saul was, but even Paul remained
a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We cannot and will not forget the land
of our fathers...
During the 19th century at least a quarter of a million Jews come to
Christ, and many of them made invaluable contributions in their
respective fields. The list would include Benjamin Disreali, Prime
Minister of England; Alfred Edersheim, whose "Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah" is still a classic on the life of Christ; Felix Mendelssohn,
the great composer; Johann August Wilhelm Neander, whose work in church
history became th basis for all future works in this field. Franz
Dilitzsch, who along with Keil wrote the Old Testament commentary that
is still the standard in this field [his translation of the New Testament
into Hebrew is still the translation used in Israel today]; Bishop
Samuel Joseph Schereschewsky, the translator of the Chinese Bible; David
Baron [whose commentaries on Isaiah 53 and the Book of Zechariah have
yet to be superseded; Bishop Michael Solomon Alexander, the first
Anglican bishop of Jerusalem; Rabbi Leopold Cohn, founder of the
American Board of Missions to the Jews, the largest Jewish Mission in
the world; Rabbi Joseph Rabinowitz, founder of the Hebrew Christian
Synagogue in Hungary; Rabbi Isaac Lichetenstein, who also had a
Hebrew Christian congregation in Europe. ["Hebrew Christianity"/Ariel
Publishing Co.]
And so, we come to modern Hebrew Christianity ["Messianic Judaism"].
Its separate and distinct existence is marked by a deep awareness of its
kinship with the Jewish people...and of the unique character of
its mission to maintain in their midst a candlestick of witness to
the Messiahship of Jesus. [Arthur Kac, "The Spiritual Dilemma of the
Jewish People" 1963]
There is not full agreement as to how this policy of distinctness should
be maintained.
With the new surge to Christ have come growing pains. Some extreme elements are
hotly advocating dropping terms such as "Christ" or "Christian" on the
grounds that these terms are Greek rather than Hebrew. Others wish to
claim that they are representing a Messianic movement within Judaism.
The majority of the present wave of Jewish believers are rejecting such
extremes. It is also gratifying to see them reject assimilation while
maintaining the distinction in some unique and exciting ways. [See Bob
Friedman's "What's a Nice Jewish Boy Like You Doing in the First
Baptist Church"]
A new sense of boldness in the Hebrew Christian movement is evident. For the
first time since the first century, the rabbis are considering the Hebrew
Christian movement a threat. The Messiahship of Jesus is becoming a live
issue in the Jewish community. And the the base note some 100+ replies
ago, is evidence of that. I *can* understand and appreciate your concern!!
I think those who are interested in understanding this topic
will go to the source. To use your own words, Eric, they will, indeed,
'put up or shut up'. They will demonstrate their sincerity, and
extent of their interest, by going to those who represent the Messianic
movement.
Shalom,
Irena
|
| 484.115 | | IOSG::LEVY | QA Bloodhound | Mon Jul 25 1988 01:18 | 10 |
| > I think those who are interested in understanding this topic
>will go to the source. To use your own words, Eric, they will, indeed,
>'put up or shut up'. They will demonstrate their sincerity, and
>extent of their interest, by going to those who represent the Messianic
>movement.
Lets hope that anyone who might be interested is prepared
for the cults that may pursue them.
Malcolm
|
| 484.116 | | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Mon Jul 25 1988 05:44 | 39 |
| .113> >Whether you choose to love others is up to you, Irena, but you should
.113> >show some more respect.
.114>
.114> You know, not matter how I try to give you the benefit of the doubt,
.114> I just can't seem to see your remark as anything but a "cheap shot".
.114> Was it really called for? Did I say something that indicated a lack of
.114> respect?
As I tried to say in my previous reply, I felt that you were showing a lack
of respect by challenging the accuracy of a statement that I made, while
refusing to say in what way it was inaccurate. I am sorry that you took
my reaction as a cheap shot.
114> So, you want to know, specifically, what the Messianic Jew believes that
114> is in common with Judaism?
No, no, no! It's obvious that there are beliefs common to Messianic Judaism
and Judaism. For that matter, there are beliefs common to Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam. What I asked was, what aspects of the last 2000 years
of Jewish tradition are accepted by Messianic Jews?
.113> >It should not require "volumes of information"....Giving a few examples
.113> >of ways in which Messianic Jews accept some part of the last 2000 years
.113> >of Jewish tradition would be quite sufficient.
.114>
.114> Well, they still recite the Shema and have Torah readings. They
.114> celebrate the festivals, and observe Shabbat...how's that for
.114> starters?
Thank you for responding to my question, but for starters, that's not too
good. I don't know the full extent of "celebrate the festivals", but all
of these examples seem to come from Biblical Judaism, *not* from the last
2000 years.
.114> I as a Christian am not *the best* source for information on what
.114> Messianic Jews accept or reject of Judaic teaching.
In that case, it might be best to suspend this discussion until some brave
(or foolhardy) Messianic Jew decides to participate in this conference.
|
| 484.117 | quoting from too narrow a base | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Mon Jul 25 1988 16:39 | 23 |
| Irena,
You have cited many, many sources in .114, but they all suffer
from the same fatal flaw: They come FROM the groups in question,
not from "objective" sources, or (since that's probably impossible)
outside scholoarly sources. And yes, there are non-proseletyzing
religious scholars out there; I studied New Testament in college
from a professor who was also a Protestant minister. It was quite
interesting, and he appreciated the Jewish students' ability to
bring a different perspective.
You state on the one hand that rabbis are now, for the first
time in 19 centuries, worried about this "phenomenon", while on
the other hand citing 250k conversions in the last century. Do
you really believe that all of those "conversions" were exactly
willful? Remember that in 19th century Europe, you either joined
the official church or were not ALLOWED to do many things, like
own land, join Parliament, etc. So some nonreligious Jews drifted
over the line for personal gain. It doesn't prove that they were
right, simply that conditions were very hostile. Jews were worried
then, and are now. "Missions to the Jews" are a threat to Jewish
survival, and no number of citations to "geshmatt" (apostate) writers
will change that.
fred
|
| 484.118 | What makes them 'subjective sources'? | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Mon Jul 25 1988 17:41 | 70 |
|
re: 117
Yeah, I hear you. The base is 'too narrow'. But what have we to
draw on?
1. We've got predudicial Christian and prejudicial Jewish sources.
2. Then we've got some open minded, objective [as far as is possible,
I suppose, being realistic] sources within *both* camps [And I
*have* heard/seen/read some amazingly open-minded Jews as well
as Christians]
3. And then we've got the atheists and agnostics who can comment on
social changes and cultural influences but cannot really address
the theological issues in a substantive way.
I suppose the sources I mentioned are considered prejudiced by you.
Even rabbis, who have converted, are no longer credible to you.
The book I so highly recommend is from a Messianic Congregation.
Certainly, if one wants to understand what this 'messianic' thing
is all about would get some idea from such a book. Again, yes it's
subjective if only because it's written from a different/new
perspective.
Perhaps what we need is a Jew who did a flip flop from Christianity
back to Judaism. But then, I might argue that he's prejudiced.
It's hard to gain any kind of understanding under such circumstances.
I think it's more important to hear a person out before rejecting
on the basis that he's prejudiced simply because of the group he
belongs to. He could be saying things that are quite reasonably
objective, but we'd never know if we disqualify him outright. By
the same token, if we find that he's being subjective in his
approach and selective in his facts, *then* we have basis for
rejecting both him and the content of his message.
I don't shut off a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian, a Black, or
[you fill in the blanks], just because they will automatically have
a given leaning and will be predisposed to a certain point of view.
Of course they will be. But it's got to be balanced by intelligence,
sensitivity and reason. If it's not, *then* I make the determination
that they have nothing I want to listen to.
>You state on the one hand that rabbis are now, for the first
>time in 19 centuries, worried about this "phenomenon", while on
>the other hand citing 250k conversions in the last century. Do
>you really believe that all of those "conversions" were exactly
>willful?
No, I know better. That was a partial quote [I think I so indicated?]
My thought, in referring to the concern in the Jewish community
over this, is the efforts I've heard about of the Jews reaching
out, making a conscious effort to return wandering Jews back to
the fold. I'm under the impression that this is a more concentrated,
more directed effort than anything that has been consciously done
in the past. I did not mean to imply that there was never any
concern about it before. Just that there is a new awareness, and
a sense of urgency that seems to be present, which seems to be
in response to missionary activities and the numbers of Jews
who are leaving for any number of reasons [not always another
religion. Sometimes they're just dissastisfied with Judaism, G-d
isn't real, and they 'drop out' of religion altogether.]
Am I wrong about the emphasis I detect?
Irena
|
| 484.119 | | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Jul 25 1988 21:11 | 24 |
| The efforts made at out-reach to Jews by Jewish organizations are
not aimed primarily at those that have consciously left the fold
but at those who, because of a lack of an authentic Jewish upbringing,
have only marginal (cultural, gastronomic, ethical/social etc.) ties
to Traditional Jewish practices and beliefs. It is not a reaction
to missionaries. These organizations certainly do attempt to work
with Jews who have become members of other religious groups...but
again, that is not their primary thrust.
There are some organizations in NYC and Israel who do work primarily at
educating Jews who have left Judaism. They form "truth squads"
where J4Js are leafletting and alert communities to organizations
that hide their missionary intent in the guise of social service
(e.g free camps for russian immigrants' children which also offer
bible classes, messianic jewish "shuls" which hold free seders where
these jewishly uneducated russians are told that the three matzos
stand for the father, son, and holy ghost).
As I've stated before, Judaism has lost more to indifference,
materialism and assimilation into the secular society than to
Christianity.
---Av
|
| 484.120 | Describe me grey | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Tue Jul 26 1988 13:08 | 32 |
| 484.121 | Items from an outsider | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Jul 27 1988 21:06 | 30 |
| Well, I've been reading this note all along, and there have been
some (to me) obvious things that have been so thoroughly overlooked
that I could just scream.
1. Mark Sorenson has volunteered to name the various rabbis who
have become "Messianic Jews". Fine. I hereby request that he
name them, with the name of the seminary from which each graduated,
and, for preference, the year of graduation. If Mark cannot
fulfill this, then the onus falls on Irena Pulkstenis to enter
the information, since she has said she has access to it (but not
that she was willing to enter it :-).
2. Let me give an analogy (I'm embarrassingly fond of such things.)
to [try to] explain why a Jew is never a Christian: Imagine a
wilderness, and in it, one Jewish camp. Most people stick around
the camp, living their lives. Others wander a little farther
afield, but they always return to the camp. From time to time
someone goes off, perhaps looking for greener pastures, perhaps
just not thinking about anything in particular, and gets lost.
Sometimes they die out there. All the people described above are
accounted as Jews. On the other hand, someone who leaves the camp
(for any reason) who thereupon settles into (for instance) the
Christian camp 'way over there, is no longer a Jew. Such a person
has made a Not-Jewish *commitment*, and is therefore not Jewish.
Ann B.
P.S. For a long time I have cringed at the term "Jewish faith",
and, as a non-Jew, I had wondered if this response was appropriate.
I am relieved to find that it is.
|
| 484.122 | | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Thu Jul 28 1988 10:18 | 16 |
| re: 121
You won't get it from me, Ann. I'm not picking up that gauntlet.
My purposes here are totally different from how you seem to
perceive them, and that's OK. I know what I'm about. I'm here to
learn and to share ideas and to, hopefully, increase tolerance
and understanding on the part of some Jews toward Christians, and
to take back my own insights to my Christian community and be in a
position to increase their tolerance and understanding of Jews should
misunderstanding surface, even in casual comments.
[Besides, what you ask for is available elsewhere to anybody that
really cares enough to dig for it.]
Shalom,
Irena
|
| 484.123 | Reply and goodbye. Sob, sob. | IOSG::VICKERS | Ik heb een baviaan in mijn broek | Thu Jul 28 1988 12:58 | 20 |
|
re .121
Ah, but from the Messianic Jewish perspective that analogy does
not hold water for they see their faith in Jesus as coming from
within the camp in which they live. The reason [as I see it] for
the second 'Christian' camp is that early on many gentile people
took up the beliefs of those first Christians and having no Jewish
background themselves acquired characteristics different from those
of the Jewish Christians.....
Paul V
ps, sorry, but I won't be able to contribute to this or any other
not any more as I am leaving Digital tomorrow to return to college
to finish my degree. My heartfelt thanks go to all who have made
this conference interesting and thought provoking and I thank you
all for the enjoyable discussions we have held. May God bless you
all in your endeavours.
Paul Vickers
|
| 484.124 | mistaken id? | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Thu Jul 28 1988 13:15 | 23 |
| re .121 (Ann Broomhead)
> 1. Mark Sorenson has volunteered to name the various rabbis who
> have become "Messianic Jews". Fine. I hereby request that he
> name them, with the name of the seminary from which each graduated,
> and, for preference, the year of graduation. If Mark cannot
> fulfill this, then the onus falls on Irena Pulkstenis to enter
> the information, since she has said she has access to it (but not
> that she was willing to enter it :-).
I presume you mean me (though there IS a Mark SorEnson in the
company, but I've never seen him reply in this conference), so I think
you've mistaken someone elses reply for mine. My replies are .31, .40,
.50, and .54 (and this one). If you go back and read them, you'll see
that I volunteered for no such thing. I do recall reading that someone
else did volunteer to do it, but I don't recall who.
By and large, my replies were somewhat tangential to the whole
topic of Jews accepting Jesus as the Messiah. (I know a couple who
have, but that's beside the point. They were never rabbis, either.)
the real me
-mark s. (without an "e")
|
| 484.125 | Enjoy learning! Fare well! | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Jul 28 1988 16:37 | 13 |
| Mea culpa. The reference was .42 by Paul Vickers: "There is
a significant number of (ex)Rabbis around who accept the Messiahship
of Jesus (I can back this statement up if anybody wishes)."
I think he should. So, Paul, my current work address is MLO 1-3/E12
146 Main St., Maynard, Mass. 01754, and Real Soon Now my entire
group will move to 4 Technology Park Drive, Westford, Mass. 01886,
and there my mail stop will be DSG 1-1/C8.
I hope to hear from you soon (during a guilt-filled break from
your studies, of course).
Ann B.
|
| 484.126 | It will add nothing | IOSG::VICKERS | Ik heb een baviaan in mijn broek | Thu Jul 28 1988 16:49 | 16 |
|
Ann, all I can give you is the names of those (ex)Rabbis. I don't
think I have their graduation dates or seminaries. To be honest
I don't see the point of entering the list as it won't add to or
detract from the discussion if I don't. Suffice to say there are
Jewish people with a thorough grounding in Judaism who accept Jesus
as Messiah and maintain the stand that they are still Jewish and
see no conflict of interests with that stand.
I can enter names of some former Rabbis tomorrow, but all that will
show is that there are former rabbis who now accept Jesus. Proves
nothing nor does it particularlty answer the base note question
"what is a messianic Jew?". I think that question has been answered
in previous notes.
Paul V
|
| 484.127 | Well | CADSYS::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Thu Jul 28 1988 19:14 | 8 |
|
Well, now you've got everyone intrigued, Paul. Why did you offer
to back up such a statement if you didn't want to? I'm not sure
that you're wrong--I don't think a list of names of people who used
to call themselves rabbis and now call themselves "messianic Jews"
will be very productive-- but now that someone's called the question,
who are these "significant number of ex Rabbis who accept the Messiahship"?
|
| 484.128 | Elaborations | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Jul 28 1988 20:31 | 66 |
| Paul,
Sigh. Let me try to explain the significance of the names. You
wrote, "I don't see the point of entering the list as it won't add
to or detract from the discussion if I don't."
Case A. You do not provide the names. You said you would.
Result A. Your credibility is lowered. The credibility of the
"messianic Jews" is lowered. (Logically, this last result
shouldn't occur, but human nature says it will.) People say,
"Hunh. It was probably just taken from a list of Hillel rabbis
from small mid-Western colleges."
Case B. You provide the names, as you said you would.
Result B. Your credibility is high. The credibility of the
"messianic Jews" is increased. (Logically, this last result
shouldn't occur, but human nature says it will.)
With Case B, the situation can be investigated more thoroughly.
More facts can be introduced into the discussion. People can
learn things.
The implication of what you wrote is that there aren't any real
facts anywhere in the situation! You didn't really mean to write
with that implication. (I'm telling you, not asking you.)
...and then you wrote, "...there are Jewish people with a thorough
grounding in Judaism who..." I will now explain why *I* find
this statement dubious. First, however, let me point out that all
my information on "messianic Jews" comes from this notefile, and
most of my information on the training of rabbis comes from Harry
Kemelman's Rabbi Small mysteries, so you may comfort yourself with
the knowledge that I'm speaking from a position of massive ignorance.
Now, (correct me if I'm wrong) "messianic Jews" believe that the
Messiah has come -- and gone -- and was Jesus of Nazareth. They
have *committed* to this belief. Correct so far? Now, *from the
*Jewish* point of view*, this is a religious commitment, which
therefore affects the relationship between God and the person
who has made this commitment. Does this sound correct? Such a
religious commitment is called a covenant.
In reply .123 you tell me that "they see their faith in Jesus as
coming from within the camp in which they live." Fine. However,
what *you* have told me with this statement, is that these people
do not recognize that they have made a *new* covenant with God,
different from that of other Jews.
I can not imagine how this would be possible for a rabbi. A rabbi
goes through years of training in Talmudic law, following the
intricacies of subtle lines of reasoning, learning the ways of
the pilpulim. Such a person could not possibly fail to understand
that he has changed his commitments.
So, I do not see how these people who you claim have been claimed
to be rabbis, could actually have graduated from rabbinical
seminaries.
You see, the concept of Covenant is too fundamental to Judaism for
it to be ignored or misunderstood. It is not part of Christianity,
so Christians (such as yourself) do not grasp how glaring a difficulty
this is. Still, it is as if some Jews, who said that they had
been Christian ministers, were completely ignorant of the idea
of Original Sin. You see? It affects their credibility.
Ann B.
|
| 484.129 | Final words? | IOSG::VICKERS | Ik heb een baviaan in mijn broek | Fri Jul 29 1988 08:24 | 116 |
|
re.128
> Case A. You do not provide the names. You said you would.
I never said that. I said I have such a list and in case anyone
doubted that I said that I can back it up [that I have such a list].
There is no promise to share such a list there....
> (I'm telling you, not asking you.)
Then no matter what I say, you'll tell me what I meant by it....;-)
re your stuff about commitment and new covenants. This doesn't damage
the messianic Jew's claim as they *do* acknowledge a new covenant.
They acknowledge the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah. But that
new covenant does not, in their opinion, detract from their Jewishness
as God has made new [or maybe additional] covenants in the past has he
not? Is He not called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because
He made covenants with these men? None of these successive men would
cease to identify with the others merely because God made covenants
with them.
I will say that as far as I know this new covenant is seen as
fulfilling the Tanakh not detracting from or going tangentially
off from it. They see the new covenant as the essence of Judaism,
the fulfillment of something promised and hoped for, *not* some
foreign belief incompatible with it.
> Now, (correct me if I'm wrong) "messianic Jews" believe that the
> Messiah has come -- and gone -- and was Jesus of Nazareth.
Not quite. They believe that he came, went up into Heaven and still
*is* Jesus of Nazareth for he is alive today. [please, this is not
preaching or whatever but a statement of belief pertinent to the
discussion].
> what *you* have told me with this statement, is that these people
> do not recognize that they have made a *new* covenant with God,
> different from that of other Jews.
I hope I cleared that up in the last bit.
> I can not imagine how this would be possible for a rabbi. A rabbi
> goes through years of training in Talmudic law, following the
> intricacies of subtle lines of reasoning, learning the ways of
> the pilpulim. Such a person could not possibly fail to understand
> that he has changed his commitments.
Again, I have answered that above. But let's not forget that this
new committment is not seen as invalidating the previous ones.
> So, I do not see how these people who you claim have been claimed
> to be rabbis, could actually have graduated from rabbinical
> seminaries.
So write to them and ask for credentials. I shall give a list I
have and the address of the organisation which published their stories.
If you desire validation that they were bona fide rabbis then I
suggest you write to said organisation and ask for their credentials.
> You see, the concept of Covenant is too fundamental to Judaism for
> it to be ignored or misunderstood. It is not part of Christianity,
> so Christians (such as yourself) do not grasp how glaring a difficulty
> this is.
Sadly the importance and meaning of Covenant has been somewhat lost
over the years as Gentile influences dominated the early church
and indeed the early church actually became very anti-semitic. However,
Covenant should be understood for a Christianity is seen by us as
the fulfillement of the old covenant it's just that the Jewish flavour
has been washed out over the years.
Some [ex]Rabbis who have become Messianic Jews/Hebrew Christians
/Christians or whatever other label you care to give them.
Their stories are published by "Good News" magazine and for further
details you can write to the editor at:
Rev. Sean O'Sullivan,
Good News Society,
P.O. Box 7848,
Johannesburg,
South Africa.
List of names:
Rabbi Max Wertheimer, D.D
Rabbi Philipp Philips
Rabbi Rudolf Hermann Gurland
Rabbi Asher Levy
Rabbi Leopold Cohn, D.D
Rabbi Berg
Rabbi Charles Freshman
Rabbi Chil Slostowski
Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein
Rabbi George Benedict
Rabbi Jacobs
Rabbi Ephraim Ben Joseph Eliakim
Rabbi Dr. T. Tirschtiegel
Rabbi Henry Bregman
Rabbi Sam Stern
nb, Sam Stern [ex Chassidic Rabbi] has published his story in a book
too. I can remember neither the title nor the publisher.
There is also a book, "Rabbi from Burbank" by ex Orthodox Rabbi
Isidor Zwirn. Again I can't remember the publisher. Irena might
be able to supply fuller details of both books.
Ok guys [and girls!] this is my last day at Digital, so if I don't
get another chance to repsond here, it's been nice knowing you all
and hey, who knows, maybe I'll check out some of the Jewish delis
in Boston/New Hampshire this summer [I'm over there on holiday in
about a week's time] and I might bump into some of you there. I
remember from a trip to Israel a few years back that Jewish food
really is good so I look forward to getting some more again.
Ciao,
Paul V
|
| 484.130 | Historical Remnants? | MINAR::BISHOP | | Fri Jul 29 1988 14:33 | 11 |
| Side question:
Are there any communities of (ex)Jews from the other previous
Messiah-candidates?
Obviously a false Messiah has to have some followers to even
make it into the history books. I'd assume most of those followers
would have lost interest or died without creation of a religious
community. But maybe some didn't.
-John Bishop
|
| 484.131 | Wellll... | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Jul 29 1988 16:26 | 9 |
| John, I don't really know, but I'd guess not. Most cults (by
definition?) do not long (more than 100 years) survive the death
of their founder.
However, there are good, Roman Catholic Spanish families which
have a ritual of lighting candles on Friday evening, but they don't
remember why...
Ann B.
|
| 484.132 | Marranos | TAZRAT::CHERSON | Ok,now jump through this hoop | Fri Jul 29 1988 16:35 | 7 |
| re: .131
Those families that have a tradition of lighting candles on Friday
evening are descendents of Marrano Jews, Sephardic Jews who were
forced to convert to Catholicism during the inquisition.
David
|
| 484.133 | Re: .130 | NAC::RUBY | | Mon Aug 01 1988 21:37 | 27 |
|
Yes. When Sabatai Zvi converted to Islam some of his followers
decided that his conversion had a mystical meaning. He was going into exile
just as the Jewish People were in exile; this voluntary exile was understood
as a sacrificial act undertaken for the benefit of the world. Many of these
people followed Sabatai Zvi into Islam. They formed a particular Moslem
sect whose name I do not remember. When Greece and Turkey "exchanged
populations" at the end of the First World War the Greeks expelled all Moslems.
The members of this sect objected that they were not really Moslems but were
actually Jews. The Greeks paid no attention and deported them to Turkey. As
a result, they survived Hitler and still exist.
I want to point out that back in the 17'th century these Jews
doubtless thought of themselves as a minority opposed to and so cut off
from the majority culture. They were probably tempted to think of themselves
as a peculiarist sect seperated from mankind in general. But remember, they
did not think of mankind in general as Christian; for them, mankind in
general was Moslem. A constant theme running through this note is that Jews
are excluding themselves from the world as a whole; it is taken for granted
that this world as a whole is Christian. This is an optical illusion; due to
our geographic location. Christians are a minority in the world; a minority
which has been shrinking in its proportionate share of the world's population
for decades now. Further, Christian has been assumed to mean Protestant, or
even fundementalist Protestant. Not so. If the contributers to this note were
overwhelmingly Latin American, they would assume the world as a whole was
Christian but it would be a very different kind of Christian.
|
| 484.134 | A short summary | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Tue Aug 02 1988 20:14 | 23 |
| Well, first an explanation. I have been away from this conference (and DEC
altogether) for the last few weeks due to a family crisis.
On catching up I find that the break may have inadvertantly given me some
perspective that I did not have before. I especially like Milts succint
account of the differences between Judaism and Chrisitanity (I don't agree with
all of them, but I like them) in .112.
Is it true then, that according to *you* (the Jewish participants in this
conference) I am not Jewish? Even though both my parents and my entire culture
and upbringing is Jewish, I am no longer Jewish. If this is true, what are the
implications (from your point of view)? What would I have to do to become
Jewish again (is it even possible)?
I am currently taking the same point of view Paul of Tarsus did (and he claimed
lineage back to the tribe of Benjamin). In my own eyes I am still Jewish. But,
when talking to other people on the subject I will make it clear that most Jews
consider me no more Jewish than any other gentile. Would this be acceptable?
- Thanks for your input,
- Barry
|
| 484.135 | you can't give it up so easily... | TAV02::FEINBERG | Don Feinberg | Wed Aug 03 1988 07:42 | 34 |
| reply to : Note 484.134 <IVOGUS::WALLIS "Barry Wallis @IVO">
>Is it true then, that according to *you* (the Jewish participants in this
>conference) I am not Jewish? Even though both my parents and my entire culture
>and upbringing is Jewish, I am no longer Jewish. If this is true, what are the
>implications (from your point of view)? What would I have to do to become
>Jewish again (is it even possible)?
Sorry, there is a difference between BEING a Jew, and Jewish
behavior -- acting as a Jew. This is one fundamental difference
between Judaism and a number of other religions.
Being a Jew is determined by lineage. I don't want to
start a war here on the details; we can all agree that
it's at least on "lineage". (I'm excluding conversion
for now.)
You can't give that up so easily. There are some extreme
cases, I believe, but conversion to another religion, for
example, is generally not one of them. You can consider yourself the
most assimilated Jew on the earth. You can convert. You
could eat all the pig and lobster you want, and go out to porno shows
on Shabbat (chas v'shalom!). Judaism doesn't condone any
of those behaviors, BUT, in the "eyes" of Judaism,
you're still a Jew.
Jewish "behavior" is a different issue. This is, in fact,
defined by, and is one and the same with observance of the
mitzvah (i. e., halacha).
/don feinberg
PS: I think that this would make a great topic for a separate note
of its own...
|
| 484.136 | Nothing is simple... | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Wed Aug 03 1988 16:31 | 26 |
| re: 484.134,.135
> BUT, in the "eyes" of Judaism, you're still a Jew.
Yes and no. Being a member of a group means both meeting the formal
requirements for membership and being accepted by the group as a
member. For many Jews, converting to a different religion does
terminate acceptance, regardless of the formal requirements. On
the other hand, one who satisfies the formal requirements usually
has an easier time "returning" if he or she decides to give up
membership in the other religion.
Intermarriage with members of the other religion frequently breaks
that lineage bond in succeeding generations, but that is a slightly
different issue.
>Jewish "behavior" is a different issue. This is, in fact,
>defined by, and is one and the same with observance of the
>mitzvah (i. e., halacha).
That is, of course, the Orthodox view. Most Jews in the world today
are not Orthodox, and have a somewhat different view of what
constitutes Jewish behavior--but Don is right that that is another
subject for another note.
Aaron
|
| 484.137 | apostate Jews are like non-Jews with Jewish kids | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | Resident curmudgeon | Wed Aug 03 1988 18:38 | 20 |
| re:.134+ A person whose lineage is Jewish but whose behavior is
_incompatible_ with Jewish religion is, I believe, classified as an
apostate Jew. That means that the person is not eligible to participate
in Jewish religious activities (I don't know the details, probably
they're treated like a gentile) or partake in the benefits of the
community. For most purposes, that person is no longer a Jew. But if
that person renounces the apostasy, then the person does not need to
re-convert to be accepted again.
Apostasy is not the same as non-observance. Eating lobster does
not make one apostate. Worshipping idols or Jesus does.
If the apostate is female, then her children are still Jews. If
the apostate is male, then it doesn't matter, since it's the mother
that matters (again with some exceptions among non-Orthodox).
Incidentally this matrilineal descent, according to most Orthodoxy,
does not end with any amount of time. So if your mothers' mother
to the nth power was a Jew, then you are one, even if you don't
know it. (Spain probably has a significant population in that
category, but nobody knows who, or cares.)
|
| 484.138 | matrilineal descent | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Wed Aug 03 1988 19:37 | 13 |
| re .137
> Incidentally this matrilineal descent, according to most Orthodoxy,
> does not end with any amount of time. So if your mothers' mother
> to the nth power was a Jew, then you are one, even if you don't
> know it.
Has this (that matter of being a Jew because of matrilineal
descent) been discussed elsewhere in this conference? [I can't
remember.] Is this (definition) actually in the Bible, or is it a
rather a traditional [i.e., rabbinical] view?
-mark.
|
| 484.139 | Rabbinical | DECSIM::GROSS | David Gross | Wed Aug 03 1988 20:35 | 10 |
| > Has this (that matter of being a Jew because of matrilineal
> descent) been discussed elsewhere in this conference? [I can't
> remember.] Is this (definition) actually in the Bible, or is it a
> rather a traditional [i.e., rabbinical] view?
I believe this rule is rabbinical. If, during a pogrom, a Jewish woman is
raped how does one determine the true father in cases of doubt? This rule
wisely sidesteps the issue.
Dave
|
| 484.140 | TANGENT ALERT Biblical vs Traditional Judaism | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Wed Aug 03 1988 20:47 | 41 |
| RE < Note 484.138 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Please adjust your set." >
" Is this (definition) actually in the Bible, or is it a
rather a traditional [i.e., rabbinical] view?
-mark. "
Could you explain what difference it would make? That is,
according to traditional Judaism, which is a religion based
on a large collection of holy writings { Tanach, Mishnah,
Tosefta, numerous books of Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei
Aggadah, Talmud (x 2) -- this is a starter list only }, descent
is matrilineal.
If one were looking for a discussion of some of the SOURCES
that are relevant to this issue, that is a different sort of question.
What I am trying to say is that Judaism does not really have the concept
of "Bible" views vs "non-Biblical but part of traditional Judaism" views.
It seems to me that that is an aggressively Christian point of view.
(I _am_ choosing my words carefully here.)
Think about it: Christianity proclaims itself to be the continuation
of the Jewish religion; therefore whatever has been kept by Christianity
as authoritative (the Bible, in other words) is truly authoritative.
It is a definition of God's true intention of what Judaism should be.
Whatever Christianity does not regard as authoritative (the Talmud,
for example) is merely later human tradition, and not what God meant
Judaism to be all about.
Wouldn't you know, this is not the point of view that Judaism
has about authoritative sources...Judaism does have other interesting
categorizations of views, such as de-orayta and de-rabbanan, gezerot
vs takanot, those of Amoraim vs Rishonim vs Acharonim...but not Bible
vs non-Bible.
Sorry to introduce this tangent, and please Mark don't take
personally the sharpness of this reply. It is aimed at the
baldly wrong assumptions implicit in the question.
The question if rephrased slightly is a perfectly good and
interesting one and I hope somebody answers it now that I haven't.
|
| 484.141 | boy! ask a simple question ... | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Thu Aug 04 1988 05:22 | 89 |
| re .139 (DECSIM::GROSS "David Gross")
Thanks for the answer. Actually, I think I've heard (or read) that
before, now that you mention it. Do you have any idea how old (in
rough terms) that view is, e.g., B.C.E. or C.E.?
re .140 (HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH)
>Sorry to introduce this tangent, and please Mark don't take
>personally the sharpness of this reply. It is aimed at the
>baldly wrong assumptions implicit in the question.
>The question if rephrased slightly is a perfectly good and
>interesting one and I hope somebody answers it now that I haven't.
No offense taken, but I wonder if you aren't being over-sensitive.
You ask, "Could you explain what difference [whether it's in the Bible
or not] would make?" The difference is, I own copies of the Bible in
various translations (including the 1985 JPS TANAKH), but do not own
any complete translation of the Talmud as a whole, or even of any of
its parts (Mishnah, Gemera, and Midrash). If it were in the Bible, I
could read it for myself, which is what I wanted to do.
>If one were looking for a discussion of some of the SOURCES
>that are relevant to this issue, that is a different sort of question.
In effect, that's what I was asking for. In all the literature of
Jewish authorship that I have read on the Talmud, the "Bible," is
always given a classification distinct from the writings that have
become components of the Talmud. As source material, the complete
Bible (Hebrew or Christian) is much easier to obtain access to than the
Talmud. It's also much easier (for the layman, and the non-Jewish
layman at that) to find information in the Bible than to find
information in the Talmud.
>What I am trying to say is that Judaism does not really have the concept
>of "Bible" views vs "non-Biblical but part of traditional Judaism" views.
>It seems to me that that is an aggressively Christian point of view.
>(I _am_ choosing my words carefully here.)
In _Everyman's Talmud_ by A. Cohen, he says that "it was claimed
that the Oral Torah, equally with the Written Torah, goes back to the
Revelation on Sinai, if not in detail at least in principle. ... This
claim on behalf of the Oral Torah met with strenuous opposition from
the Sadducees, and naturally had the effect of making the Rabbis lay
exceptional stress on its importance and validity" (p. 146).
You seem to imply that that dispute has, by now, been
unquestionably settled within Judaism, and that may well be the case,
though it's hardly the issue I sought to raise. I realize that this is
BAGELS, and not CHRISTIAN, but is it necessary for me to apologize in
advance for any Christian leanings (real or perceived) that I might
have before asking a simple question about the Bible? Lighten up, will
ya? :-)
>Think about it: Christianity proclaims itself to be the continuation
>of the Jewish religion; therefore whatever has been kept by Christianity
>as authoritative (the Bible, in other words) is truly authoritative.
>It is a definition of God's true intention of what Judaism should be.
I myself wouldn't say that Christianity proclaims itself to be "the
continuation" of the Jewish religion, since I don't feel that MY
religion is a "continuation" of Judaism, but maybe others do (such as
those who go out of their way to make distinctions about "Messianic
Jews").
>Whatever Christianity does not regard as authoritative (the Talmud,
>for example) is merely later human tradition, and not what God meant
>Judaism to be all about.
Are you saying then that all Jews are in agreement that the Talmud
is not "merely later human tradition," but is also certifiably
Canonical (as is the Hebrew Bible)? Further still, are you saying that
all Jews are in agreement over what "God meant Judaism to be all
about?"
It should be just about obvious to all that the realm of
Christendom is hardly in agreement as to what God meant Christianity to
be, but it strikes me nonetheless as ironic that 'Christian'
interpretation should be catagorically labelled as "human tradition"
while at the same time implying that Judaism is absolutely free from
that same theological stain. That sounds like dogma barking to me.
Like I said at the beginning, I haven't taken the sharpness of your
reply personally (not much, anyway), but I certainly question whether
that outburst was REALLY necessary, and wonder if all non-Jewish
participation in this conference is going to be perceived as a threat
before one actually materializes.
-mark.
|
| 484.142 | another partial answer | ERICG::ERICG | Eric Goldstein | Thu Aug 04 1988 06:00 | 17 |
| The use of matrilineal descent goes back a long way, but I believe that
it is not explicitly addressed in the Tanach (what you refer to as the "Hebrew
Bible"). I once heard a lecture given by a Conservative rabbi, in which
he cited various sources to show that it pre-dated the codification of the
Talmud. (This was in the course of explaining why he thought that the Reform
acceptance of patrilineal descent was a terrible idea, but that's yet another
tangent. Those familiar with the sources are invited to quote them here,
though a full-blown discussion on the issue might be worth a separate topic.)
.141> Are you saying then that all Jews are in agreement that the Talmud
.141> is not "merely later human tradition," but is also certifiably
.141> Canonical (as is the Hebrew Bible)? Further still, are you saying that
.141> all Jews are in agreement over what "God meant Judaism to be all
.141> about?"
I don't think that anyone is crazy enough to say that. We consider ourselves
lucky when we can get a dozen or more Jews to agree on *anything*. :-)
|
| 484.143 | | NAC::RUBY | | Fri Aug 05 1988 13:25 | 17 |
|
Dear Mark,
I found your note (484.141) astoninshing. You said (in reference to
note 484.140)
> Like I said at the beginning, I haven't taken the sharpness of your
> reply personally (not much, anyway), but I certainly question whether
> that outburst was REALLY necessary ...
I have reread the note repeatedly and found nothing about it which could
be considered sharp or personal. Frankly, I cannot imagine any grounds
for calling it an outburst. Apparently, I am missing an important
part of the way in which you see the world. Please explain to me what
you found distressing in this note.
Jon Ruby
|
| 484.144 | let's not escalate this out of proportion, please | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Fri Aug 05 1988 14:43 | 35 |
| re .143 (NAC::RUBY)
Jon,
At the end of reply .140, Kathy said:
>Sorry to introduce this tangent, and please Mark don't take
>personally the sharpness of this reply. It is aimed at the
>baldly wrong assumptions implicit in the question.
If Kathy hadn't said anything herself about her reply being sharp, in
all probability, neither would I.
> Please explain to me what you found distressing in this note.
If it's all the same to you, I'd really rather not make a big deal
out of this, but to address this point (hopefully to put it to rest), I
didn't find anything in it that was "distressing" to me personally. I
don't distress that easily. My reactions were spurred mostly by what
I saw as an out-of-proportion reaction to a simple question of mine that
was not meant to provoke anyone in this conference. If anyone was
distressed, it was Kathy, and not I; but even that assessment may be an
overstatement.
If you feel that her reply was an appropriate response to my reply,
then I won't argue with you otherwise. Why should you be arguing with
me over some contention that may or may not exist over Kathy's reply
and mine, and therefore between she and I? That's for her to argue if
she feels the need. Why should you be taking my reply to her
personally?
If you really see it as a problem, then maybe you and I can resolve
it privately via MAIL, either with or without moderator participation.
-mark.
|
| 484.145 | | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Fri Aug 05 1988 14:53 | 93 |
| OK, now i feel invited to continue explaining my position!
- This reply is 95% fact-free! -
Nutritious 10% semi-factual part:
/ To greatly oversimplify: Matrilineal descent is based on at least two
notions, one being that mothers have more to do with the inculcation
of religious belief and identity than fathers do. The other notion
is the fact noted by cultures world-wide that "it's a wise man who knows his
own father". The really interesting thing is that it's all based
on concepts of group identity, and only in a minor way on declarations
of faith and intent - and that only in the case of a convert.
Even the convert, in one of the earliest examples, (Ruth), declares
'Your people are my people and your God is my God'. Group allegiance
is here seen as being as important as faith.
A more recent view is that matrilineal descent was not much of
an issue until the rise of gentile Christianity.
Mark -
YES. I am claiming that the dispute between Saducees and Rabbis
about the divinity of the Oral Law is
unquestionably settled within Judaism. Historically, there have been
Jewish people and groups that have not accepted this view
but if Judaism can be identified as the consensus of most
people (rabbis, scholars, learned and unlearned people all included)
over a fairly long period of time
then there is no question that the dispute has been unquestionably
settled. You can check in again on this question in a couple of
centuries; things might be different by then but I doubt it.
Mark asks:
" but is it necessary for me to apologize in
advance for any Christian leanings (real or perceived) that I might
have before asking a simple question about the Bible? Lighten up, will
ya? :-) "
It's not Christian leanings I object to, it's Christian assumptions
in the way questions are asked. (Apologies for Christian leanings are
most certainly not required; identification, analysis & discussion of Christian
assumptions in the course of a discussion of Judaism is what I'm looking for.)
I do not concern myself with whether
or not the assumptions were conscious or not, in fact I'm quite willing
to believe that they were not. I think them no less dangerous for that.
It is a mistake to pursue a discussion of Judasim without first dealing
with those assumptions. How could this be otherwise? Could we have
a discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses in which I assume that of course
you realize the gospels were written by malicious malcontents without a shred of
credibility in the Jewish communities of their time? (No no, please do not
respond to this, I put it in for the sake of example only.)
> I myself wouldn't say that Christianity proclaims itself to be "the
> continuation" of the Jewish religion, since I don't feel that MY
> religion is a "continuation" of Judaism, but maybe others do (such as
> those who go out of their way to make distinctions about "Messianic
> Jews").
Oh really? Then what do you call the religion prescribed in the
Old Testament - Hebrew or Israelite religion? I call it Judaism.
Or is it the word 'continuation' that we are in disagreement on?
I don't know - require a clearer definition of your (or your religion's)
opinion on this.
> Are you saying then that all Jews are in agreement that the Talmud
> is not "merely later human tradition," but is also certifiably
> Canonical (as is the Hebrew Bible)? Further still, are you saying that
> all Jews are in agreement over what "God meant Judaism to be all
> about?"
No, not that all Jews are in agreement - Barry Wallis, for example,
who is a Jew both in his own eyes and in mine, probably doesn't agree
with that statement. However, his beliefs do not necessarily become
'Judaism'. Religions are not democracies. Judaism says that everyone
born of a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism is a Jew.
Judaism does not suppose that the arithmetic mean of all-currently-
-living-people-who-identify-as-Jews' opinions constitutes Judaism.
> but I certainly question whether
> that outburst was REALLY necessary, and wonder if all non-Jewish
> participation in this conference is going to be perceived as a threat
> before one actually materializes.
I perceive some non-Jewish participation here as a clear threat, and
some as friendly interest, and some as a combination of the two.
(Even paranoiacs have enemies, ya know.)
I reserve the right to dig a little at Christian assumptions that
find their way into this file. I would just as soon HAVE the active
participation since it provides the opportunity to expose, clarify
and discuss those assumptions.
Kathy
|
| 484.146 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Fri Aug 05 1988 18:16 | 115 |
| re .145 ( HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH )
Now that's a reply I can respect! Thanks for being specific.
At the moment, I don't think I'd care to turn this discussion into
a battle over whether the Oral Law is divinely inspired, anymore than
I'd care to argue with you that the Christian Bible writings are
inspired.
As to what the situation will be like in a couple hundred years --
if either of us are still around then, the point of this discussion
will probably be moot.
>It's not Christian leanings I object to, it's Christian assumptions
>in the way questions are asked. (Apologies for Christian leanings are
>most certainly not required; identification, analysis & discussion of Christian
>assumptions in the course of a discussion of Judaism is what I'm looking for.)
Not that I mean to dismiss your objection too casually, but aren't
you asking for a bit much, particularly in a forum like this? It
almost looks like you're presuming that "Christian assumptions" are
being introduced for express purpose of aggravating you (and everyone
else in this conference). You'd probably be more on the money if you
assumed non-Jewish-noter ignorance of vital issues rather than hidden
"Christian" agendas.
When I asked:
> Is this (definition) actually in the Bible, or is it rather a
> traditional [i.e., rabbinical] view?
I thought I was making reference to well understood and accepted
distinctions between types of source material. My asking the question
as I did doesn't require anyone to presume that I was making an issue
over whether non-Biblical Jewish writings are inspired. Instead of
taking issue with what you presumed I meant, you could simply have
asked if I had something particular in mind. If you had asked, you
would have saved yourself a lot of grief.
>I do not concern myself with whether
>or not the assumptions were conscious or not, in fact I'm quite willing
>to believe that they were not. I think them no less dangerous for that.
It's entirely unclear to me what danger my question posed either
to you personally, or to anyone else in this conference. Why are you
treating this as an encounter with "the enemy."
>It is a mistake to pursue a discussion of Judasim without first dealing
>with those assumptions. How could this be otherwise? Could we have
>a discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses in which I assume that of course
>you realize the gospels were written by malicious malcontents without a shred
>of credibility in the Jewish communities of their time? (No no, please do not
>respond to this, I put it in for the sake of example only.)
Sorry, but an example like that simply begs to be responded to.
You could indeed propose such a discussion, but the basis you chose as
an example is blatantly hostile. Such hostility dooms aforehand, with
sure certainty, any hope of there being a reasonable exchange of views
and information. There was no such hostility behind my question,
unless you read some into it yourself.
>> I myself wouldn't say that Christianity proclaims itself to be "the
>> continuation" of the Jewish religion, since I don't feel that MY
>> religion is a "continuation" of Judaism, but maybe others do (such as
>> those who go out of their way to make distinctions about "Messianic
>> Jews").
>
>Oh really? Then what do you call the religion prescribed in the
>Old Testament - Hebrew or Israelite religion? I call it Judaism.
>Or is it the word 'continuation' that we are in disagreement on?
>I don't know - require a clearer definition of your (or your religion's)
>opinion on this.
Right on the second point. (The first point is off the point.)
One verse in the Christian writings says, "Christ is the end of the
Law..." (Romans 10:4). I take this to mean that Christianity teaches
that the purpose of the Mosaic Law code (meaning whatever you think it
means) ended. Therefore, Christianity is NOT a continuation of
Judaism. [That this teaching is a potential source of hostility seems
to have been confirmed by history.]
Some 'Christian' denominations nevertheless teach that their
members are obligated to adhere to specific aspects of the Jewish Law
as part of the Law (rather than on general principle alone). Sabbath
keeping, tithing, and certain dietary restrictions are examples of
currently practiced beliefs. That some people make it a point to call
themselves "Messianic Jews" suggests (to me) that they feel their
beliefs are a continuation of Judaism. Though I am not a trinitarian,
the catalogue of my own religious beliefs makes it obvious to me that
Christianity (as I see it) is not an extention of Judaism.
Other people, who profess belief in other forms of Christianity,
whether "orthodox" or otherwise, will have to speak for themselves.
>I perceive some non-Jewish participation here as a clear threat, and
>some as friendly interest, and some as a combination of the two.
>(Even paranoiacs have enemies, ya know.)
>I reserve the right to dig a little at Christian assumptions that
>find their way into this file. I would just as soon HAVE the active
>participation since it provides the opportunity to expose, clarify
>and discuss those assumptions.
It might help non-Jewish readers and participators if you could
more clearly specify the "clear threats" that you perceive. That way,
those with non-hostile intentions can make sure they stay clear of
them. It would probably help the moderators, too.
To clarify the premises being made in a discussion, digging is OK.
Blasting is not (unless the intent is to blast people out of the
conference).
It's been a pleasure to have had this little chat.
grins,
-mark.
|
| 484.147 | As a point of information | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Fri Aug 05 1988 19:38 | 37 |
|
I agree with much of what Mark has said, and the insights expressed
with regard to how non-Jews seem to be received in this conference.
However, recognizing that many of our apparent conflicts are a result
of ignorance and misinformation, I think it's needful for me to
present the following for clarification [Jews aren't the only ones
who can't agree on things...;-)]
>One verse in the Christian writings says, "Christ is the end of the
>Law..." (Romans 10:4). I take this to mean that Christianity teaches
>that the purpose of the Mosaic Law code (meaning whatever you think it
>means) ended.
The Christian writings that I know say that Christ is the fulfillment
of the Law [a little different from 'end' of the Law.]
I think it's also only correct to point out, for those Jews who
may not realize this, that you're not speaking for *all* Christians
[sometimes the obvious must be stated], since as you have already
pointed out, there are many denominations which follow slightly
different beliefs and practices [yet all centered on the divine
nature of Jesus the Messiah and the final atonement].
It should also be noted, as a small aside, that Jehovah's Witnesses
are not considered, to the best of my knowledge, by the majority of
Christian denominations as being "Christian". Correct me, for the
the benefit of this audience, if I'm wrong about that, friend...
however, this is not an intent to begin a discussion along these lines.
Irena
|
| 484.148 | wrong place for squabbles over Christain doctrine | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Please adjust your set. | Fri Aug 05 1988 20:35 | 26 |
| re .147
This really isn't the right conference to discuss shades of
Christian interpretation of Christian scriptures (like whether or not
Christ was the "end" of the law or the "fulfillment" of it -- though
both terms are found in the writings of Paul). However, in the context
of this discussion, I think this difference of opinion well illustrates
my already stated point that although I don't feel that Christianity is
a literal "continuation" of Judaism, others do, or believe something
closer to the point.
> It should also be noted, as a small aside, that Jehovah's Witnesses
> are not considered, to the best of my knowledge, by the majority of
> Christian denominations as being "Christian". Correct me, for the
> the benefit of this audience, if I'm wrong about that, friend...
> however, this is not an intent to begin a discussion along these lines.
You're quite correct, but do you suppose that very many Jewish
BAGELers find this fact very significant? In fact, since the majority
of Christian denominations believe that God is a trinity -- which is a
doctrine absolutely abhorant to Jewish ideology and theology -- whereas
Witnesses do not, it's highly unlikely that orthodox disdain for
Witnesses will score them many points in the Jewish community, at least
theologically speaking.
-mark.
|
| 484.149 | Just trying to be upfront | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Fri Aug 05 1988 23:24 | 48 |
|
Mark,
No, Mark, we won't squabble. You and I have had the most cordial,
wonderful exchanges by mail, and we're not about to start squabbling.
I don't believe you would do that and you should know me well enough
by now to know that I won't.
>since the majority of Christian denominations believe that God is a
>trinity -- which is a doctrine absolutely abhorant to Jewish ideology
>and theology -- whereas Witnesses do not, it's highly unlikely that
>orthodox disdain for Witnesses will score them many points in the
>Jewish community, at least theologically speaking.
There is enough confusion among Jews in the generally held
idea [which I've encountered all too often] that 'all gentiles are
Christians and all Christians are Catholics' without adding the
concept that 'here's a Christian who doesn't believe in the trinity,'
So, maybe *some* Christians are OK.
I think it might be appreciated if Christianity were presented
honestly, as it is. Anything implied, intentional or
otherwise, could be construed as less than honest. There has been
enough of a problem with Christians [albeit misguided] in the past,
[as many of the BAGELers have stated, and demonsrated through their
reactions to our comments] who present themselves in a fashion that
they construe as making them 'more acceptable' to Jews.
It's because of a miserable track record that those of us who do make
an effort at dialogue are immediately at a disadvantage. [Nobody
remembers what some *good, noble* Christians have done, because
of their faith, for the Jews, nor allows the outside chance that
there just might be some more of them cut from the same bolt?]
Mark, "scoring points" is not my purpose in being here, and never was.
Mutual understanding is. To that end, I offered the distinctions
that I did, as honestly and matter-of-factly as I could. I hope
someone found it interesting and/or informative. The more we can
understand about each other, the better off we all will be. Do
I dare ask if anybody agrees? ;-)
Irena
|
| 484.150 | Tolerance | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Aug 08 1988 13:23 | 21 |
| I don't think that understanding is needed...only tolerance. I
do not need to understand other religions to be able to tolerate
their practice (as long as that practice does not interfere with
me).
My experience has been that many people want to understand the
similarities between religious traditions, yet balk at really
understanding the important differences that distinguish each group's
unique connection to G-d and their role in the "masterplan".
Judaism says that there are many ways for people to bring out the
holiness of creation. There is a Jewish way (613 mitzvot worth)
for Jews, and a way for other peoples (based upon the Noahide
commandments).
"All the righteous have a place in the world to come." (Sanhedrin)
N.B. This does NOT say or mean "ONLY JEWS" or peolpe who worship
G-d in a "Jewish" way.
|
| 484.151 | What defines Judaism? | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Tue Aug 09 1988 21:21 | 20 |
| re: .145
> No, not that all Jews are in agreement - Barry Wallis, for example, who
> is a Jew both in his own eyes and in mine, probably doesn't agree with
> that statement. However, his beliefs do not necessarily become
> 'Judaism'. Religions are not democracies. Judaism says that everyone
> born of a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism is a Jew.
> Judaism does not suppose that the arithmetic mean of all-currently-
> -living-people-who-identify-as-Jews' opinions constitutes Judaism.
I really enjoyed reading your note Kathy. It left me with one
question, though. What do you use a measuring stick for Judaism?
I couldn't agree more that my beliefs ought not to be used. But
on what basis do you say I am Jewish (as has been stated before,
I certainly view myself as Jewish)?
- Looking forward to more dialogue,
- Barry
|
| 484.152 | | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Tue Aug 09 1988 22:41 | 45 |
|
I think Barry is Jewish because he has in some other note mentioned
that he was born a Jew. I assume he means that his mother is Jewish.
As I said a couple of replies ago:
>> Judaism says that everyone
>> born of a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism is a Jew.
Frankly, I don't think Barry is a *good* Jew (sorry Barry). Barry is
what Jews call a meshumad - one who is a destroyer of Judaism.
Contrary to the expectations of those who try to instruct us
that becoming a Christian is *not* 'conversion' - a word whose latin roots
connote 'a turning away' -
the fact is that Judaism doesn't even have a concept of the
possibility of converting away from Judaism. The concept is:
that a Jew who believes in the precepts of, and practices the rituals of,
another religion remains a Jew AND he is a destroyer of Judaism.
He remains a Jew but may not be counted as a member of minyan,
may not be a witness before a Bet Din, etc.
Barry, I'm making certain assumptions here; primary among them is the
assumption that you know enough about Judaism that your abandoning
of Jewish belief in favor of Christianity was not done out of ignorance.
If this assumption is wrong, then the above description of you
as a meshumad was wrong and an egregious insult to boot.
For which I would be most happy to have to apologize.
> I really enjoyed reading your note Kathy. It left me with one
> question, though. What do you use a measuring stick for Judaism?
Thank you.
I don't really understand your question. Are you asking 'how do I know
what I know'? Or 'what evidence do I have that what I say is Judaism
really is'? Those are both very broad questions, and I would like to
know whether it's my personal understanding of Judaism that you
would be questioning (if you asked those questions, that is) or
perhaps you would be questioning to what extent does there even
exist an entity called Judaism which can be thought of as having
definitive views on these issues? I'm truly in the dark about the
question...please clarify.
|
| 484.153 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, & Holly; in Calif. | Tue Aug 09 1988 23:06 | 5 |
| Why is a Jew who converts to another religion considered a "destroyer"
of Judaism? I don't think I've ever heard any implication that
a Christian, for example, who converts to another religion is a
"destroyer" of Christianity.
|
| 484.154 | | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Wed Aug 10 1988 14:23 | 22 |
| >< Note 484.153 by CIRCUS::KOLLING "Karen, Sweetie, & Holly; in Calif." >
> Why is a Jew who converts to another religion considered a "destroyer"
> of Judaism? I don't think I've ever heard any implication that
> a Christian, for example, who converts to another religion is a
> "destroyer" of Christianity.
-Taking your questions in backwards order-
Interesting. I've heard that a Muslim, for example, who converts
to another religion is considered worthy of capital punishment.
However, that is slightly off the topic.
Karen, what difference should it make to Judaism that Christianity
does or does not share with it a certain concept?
As a point of interest, Christianity calls one who converts to another
religion an apostate. And one who interprets Christianity differently
from the norm is called a heretic. Neither of these terms have what I would
call positive connotations.
|
| 484.155 | A clarification | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Wed Aug 10 1988 15:22 | 47 |
| re: .152 (Kathy Rosenbluh)
> Barry, I'm making certain assumptions here; primary among them is the
> assumption that you know enough about Judaism that your abandoning of
> Jewish belief in favor of Christianity was not done out of ignorance.
I *think* your assumptions are valid. I could be sure if I knew
what knowing "enough about Judaism" means. What amount of
understanding is enough? If it seems like I'm being picky it's
because this subject is very important to me.
> He remains a Jew but may not be counted as a member of minyan, may not
> be a witness before a Bet Din, etc.
In what sense then do I remain a Jew? Can I make aliya? Unless
I marry a Jew my children won't be Jewish (unless she converts).
Is the difference that if I choose to repudiate Christianity and
embrace current Jewish teaching (whatever that means) am I
automatically non-meshumad?
> I don't really understand your question. Are you asking 'how do I know
> what I know'? Or 'what evidence do I have that what I say is Judaism
> really is'? Those are both very broad questions, and I would like to
> know whether it's my personal understanding of Judaism that you would
> be questioning (if you asked those questions, that is) or perhaps you
> would be questioning to what extent does there even exist an entity
> called Judaism which can be thought of as having definitive views on
> these issues?
My question is: Is this your personal understanding or is there
some more objective source I can quote. The reason for my asking
is that if I state that I am a Jew (albeit a meshumad) and someone
says "You are wrong, you are not a Jew", what can I say? It would
certainly seem to carry more weight if I could say this passage
in the Talmud (or whatever writing) states "any person born
to a Jewish mother is a Jew", than if I said Kathy Rosenbluh said
"...". Please note, I am not discounting your personal understanding
(what you said makes lots of sense to me) but am only asking what
your understanding is based on.
- Thanks for your patience,
- Barry
|
| 484.156 | You are - You ain't | ULYSSE::LEHKY | I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool | Wed Aug 10 1988 15:47 | 23 |
| re .previous:
All of us are going off topic, now. Just a remark.
I did reread some of my books and have to rephrase a statement which I
made earlier. I am not "tolerant" about some perspectives, I do
"respect" them.
Tolerance has a connotion of value diminishing compleasance which I
deeply repudiate.
Respect for the other person is much more difficult to be worked out.
Coming back to the problem scratched up in the last replies, I would
like to ask the following (admittedly simplistic) question: How can
Barry be a Jew, when he says he doesn't think he is (is that what
you're saying?), while the Lady which immigrated to Israel (who
actually believes she's Jewish) definitely is a Jew due to Kathy's
definition gets a NON-JEW stamp all over her passport!!! Who's to make
up his/her/their mind?
Chris
|
| 484.157 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, & Holly; in Calif. | Wed Aug 10 1988 16:53 | 8 |
| Re: .154
You've missed the point of my question. I quit Xerox a few years
ago, and no one accused me of "destroying" the company. The word
"destroying" has nasty connotations and implies at the least an
intent to do harm by the person who leaves. What I am asking is
why it is viewed in this fashion.
|
| 484.158 | I called Xerox. Guess what? (:-) | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Wed Aug 10 1988 19:13 | 24 |
| Karen,
You've missed the point of my response.
The words 'crime punishable by death', 'apostate' and 'heretic' also
all have nasty connotations. Why do you suppose Islam and Christianity
view a person who leaves in this fashion?
Now, instead of presuming to judge Judaism by the degree to which
it shares concepts with Christianity, you seem to want to judge it
by the degree to which it shares concepts with Xerox Corp. I don't
know if this is progress or what.
I don't know about Xerox, but people who leave Digital have a hard
time getting rehired. I believe the policy is to require a
senior vice-presidential signature to allow rehiring of an ex-Digital employee.
Do you suppose that it's at least in part because there is a stigma
attached to leaving the group? Personally, I suppose that most groups,
and ESPECIALLY groups that claim to know religious truth, feel harmed
when a person who once was a committed member of the group now proclaims that
the group is all wrong and total religious truth really lies with some
other group.
Kathy
|
| 484.159 | | CADSYS::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Wed Aug 10 1988 19:19 | 12 |
|
Re: .154, .157
>> Karen, why should it matter to Judaism that Christianity does
>>or does not share with it a certain concept?
>You've missed the point of my question.
Karen, I think you missed the point of Kathy's answer. I believe
she was addressing your analogy to Christianity--and stated, quite
correctly in my opinion, that how Christianity feels about the issue
is perhaps interesting, but in no way *relevant* to Judaism.
|
| 484.160 | | HPSVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Wed Aug 10 1988 19:56 | 56 |
| re < Note 484.155 by IVOGUS::WALLIS "Barry Wallis @IVO" >
Barry, I don't have time to reply to all your questions in depth.
I suggest that you read a book by Robert Gordis on the differences
between Judaism and Christianity. I can't remember the title but
one day Real Soon Now I'll look it up and post it here.
He devotes a couple of chapters to the issue of Who Is a Jew,
and in passing discusses in great detail the Brother Daniel case
from the early 1960's, which is especially germane to your question
about aliya. Meanwhile here is a an attempt at brief replies to
some of your questions.
> In what sense then do I remain a Jew? Can I make aliya?
That's a political, not a religious, question.
Anyone can make aliya, including Pope John Paul II and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Those 2 fellows, however, will probably not be granted citizenship
of the state of Israel under the Law of Return, which is a piece of
parliamentary legislation, not part of Jewish Law.
You remain a Jew mostly in the sense that you are considered obligated
by Jewish law. Non-Jews are not under this obligation. Non-Jews are
not prohibited from worshipping Jesus, you are. For example.
> Unless I marry a Jew my children won't be Jewish (unless she converts).
This is true no matter what - it is as true for the most commited, learned,
religious Orthodox Jewish man as it is for you.
For example, if my husband were married to a non-Jew his children wouldn't
be Jewish. Do you remember that in the previous replies, we said that
a Jew is one who is born of a Jewish **mother** or converts to Judaism.
This means that the status of a person's **father** is irrelevant.
> Is the difference that if I choose to repudiate Christianity and
> embrace current Jewish teaching (whatever that means) am I
> automatically non-meshumad?
As a matter of fact, yes this would be one difference. I'm
really not qualified to say that you are a meshumad or not.
My question is: Is this your personal understanding or is there
some more objective source I can quote. The reason for my asking
is that if I state that I am a Jew (albeit a meshumad) and someone
says "You are wrong, you are not a Jew", what can I say?
Barry, I'll make you a deal. I'll look up and post places where
this is discussed in Gemara. Now would you explain to me under
what circumstances you might be trying to insist you are a Jew
to someone inclined to disagree. That is, who do you imagine
would disagree with you on this, and what significance would the
fact that you are, according to Halachah, a Jew, have in the
discussion between you?
Kathy
|
| 484.161 | Shall we pick nits? | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller | Wed Aug 10 1988 21:04 | 19 |
| >> Unless I marry a Jew my children won't be Jewish (unless she converts).
>
>This is true no matter what - it is as true for the most commited, learned,
>religious Orthodox Jewish man as it is for you.
>For example, if my husband were married to a non-Jew his children wouldn't
>be Jewish. Do you remember that in the previous replies, we said that
>a Jew is one who is born of a Jewish **mother** or converts to Judaism.
>This means that the status of a person's **father** is irrelevant.
Shalom,
Of course, the question gets really interesting when it is an
apostate jewish woman. My understanding is that her children
(and her daughter's children...) are Jews. I don't have the
references handy. Does anyone have them? This is, of course,
a halachic question. The Reform would certainly require conversion
in this case.
Gavriel
|
| 484.162 | | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, & Holly; in Calif. | Thu Aug 11 1988 00:43 | 14 |
| I realized that my note seemed to imply judging Judaism by a Christian
standard, that's why I changed the example. The point that I was
trying to get across is the distinction between feeling sorrow for
the person who has left and feeling anger at him for the "destruction".
Contrary to the bad-sounding words like apostate, etc., I don't think there
is any feeling like that anger towards a former Christian, those
words mean something different. I don't think it would ever cross
a Christian's mind that anyone advocating another religion could destroy
Christianity. It seems unfortunate that a former friend should
be viewed with anger.
(By the way, as a two times around DEC employee, it's news to me
that a high mucky-muck's signature is required to get rehired.)
|
| 484.163 | Think about it | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller | Thu Aug 11 1988 13:43 | 34 |
| Shalom Karen,
> Contrary to the bad-sounding words like apostate, etc., I don't think there
> is any feeling like that anger towards a former Christian, those
> words mean something different. I don't think it would ever cross
> a Christian's mind that anyone advocating another religion could destroy
> Christianity. It seems unfortunate that a former friend should
> be viewed with anger.
Have you heard of the Inquisition? Catholicism, at least, has a
history of dealing rather harshly with heratics and apostates.
I can't quote the sources of "destroyer of Judaism"; however,
it sounds like a translation of a talmudic expression. There are
sources which indicate that non-observance or apostacy are more
acceptable when occuring through ignorance ("He doesn't know any
better") than when occuring inspite of education ("He knows better
and does it anyway").
Look at this way: educated Jew W behaves in a proscribed manner.
Uneducated Jew Y sees this, and thinks "W knows what's allowed
and not, he went to yeshiva, what he is doing must be OK." So
Y does as W does. In this manner W is destroying Judaism. This
is especially true since Judaism is a matter of PRACTICE as much
as or more than BELIEF.
> (By the way, as a two times around DEC employee, it's news to me
> that a high mucky-muck's signature is required to get rehired.)
Here I must agree with you. I am also a two times around DECadent.
I don't believe that a VP had to sign specifically for my rehire.
It is possible that it depends on where you worked in between.
Gavriel
|
| 484.164 | | NAC::RUBY | | Fri Aug 12 1988 15:22 | 26 |
|
Dear Karen,
First leaving Judiasm was like leaving Christianity, then it was like
leaving XEROX, and now its like being a friend who's splitting for the
Coast. What next?
The reason this is such a big deal is simple. The way I adhere to a
certain group, what belonging to that group involves, depends on the
nature of that group. Judiasm has a certain definition of itself, of
its function in the world, and that definition has as a consequence a
view of what it means to be a Jew. When I argue about what it means
to be a Jew I am inevitably arguing about what Judiasm is. If someone
assumes that being a Jew is like being a Christian he necessarily
assumes that Judiasm is like Christianity. Christianity, especially
in its American Protestant form, is a confessional religion. One
belongs to it by adhering to its creed. Judiasm is not a confessional
religion at all. As the Rabbi's said, "A Jew who sins is still a Jew".
As for the term "destroyer". Please remember that Jews are not
Protestants - and a secularised Protestant is still a Protestant Karen -
and that questions of subjective intent and emotion are not considered
central. The logic behind the term is very simple and very crude.
No Jews, no Judiasm. Simple. If Jews leave Judiasm, Judiasm is destroyed.
Ergo, a Jew who leaves is a destroyer.
|
| 484.165 | Clearing the record... | CADSYS::REISS | Fern Alyza Reiss | Fri Aug 12 1988 16:55 | 9 |
|
Just to make sure this conversation stays on track: When Judaism
calls someone a "destroyer" it is speaking *only* about those who
are apostates. It is *not* speaking about the nonobservant. (Not
that Judaism is particularly favorably disposed towards someone
who is not observant; but the term "destroyer" is a specific term
reserved for those who specifically renounce Judaism for another
religion, not for those who do not practice the mitzvot.)
|
| 484.166 | It does not compute... | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Fri Aug 12 1988 18:01 | 25 |
|
Doesn't anybody see the inconsistencies and oxymorons of
.164 and .165?
If every Jew left Judaism, there would be no Judaism.
If every Jew was nonobservant, there would be no Judaism.
[If every Jew was an atheist, there would be no Judaism.]
What is the difference? How can a Jew be a destroyer in one
case and not in another?
By the same token, if every Christian left Christianity, there
would be no Christianity. I mean, that's just a simple, logical
fact. He/she, too, should be considered a "destroyer". Yet, as
Karen mentioned, those feelings just are not there against
someone who leaves Christianity.
Please explain, as I'm not following the logic in the previous
two replies.
Thanks,
Irena
|
| 484.167 | another Schoeller heard from | CIMNET::SCHOELLER | | Fri Aug 12 1988 18:16 | 13 |
| Irena,
There is a difference between someone who forsakes his own religion
for another, thus adopting new principles which may be contradictory
to his former principles, and one who does not actively practice
his own religion but does hold most of the same principles as one
who actively practices. It is not the quantity that counts, but
the quality. If you decide to practice quantity in another religion
that has contradictory principles to Judaism, the result may be
in the destruction of a piece of Judaism.
Lisa
|
| 484.168 | Whew! ;-) | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | we're made from cosmic clay & love | Fri Aug 12 1988 19:23 | 14 |
| re: 167,
> -< another Schoeller heard from >-
Whew! for a minute there, I thought it was the moderator after me
for something I said...;-)
I don't disagree, Lisa. I understand, as I also understand .164 and
.165, but not the rationale used to support them.
But, thanks.
Irena
|
| 484.169 | | CIMNET::SCHOELLER | | Fri Aug 12 1988 20:14 | 10 |
| The moderator wouldn't DARE delete one of my messages!!! :-)
It does indeed look some personal issues got thrown into some of
these messages, especially in some of the ones pre-dating .164 and
.165. When people start talking about certain issues, especially
relious ones, they often have trouble separating facts from emotions.
Lisa
|
| 484.170 | Oh yeah 8^{)? | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller | Fri Aug 12 1988 20:17 | 0 |
| 484.171 | Do *you* consider me a Jew? | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Fri Aug 12 1988 21:55 | 16 |
| re: .156
> Coming back to the problem scratched up in the last replies, I would
> like to ask the following (admittedly simplistic) question: How can
> Barry be a Jew, when he says he doesn't think he is (is that what
> you're saying?), while the Lady which immigrated to Israel (who
> actually believes she's Jewish) definitely is a Jew due to Kathy's
> definition gets a NON-JEW stamp all over her passport!!! Who's to make
> up his/her/their mind?
I *do* think I am a Jew. What I am not sure about is whether Judaism
in general and the participants in this conference in particular,
think I am.
- Barry
|
| 484.172 | It's a deal Kathy | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Fri Aug 12 1988 21:56 | 25 |
| re: .160 (Kathy Rosenbluh)
> Barry, I'll make you a deal. I'll look up and post places where this
> is discussed in Gemara. Now would you explain to me under what
> circumstances you might be trying to insist you are a Jew to someone
> inclined to disagree. That is, who do you imagine would disagree with
> you on this, and what significance would the fact that you are,
> according to Halachah, a Jew, have in the discussion between you?
Sorry, there may be a slight misunderstanding. I am not talking
about substantiating my being a Jew to someone who disagrees. It
just happens that in the course of my speaking with people about
myself it sometimes comes up that I am a Christian who is/was Jewish.
For the sake of being correct and not misleading people (this is
important to me) I would like to be accurate in my self description.
If someone did disagree with me, I would like to be able to tell
them how I came to the conclusion.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I await the information and
will order it soon after you post it (when I get around to reading
it, well... that's another story).
- Barry
|
| 484.173 | A little less vagueness, please | IVOGUS::WALLIS | Barry Wallis @IVO | Fri Aug 12 1988 22:03 | 15 |
| re: .163 (Gavriel)
> Look at this way: educated Jew W behaves in a proscribed manner.
> Uneducated Jew Y sees this, and thinks "W knows what's allowed and not,
> he went to yeshiva, what he is doing must be OK." So Y does as W does.
> In this manner W is destroying Judaism. This is especially true since
> Judaism is a matter of PRACTICE as much as or more than BELIEF.
The subject of "education" has cropped up a few times in this
discussion. Would someone (Gavriel?) care to comment on what is
meant by the term "educated Jew". Does this mean someone who has
been Bar Mitvah'd? Does it require study of Tanach, Talmud, etc.?
- Barry
|
| 484.174 | a few more semantics | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | or my evil twin stealing my account | Mon Aug 15 1988 17:40 | 12 |
| re:.171-.173 Barry may be a Jew (in the matrilineal sense) but that
does not make his religion Jewish; the two terms are not inexorably
linked. While the Jewish religion is that practiced by Jews, individual
Jews may practice other religions and thus, being apostate (sounds
nicer than "destroyer" :-] ), are not eligible to partake in
observances.
re:.140s (several) The equality between Oral and Written law is NOT
accepted by all Jews. Specifically, Reform Judaism does not treat them
as equal; Written Law (tanach) is primary. But that's beyond _this_
topic. (Just setting the record straight.)
fred
|
| 484.175 | Check the small print ;^) | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Mon Aug 15 1988 17:54 | 13 |
| re: 174
An aside...
Written law has primacy in Reform Judaism???
I thought it was written that shellfish and pork were not proper for
food, and that one should not light a fire on Shabbat. Expansions and
explanations of these laws were part of the oral tradition... but these
are plainly written.
|
| 484.176 | non-observance vs. non-distinction | DELNI::GOLDSTEIN | or my evil twin stealing my account | Mon Aug 15 1988 18:08 | 10 |
| re:.175
As I said, that's off the topic -- Reform-bashing is a digression
best left to other topics or, perhaps, the Usenet (where everyone
bashes everyone anyway).
Reform does not place as much emphasis on dietary laws as other
branches of Judaism, but yes, it would distinguish between lobster
and cheeseburgers.
Now back to the topic at hand?
|
| 484.177 | | DELNI::GOLDBERG | | Mon Aug 15 1988 18:25 | 7 |
| re: 175
There seems to be some wild notion floating around that simply
because a Jew does not belong to an orthodox congregation, he/she
eats shellfish and pork tht has been barbecued on shabat no less.
|
| 484.178 | I'm confused (as usual) | DECSIM::GROSS | I brake for A.K.s | Mon Aug 15 1988 19:54 | 11 |
| .174> re:.140s (several) The equality between Oral and Written law is NOT
> accepted by all Jews. Specifically, Reform Judaism does not treat them
> as equal; Written Law (tanach) is primary. But that's beyond _this_
> topic. (Just setting the record straight.)
Now I am a bit confused. I attend a Reform Shul and our rabbi (Larry Kushner)
stated in front of the congregation that "...we as Reform Jews believe that the
Oral law was handed down to Moses on Sinai at the same time as the written law"
and therefor has equal sanctity.
Dave
|
| 484.179 | | GRECO::FRYDMAN | wherever you go...you're there | Tue Aug 16 1988 13:51 | 12 |
| re:177
I certainly apologize if my comment was taken to reflect negatively
on Jews who do "not belong to an orthodox congregation". I do not
make that distinction nor do I harbor any negative feelings toward
Jews who are not "Traditional".
My comment was aimed at a better understanding of the "primacy of the
Written Law" in Reform Judaism. But, Fred is correct... this is
probably better discussed in another note.
----Av
|
| 484.180 | New Note: what is a Jew | BOLT::MINOW | It's not pseudo eclectic, it's real eclectic | Thu Aug 25 1988 04:54 | 8 |
| Note 526 has been started to discuss general questions of "who is a Jew,"
(such as whether the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother
is Jewish). This allows this note to deal with the more specific issue
of Messianic Jews.
Martin.
|
| 484.181 | DEC's Rehire polciy... | RADVAX::WAKY | | Mon Sep 19 1988 18:58 | 10 |
| Re: .158 .162 .163 /DEC's Rehire policy
It used to be required that Rehires had to be ok'd by a VP, but
now only a few layers of management (See Policy Manual 2.01 p 3
of 8). The point of the policy is that it should be made certain
that someone who has left is someone we want/need back. This
strictness came mostly from folks who came and went primarily to
play a salary game...
Waky
|