Jews for Jesus

[Jnyusa]

Faramond, in truth I did not see that post of yours. And just now, as I went back looking for it, I could not find it on the last three pages or so. Was that much earlier in the discussion?

I am aware that Christians have an opinion about Judaism, just as I have an opinion about Christianity which I am quite certain would be denied by every Christian here. So I am not going to repeat it over and over again in the face of Christian insistence that it is incorrect.

Jn

[Faramond]

Well, the post it's taken from is on page 7, and I thought you said something about it two posts later, but perhaps not.

I am very confused.

I think this is a sign that it's time for me to bid this thread farewell. I should probably get back to the "nice master" thread at some point, anyway.

[Cerin]

But when you say that Jesus is not only the messiah that you believe in but also the Jewish messiah,

We are not saying Jesus is the messiah you believe in, we are only saying Jesus is the Messiah we believe in (whom we identify with our understanding of Judaism as it relates to Christianity).

then you are not stating your own beliefs alone, you are also stating something about Judaism - that this man is its messiah - when all of Judaism says that he is not and that the concept of messiah as you understand it does not even apply to Judaism.

No, I am stating something about the thing I call Judaism as it relates to my beliefs, I am not stating something about the thing you call Judaism. Just as a Mormon may use the words 'Jesus Christ', but not be stating anything about the person I call Jesus Christ.

I can tell you that I, personally, don't believe in your messiah without invalidating your right to believe in him. But if you tell me that I am mistaken about who my messiah is, you are most definitely invalidating my belief.

Why not the same standard for both of us? If you not believing what I believe doesn't invalidate my right to believe it, then me not believing what you believe doesn't invalidate your right to believe it. I bet it works the other way, too. If you believing what I don't believe doesn't invalidate my right not to believe it, then me believing what you don't believe doesn't invalidate your right not to believe it.

I think what we actually have going on is, If you not believing what I believe doesn't invalidate my right to believe it, then me believing what you don't believe doesn't invalidate your right not to believe it.

My point is, nobody believing or not believing anything invalidates what someone else believes or doesn't believe.

This lovely man claims that he is not a Christian, he is a Jew.

Because he believes they are the same thing (poor deluded soul).

But he believes everything that Christians believe and nothing that Jews believe.

Nevertheless, you don't own the word Jew, and therefore you cannot keep him from using it to mean something other than what you use it to mean. What he calls himself does not change who he was born to or a single one of the life experiences that shaped his identity. He has a right to believe what he will, and he has a right to identify himself as Jewish if that is what he wants to do. He can't force other people to accept his definition of Jewishness, and calling himself Jewish does not affect what that word means to you, anymore than a Mormon calling themselves Christian affects what that word means to me.

Either we are Jews or he is. It can't be both.

Of course it can be both, if the same word is being used to describe different things.

And if you insist that he is the one who is a Jew then you are also insisting that I am not and Imp is not and Frelga and Voronwë are not and so forth.

I am not insisting on anything, except that people believing what they believe does not prevent other people from believing something else.

This man and yourself both call yourself Jews. I know you do not mean the same thing by that word. Therefore, this man remains himself, a Jew according to his understanding and experience, and you, Imp, Frelga and Voronwë remain Jews according to your understanding and experience, which we respect and understand (a little).

That is most definitely an invalidation of our beliefs.

No. No, no, no. No.

No.

It's annoying as hell, but it is not an invalidation of your beliefs.

[sigh] I fear the real problem is that some Christians have come to believe that they are the main branch of Judaism stretching back to Abraham. That is what is meant by Christianity 'fulfilling' Judaism.

And those of us who continue to adhere to Mosaic Law are the wayward offshoot that broke away at the time of Jesus. The continued existence of Judaism could never be validated by a Christian holding this belief.

It's totally the opposite, Jn. We are the grafted on, you are the root, the beginning, the foundation. We are nothing without you. Nothing we believe has any meaning without you.

[Jnyusa]

ah - I do see it now. I must be getting bleary eyed, too, because I did look at that post a few moments ago and that paragraph didn't register with me.

But now that I've re-read the whole post I know why I didn't object to it: because its overall point is not to convince me that Jews don't know what Judaism is. Your conclusion is actually the opposite.

Jn

[Cerin]

I am aware that Christians have an opinion about Judaism, just as I have an opinion about Christianity which I am quite certain would be denied by every Christian here. So I am not going to repeat it over and over again in the face of Christian insistence that it is incorrect.

But is your opinion about Christianity inextricably linked with and a source of profound joy related to your Judaism?

That may be why Judaism comes up more when we talk about our beliefs than Christianity does when you talk about your beliefs. We can't be Christians separate from our ideas about Judaism.

[Frelga]

Browser ate my post.

Hal, I think the point that is getting overlooked right now is that Judaism is not all about the Messiah. If a hypothetical preacher tried to convert me (poor guy, I don't envy him the job ), convincing me that Jesus is the Messiah in the Christian sense would be a home run. First he'd have to get to first base - convince me that I bear the stain of original sin and therefore require redemption, in Christian sense.

As a Jew, I believe that I come into the world pure - a statement Christian censors wanted cut out of Talmud. I believe that our spiritual fate in this world and the world-to-be is determined by our acts, not beliefs. Isn't that what the tale of the Good Samaritan is about? I believe that sin is not a moral stain, but a failure to do what I know is right, or to learn if I don't know. I believe that for repentance to be complete, action must be taken to obtain forgiveness and undo the consequence of my sins, and I alone can take it. In that paradigm, saying that someone died for my sins simple doesn't fit.

Here’s a summary of Jewish view of Messiah, if anyone's interested.

Because he believes they are the same thing (poor deluded soul).

Look, nobody says that JfJ can't believe whatever it is they believe.

What the DO is actively proselytize for Christianity in the Jewish community and they send people to Christian Churches, as TP witnessed. And Jn told us that among their leadership many do NOT have any cultural connection to the Jewish community. The only interaction I had with them was their showing up at Jewish events in their vans and pushing - literally - literature into people's hands.

If it doesn't walk like a duck, sound like a duck, or look like a duck - it's probably not a duck.

It's totally the opposite, Jn. We are the grafted on, you are the root, the beginning, the foundation. We are nothing without you. Nothing we believe has any meaning without you.

Cerin, this view was expressed by several people in this thread, and denied by at least one Christian. It is completely new to me and a bit of a shock, to be honest. Again, as any personal belief it is none of my business, just as long as I am not expected to share it.

It's annoying as hell, but it is not an invalidation of your beliefs.

Hell the thread? I agree.

I think we are bumping up against the same thing that was so upsetting in Hell. It's beliefs of one group about beliefs of another, their destiny and eventual fate.

[Cerin]

Well, I wish I had Faramond's knack for saying things without upsetting people.

Cerin, this view was expressed by several people in this thread, and denied by at least one Christian.

Well naturally my 'we' refers to the Christians who believe as I do. I realize that not all people who call themselves Christians share all of the same beliefs.

Look, nobody says that JfJ can't believe whatever it is they believe.

I thought that's what Jn was saying. That this man believing as he did invalidated her beliefs.

It is quite late, though.

I think we are bumping up against the same thing that was so upsetting in Hell. It's beliefs of one group about beliefs of another, their destiny and eventual fate.

I agree it's the same thing, but I would put it a bit differently.

It's one group believing another groups beliefs are all about them.

Trust me, Frelga. My beliefs are not about you, personally, anymore than yours are about me.

[Frelga]

Cerin, I think I know that. And I'm not upset. This is genuinely new information, and a shock only in that sense.

This is too thin an ice to venture on at 1AM.

ETA: when Whistler said he was a Jew last night, I really had no idea what he could mean. I thought he was making a joke, a point that people can call themselves whatever they feel like. NOW I see!

[Cerin]

I'm glad to know you. Very glad indeed.

And now to bed.

[Frelga]

Likewise, Cerin. Good night.

[Jnyusa]

I just realized that I cross-posted with Cerin above, and by now it is too late for an edit to make sense. My last post was in response to Faramond, not Cerin, even though it followed Cerin's post which was addressed to me.

To answer Cerin's last post:

We are not saying Jesus is the messiah you believe in

That is exactly what Hal has been saying.

No, I am stating something about the thing I call Judaism as it relates to my beliefs, I am not stating something about the thing you call Judaism.

Of course it can be both, if the same word is being used to describe different things.

Cerin, this is an obfuscation of language.

You may debate with a Mormon whether he is Christian because you claim to be Christian and so does he. But my opinion as to which of you is a Christian is little more than eyewash because I am not a Christian nor a scholar of Christianity and I have neither the right nor the knowledge to define Christianity for anyone who is a Christian.

If I said that because Jesus was a Jew the Jews are in a better position to judge the truth or falsity of differing Christian beliefs today, no reasonable person would accept this logic. Your argument that we can all believe what we wish and others must accept it ... they must accept it in the sense that they can't punch us in the nose (not in VR at least) but they do not have to accept the validity of something that is factually incorrect.

Some things are quite simply factually wrong. It is factually wrong that Jesus did away with Jewish dietary law (per Scripture) and Hal was mistaken when he said this. This is not a reflection on the spiritual value or trueness of Hal's faith, but I am not going to nod my head politely and say, 'oh yes it must be so,' only because it is a statement about religion.

Some things are logicially impossible. One cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus was and was not God. One cannot say the shema and then claim that God is three people. One of these statements is believed and the other is not believed and when the person says they believe in both they are lying.

There are all sorts of things that one can accurately say about the Jewish roots of Christianity. One can say that Jesus was a Jew, and that Christianity started from Jewish roots, and that the messianic belief held by the Jews in the time of Jesus is believed by Christians to have been fulfilled by Jesus and as such to have meant something different than the Jews of that time believed it to mean. One can say that the ten commandments are accepted by Christians but the 613 halacha are not.

But you cannot say that a Christian is a Jew or that any Christian can claim to be a Jew no matter what they believe and have that just be all right because it is factually incorrect and logically impossible, unless one first denies that Judaism exists at all as something in its own right.

Nevertheless, you don't own the word Jew

Well, I'm afraid I do. In the same way that I own my own name, and if you used it and pretended to be me that would be a theft of my identity.

But is your opinion about Christianity inextricably linked with and a source of profound joy related to your Judaism?

Yes.

Jn

<edited to remove something that I could not find a way to explain properly without seeming to make a personal insult>

[yovargas]

Hal, I've gathered that you aren't interested in what mainstream churches have to say, but I feel obliged to post that mainstream Christian denominations do not regard themselves as any kind of continuation of, or replacement for, Judaism. We share roots and study the history and have some sacred texts in common, but we are a different faith. Christ is important to us not because he was the Jewish Messiah, but because he is Christ.

That is not at all what my former church taught. Jesus was the Messiah as prophesized by the Jews. His coming made everyone "Jews" - ie. God's chosen people. I don't see how traditional Christianity would work but as a continuation of the religion of Abraham and Moses.

[haven't read much of the last page so sorry if this is redundant or missing the point]

[JewelSong]

That is not at all what my former church taught. Jesus was the Messiah as prophesized by the Jews. His coming made everyone "Jews" - ie. God's chosen people. I don't see how traditional Christianity would work but as a continuation of the religion of Abraham and Moses.

That is how I was taught, too...and I grew up in a very mainstream, fairly conservative Presbyterian Church. The First Five books of the Bible are, in fact, the Torah - the Pentatuch (sp!) In Sunday School we learned about Passover and Purim and Sukkot. The roots of Judaism and Christianity are exactly the same.

I was taught that the difference was that today's Christians believed the prophecied Messiah had already come (in the persona of Jesus), while today's Jew's were still waiting...although they considered Jesus on a par with Elijah and Moses. (I don't know if they really do - this is how we were taught in Sunday School back when I was a tot!)

That's why you have the term "Judeo-Christian tradition." It comes from the very same place. And as hal (I think) said - Jesus did not strive to create a new religion, but to get the Jews back on track. Jesus was a good Jew. I don't think he ever intended to negate the high holy days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur or imagined that a whole new religion would spring up in his name. He was trying to make the Jews more Jewish, if anything.

Somehow, as the "new" religion took hold, we lost the old ways...although Jesus' coming should not have negated them. We can probably blame (or thank!) Paul for that. (I have serious issues with good ole Paul, but that's neither here nor there)

Christianity is firmly rooted in Judiasm.

[anthriel]

I can see where Jews for Jesus would be irritating for people who are currently Jewish... and whose families have been practicing Judaism for generations. There is a bit of a flavor of "you guys sure missed the boat 2000 years ago" about a sentence which says something like "Christianity is the perfection of Judaism". Wouldn't that imply, somewhat less than subtly, that Christianity is perfect and Judaism is not?

While it makes perfect sense for me to sit here and read what the Christians write about the "jewish messiah", and how our faith is rooted in Judaism, I can oviously see where saying such a thing would cause distress to our Jewish friends.

I have been taught that Jesus of Nazareth DID fulfill Jewish prophecies of his coming. From the line of David and all that? And I have been taught that besides the humbleness of his birth (I think a King was expected, and not a baby in a manger?) that what he did here was perfectly within SOME parameters of what was expected of a Messiah.

I guess I always understood that there were writings about the Messiah which did not fit who Jesus was or what he did, at least in the opinion of the people who were there at the time. And so they chose to not believe in Christ, and to continue to wait for the Messiah.

Now I am becoming aware of many different thought processes within the Jewish faith about the Messianic issue. Didn't someone say that only Orthodox Jews await Him?

I have to say that I am much more comfortable with some of the things I've read here about Judaism than Christianity... the whole idea of original sin just bugs the daylights out of me (I don't personally buy into that, but there you go) and the three-headed God thing is just such a distraction... Christianity believes in One God. As far as I can tell, the whole Trinity idea is the notion that God can communicate with a human in different ways. There are not three Gods. There is one.

But... I cannot give up Christ, nor do I believe he can give me up. So, if I were to hang onto Christ, but choose to believe more the doctrine of the Jewish faith, would that make me less Christian? No, because no matter what I choose to follow in the Jewish faith, as long as I believe in Christ (and, as I said, that is NOT a choice for me), then I am still a Christian. A Christian for Judaism? Maybe. But I'm not a Jew.

Jews are Jews. Christians are Christians. There's a big and obvious difference. The two are definitely related, and most Christians I know feel very respectful towards and strongly bound to their Jewish roots.

But Jewish roots do not make one a Jew. Nor do the divergent paths of our religions so long ago invalidate one or the other. Like many religions, the beliefs are just different. That's a fact. Could be one of us is right. Could be both of us are wrong. I don't know, factually, anything. It's all faith.

Jews are Jews and Christians are not Jews. Jews are not Christians.

I do know that.

[halplm]

I have not said Jesus is the Messiah YOU believe in. You do not believe there has been a messiah at all, how could you believe in one?

YOU have said Jesuss is not the Messiah I believe in, by saying he is not the Messiah prophesied about in Judaism.

I have said NOTHING about YOUR faith or religion, while YOU have been attacking mine saying my concept of the Messiah is wrong, you're welcome to Jesus as your messiah, but don't pretend he's THE Messiah, it's just some Messiah made up fo a new religion.

And you say I'm attacking your beliefs?

Perhaps we've reached a place where this discussion serves little mroe purpose. It seems a discussion of wht the Messiah is is necessary before this can get cleared up. I understand Jesus doesn't fit the idea Jews have about their messiah, or else, he would have been recognized as such. However, to say that he doesn't SATISFY the prophesies made about the Messiah is incorrect. Otherwise, there would be no case to say he WAS.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I should probably get back to the "nice master" thread at some point, anyway.

Please!

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, I don't think denying that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is an attack on Christianity. It's stating that one does not share that Christian belief. Disbelief and disagreement are not attacks.

You can't reasonably expect someone of a different faith to accept fundamental beliefs of your own faith, or accuse them of attacking you if they do not. Because we're a group of people with widely differing beliefs, we're all going to have beloved core beliefs that others don't share, and some that are even potentially hurtful to others. At some level we must agree to not agree on all of these points, and we have to respect others' disagreement just as we would ask them to respect ours.

[halplm]

Yes, Prim, I agree, that's why I don't understand why people are getting offended by the concept of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. I don't understand the concept of Jesus being some other kind of Messiah.

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, may I be theoretical? Suppose a Mormon came to you and said, "My faith is the fulfillment of the promise of Christianity. Only people in my faith are true Christians; my faith replaces what you call Christianity. You don't know what Christianity is, and if you call yourself a Christian, you're wrong."

Honestly, wouldn't you hate that, even if you didn't accept the validity of any of those points? I mean, who is this person to tell you what your lifelong faith is and what it means? Who is this person to claim that she knows what that faith is and you do not—to tell you that you are not Christian?

[Cerin]

Jn, If I'm obfuscating language, it isn't intentional.

If I said that because Jesus was a Jew the Jews are in a better position to judge the truth or falsity of differing Christian beliefs today, no reasonable person would accept this logic.

I would agree, because we all have the same texts available to us.

Your argument that we can all believe what we wish and others must accept it ... they must accept it in the sense that they can't punch us in the nose (not in VR at least) but they do not have to accept the validity of something that is factually incorrect.

Exactly. And if they did punch us in the nose in RL, then we could hold them accountable by law. We're not allowed to punch people because they believe different things than we believe, or because they define words in different ways than we do.

Some things are quite simply factually wrong. It is factually wrong that Jesus did away with Jewish dietary law (per Scripture) and Hal was mistaken when he said this. This is not a reflection on the spiritual value or trueness of Hal's faith, but I am not going to nod my head politely and say, 'oh yes it must be so,' only because it is a statement about religion.

Absolutely, if something is historically inaccurate, then there's no reason to pretend it isn't. If people have different opinions about what is historically accurate (in other words, if there information is different or if the record is ambiguous), there's no reason they shouldn't both state it as they see it.

Some things are logicially impossible. One cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus was and was not God.

I agree.

One cannot say the shema and then claim that God is three people.

I don't know what the shema is, but I believe that I believe in the God of the Hebrew scriptures, and I also believe in the God of Christianity, whom I believe has revealed Himself and interacted with humanity in three different aspects of His being, and I do not believe that is contradictory.

Of course, I respect your right to insist that I do not believe in the same God you believe in, but you can't stop me from believing it.

One of these statements is believed and the other is not believed and when the person says they believe in both they are lying.

I am not lying. My understanding is different from yours. If you insist that I must be lying because no one can believe what I believe, I can't stop you from thinking that. But I think I can request that you not state that as fact, but as your opinion.

You don't understand how I can believe what I believe, so there are two possibilities. You decide I am lying because something that doesn't make sense to you couldn't possibly make sense to someone else, or you decide it's possible that something that doesn't make sense to you could possibly make sense to someone else. What you can't do is declare my belief invalid for me because something that seems contradictory to you appears consistent to me.

But you cannot say that a Christian is a Jew

I know a person who has accepted Christ who identifies herself as a Jew. She was born a Jew, was raised as a Jew and practices as a Jew. I think of her as a Jew and I think of her as a Christian. She is a Christian Jew according to mine and her understanding.

Obviously, the word 'Jew' is defined by different paramaters for her and for you, since the terms are not mutually exclusive to her but they are to you.

But you cannot say <snip> a Christian can claim to be a Jew no matter what they believe

My friend is a Jew who believes in Christ. That is how she identifies herself. Those terms are mutually exclusive to you; fine. No one is saying you have to acknowledge her Judaism. If you wish to say that in your view a Jew who accepts Christ is no longer a Jew, fine. But you can't make other people accept your definitions for these words. You can't prevent someone who was a Jew five minutes ago, whose mother's twin sister died at Auschwitz, and who accepted Christ four minutes ago, from thinking of themselves as or calling themselves a Jew five minutes from now. Not in this country.

unless one first denies that Judaism exists at all as something in its own right.

No, I would say, unless one first denies that your precise definition and undestanding of Judaism is the one that everyone must use.

Well, I'm afraid I do. In the same way that I own my own name, and if you used it and pretended to be me that would be a theft of my identity.

No one is pretending to be you, Jn, even though there are probably other people in the world with the same name as you. You identify yourselves with the same word, but it represents two different people.

People are allowed to use the word Jew and mean something different than you mean when you say it. There are no legal boundaries for the meaning of the word, at least in this country. Obviously this is true, because people are defining it differently than you are, and it is bothering you a great deal. Which I certainly understand.

I'm sorry this is so distressing for you.