Judaism & Christianity
PsychoToddler says:
Theologically, the major difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe more truth has been revealed, and Jews are still waiting for the next act. I'd say we're more like Sunni vs. Shiite Muslims, or Catholics vs. Protestants, than like Muslims vs. Christians.
Christianity is entirely based on Judaism. Without Judaism, Christianity would make no sense whatsoever. Jesus started Christianity, and he was an observant Jew. Paul is the best-known-ever Christian missionary, and he was an observant Jew. Christians who forgot all this are the biggest reason why there's so much animosity between us, but it doesn't have to be this way, and I don't believe God wants it to be this way.
Shira Salamone wrote a Jewish viewpoint of the differences, which is worth considering. I commented at length over there.
Update:
I feel I should clarify; I mean no insult by saying these two faiths are closely related and sorta compatible. On the contrary, Judaism is the only religion besides my own that's reasonable, that I can truly respect. As I mentioned above, Jews are like brothers and sisters in my mind, and if God wants them to convert, I leave that up to Him.
Update:
Elf has joined the discussion as well.
Jewish Christians - Ain't no such animal. Pick a team.These are the only two religions I know of that are compatible in terms of absolute truth. Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism. Most Christians were Jews until Paul started preaching to the Gentiles. The Jewish scriptures (Tanach?) make up at least two-thirds of the Christian Bible. True Christians embrace Jews as long-lost brothers, no matter what you think of Jesus, and we believe the Jews will be redeemed in the end, though I'm not sure if that's by accepting Jesus or some other way. And if all that isn't enough, here's the biggest reason: Christians believe the Jewish scriptures are inspired by God and until ~2006 years ago, were the entirety of revealed truth.
Theologically, the major difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe more truth has been revealed, and Jews are still waiting for the next act. I'd say we're more like Sunni vs. Shiite Muslims, or Catholics vs. Protestants, than like Muslims vs. Christians.
Christianity is entirely based on Judaism. Without Judaism, Christianity would make no sense whatsoever. Jesus started Christianity, and he was an observant Jew. Paul is the best-known-ever Christian missionary, and he was an observant Jew. Christians who forgot all this are the biggest reason why there's so much animosity between us, but it doesn't have to be this way, and I don't believe God wants it to be this way.
Shira Salamone wrote a Jewish viewpoint of the differences, which is worth considering. I commented at length over there.
Update:
I feel I should clarify; I mean no insult by saying these two faiths are closely related and sorta compatible. On the contrary, Judaism is the only religion besides my own that's reasonable, that I can truly respect. As I mentioned above, Jews are like brothers and sisters in my mind, and if God wants them to convert, I leave that up to Him.
Update:
Elf has joined the discussion as well.
posted by Kiwi the Geek at 2:36 AM
71 Comments:
I always thought the big difference was the Christians believed Christ was the first coming of the Lord personified, the Jews thought he was no more than one of the many false prophets afoot in those days.
The Jews are still waiting for thier savior, Christians aleady have him. That is such a fundamental difference that whilst the old testament applies to both religions, the modifications that come with the new completely rift the Jews and Christians.
That's not to say that there's as big a difference between Jews and Hindu's or Christians and Muslims as between Christians and Jews but the inclusion that savior thing really seperates the two worldviews.
My heaven has beer volcano's, so I'm just sayin'...
You may be writing from a Christian point of view, or a 'ethical' point of view, but PT is writing from the Jewish point of view. Commandment Number 2 states "you will have no other gods." Period. There is no equivocation. Viewing Jesus as god, or something more than a human is a direct violation of a fundamental precept of Judaism. Therefore, anyone who carries that belief has taken themselves out of the Jewish people(the issue of the halachic(Jewish legal) status of Jews who remove themselves from the Jewish people is an entirely different discussion). Therefore, from a Jewish point of view, there absolutely cannot be a Jewish Christian, or a Christian Jew. If you believe in Jesus, you do not Jewish beliefs, no matter how you may want to dance around the issue. Belief in other gods is an absolute boundary line. I cant emphasize it enough.
Jews and Christians obviously do share the Hebrew Bible(what you call the Old Testament-since we believe there was only one testament, it makes no sense to us to add the 'old' part). But the gospels do away with much of the specifically religious law of the Hebrew Bible, which is why Christians dont keep kosher, wear fringes, put on tefillin, etc. While many of the moral and ethical teachings are similar, they are not the same. So, although we have a common history, we are totally different, incompatible religions. Where we do agree, on moral and ethical issues, we should work together. On religious and philosophical issues, there can be no rapprochment, and we should just agree to disagree and leave it there.
(note, in answer to your question, the Palestinian state I was referring to is Jordan)
What he said.
A Jewish Christian is like a Muslim Christian.
It's also a bit of a sore spot for most Jews, since people who refer to themselves as Jewish Christians are usually missionaries who seek to convert Jews to Christianity by misleading less educated Jews into thinking they can be both. It's just not true, and it's predatory. Particularly when there are so few Jews in this world as is, and we are constantly losing numbers to assimilation and intermarriage.
Kiwi, I know you don't mean to offend, and I can't imagine that you can really internalize this, but this topic is about the survival of my people.
I'm guessing you may simply be referring to the "ethnic" Jews who convert to Christianity. I don't know what you'd call them. I call them Christians.
Thanks, Dilbert. By your explanation, a good comparison might be Judaism:Christianity::Christianity:Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, certain Christian-based cults that deny the deity of Christ might actually be less objectionable to Jews. Ironic, huh?
On the other hand, you still can't take the Jewish basis out of Christianity. Judaism is woven throughout our theology to the point that you could very well call it a Jewish cult, or whatever Jews call such things. (Are there any others, BTW?)
For the record, Christians don't believe that Jesus was a separate god, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. I know Jews don't believe in the Trinity, but I'm just sayin'.
I am indeed writing from a Christian point of view. Christian theology makes room for only one other religion, which is Judaism. We believe the Jews are God's chosen people, and that we became eligible for the gospel because most Jews rejected the message. However, in the end, the Jews will be redeemed.
I'm curious -- what does Judaism say about the eternal prospects of Gentiles?
Jews to Christianity by misleading less educated Jews into thinking they can be both. It's just not true, and it's predatory.
I certainly don't condone those who insensitively try to convert Jews. IMO, 'witnessing' should be a demonstration of love/grace/faith and when applicable, a two-way discussion of contrasting beliefs, as we're having here. Changing beliefs is God's job, and 'proselytizing' is more likely to drive people away. However, I've read many stories of educated Jews who came to believe in Yeshua with minimal influence from Christians.
Christians dont keep kosher, wear fringes, put on tefillin, etc.
I think a lot of "Jewish Christians" do keep the old laws & customs.
So what would you call a religious Jew who believes Jesus was the Messiah? I can understand if you insist the two beliefs are incompatible, but the fact is, those people exist. So what box do you put them in? Are they wrong to conscientiously promote their beliefs, if other Jews disagree with them?
Oh, and PT, I understand what you're saying about the survival of Judaism. Even if it had no basis in truth, I've learned from you what a beautiful and rich culture it is, and our society would be poorer without it. By having six kids and teaching them your beliefs, you're effectively preventing that loss.
"So what would you call a religious Jew who believes Jesus was the Messiah? I can understand if you insist the two beliefs are incompatible, but the fact is, those people exist. So what box do you put them in?"
Anyone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah is a Christian, by Jewish definition (all claims to the contrary, including those of said believer, notwithstanding). I would describe such a person as a Christian of Jewish *ancestry.* The terms Jewish Christian, Hebrew Christian, Messianic Jew, and Jew for Jesus are simply not acceptable to the Jewish community.
One cannot be both. As PsychoToddler said, "Jewish Christians - Ain't no such animal. Pick a team."
In addition, anyone who believes that Jesus was the *begotten* son of G-d is a Christian, by Jewish definition. My understanding is that Jewish tradition holds that *all* humans are G-d's children. One can take that either literally or metaphorically, depending on how literally one views the tradition that G-d created Adam and Eve and that the entire human race is descended from them. However,the belief that G-d would send his holy spirit to impregnate a human woman is totally alien to Jewish tradition. Not only do Jews *not* believe that G-d has a begotten child, but we also do not believe that creating a begotten child is a way that G-d would chose to interact with the human race. The rabbis describe G-d as the One who differentiates between the sacred and the secular (hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol). One can't get more of a sacred/secular mix than an individual whose father is G-d and whose mother is human.
"Are they wrong to conscientiously promote their beliefs, if other Jews disagree with them?"
To believe is one thing; to promote that belief is another thing entirely. I'm certainly glad to hear you say that "Changing beliefs is God's job," but the unfortunate truth is that the history of Christian attempts to convert Jews (and, for that matter, Muslims) to Christianity is written in blood. Blame it on the Crusades, on the Inquisition, whatever, but, from a Jewish perspective, proselytizing Jews is not only a threat to our survival as a people in the religious sense, but all too often has been a threat to our *physical* survival, as well. Sadly, we have good reasons to find anything that even remotely resembles missionary activity aimed at Jews offensive, at best, and frightening, at worst, because we've seen how far such attempts can go. I know that's a lot to dump on you, and I don't mean to offend, but there's just too much history involved. I'm truly sorry.
I will get around to responding to your comments on my own post re these issues, when I'm awake.
Thanks for your clarifications, here and at On the Fringe, about Jewish theology.
I would describe such a person as a Christian of Jewish *ancestry.*
But I understand many of these people still observe Jewish laws. (I don't know why.) You said over at your site that being Jewish is based on action, and Christianity on belief, so by that explanation, it seems they would be both?
The terms Jewish Christian, Hebrew Christian, Messianic Jew, and Jew for Jesus are simply not acceptable to the Jewish community.
Please understand, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just don't see how to define this without an area of overlap.
to promote that belief is another thing entirely.
By 'promote', I meant like talking, writing books, distributing literature, etc. Non-violent, rational interaction. I'm as horrified by anti-Semitism as any Gentile can be, which is why I mentioned that Christians who forgot their roots are the reason for this rift between us. If possible, I want to build bridges. That's one reason I personally don't proselytize; I believe it drives away more people than it converts. If God wants a person to change (in religion or otherwise), He can do it better than I might even imagine.
My but you are a thoughtful blogger Kiwi. May God preserve a remnant in every generation.
"I would describe such a person as a Christian of Jewish *ancestry.*"
But I understand many of these people still observe Jewish laws. (I don't know why.) You said over at your site that being Jewish is based on action, and Christianity on belief, so by that explanation, it seems they would be both?
Ouch. Okay, you've got me there. Maybe this is inconsistent, but I guess there are some beliefs that are beyond the pale of even a religion as relatively non-dogmatic as Judaism.
And many thanks for not proselytizing. I appreciate your sensitivity to the issue, and I imagine that I'm not speaking for myself alone.
what does Judaism say about the eternal prospects of Gentiles?
Jewish law believes there are 7 laws for non-Jews(the 7 commandments for the sons and daughters of Noah- sheva Mitzvot b'nai Noach), including things such as establishing fair courts, not to murder, to kill an animal prior to dismembering it, not to steal, sanctity of marriage, and no idol worship. Most rabbinic decisors opine that Christianity and Islam are not idol worship, so you are on safe ground. We certainly do not(and for the vast majority of our history did not) encourage non-Jews to convert to Judaism. We recognize that you dont have to be Jewish to merit a part of the world to come. Jews have their own obligations, non-Jews have theirs.
A Jew who believes in the divinity of Jesus is a heretic. If he leaves his heretical beliefs, he is a regular Jew again. This is a complex issue in Jewish law, touching on what exactly a Jew must believe. However, there is massive unanimity that certain beliefs are heretical, and believing in any other god, or god's partners(Jesus, trinity) is heresy, and someone who has those beliefs cannot be identified as a Jew in good standing. As far as other Christian groups that deny the divinity of Jesus, any belief in a god or other power aside from the God of Israel is heresy.
It is true that Judaism is a religion mostly of action. However, someone who is Christian who keeps the Jewish commandments is not accomplishing anything from the Jewish point of view(in fact, non-Jews are severely discouraged from observing Jewish practices-keeping Kosher, Sabbath, phylactaries, etc.) Obviously the moral and ethical actions are included in the 7 laws for the descendents of Noah, so in in that aspect there is similarity.
If you are interested in more detail(much better writing and a not more erudite) I suggest the books by Rabbi David Novak. These include : The image of the non-Jew in Judaism, Jewish-Christian Dialogue, Talking with Christians, and a bunch of other titles.
What he said.
Dilbert, thanks for your explanation, and for being gutsy enough to use the word 'heretic'. And if you did think I'm worshipping idols, I wouldn't take it personally ;o)
We certainly do not(and for the vast majority of our history did not) encourage non-Jews to convert to Judaism.
Why not?
in fact, non-Jews are severely discouraged from observing Jewish practices-keeping Kosher, Sabbath, phylactaries, etc
Why?
The short answers are sufficient. Unfortunately I don't have time to add yet another book to my list. :o(
The view of Traditional Judaism is that a person does not have to be Jewish to be a good person or to merit the world to come. Judaism asks much from a person, in terms of actions and beliefs, and there is absolutely no expectation that someone who is not born Jewish needs to assume those obligations. Of course, we expect that someone who recognizes the God of Israel as the one true God would want to serve Him in the most complete way possible(by being Jewish and observing all the commandments). However, the realization and desire to serve our God has to come from the person, it cannot be forced upon someone who is not Jewish(however, we try very hard to encourage Jewish practice and belief among those Jews who have strayed from tradition- but that is another discussion). And, Judaism is certainly fine with those who believe in other religions practicing their religion, as long as the laws mentioned above are observed. Being righteous is not the exclusive province of Jews. We acknowedge that being a practicing Jew is not for everyone, that if you dont believe you might find the laws onerous and the duties burdensome. For those of us who do believe, we usually find religious satisfaction and closeness to God in the performance of the commandments, and happiness that we are fulfilling the word of God as best as we are able. But if you dont believe that God commanded you to follow these laws, why would you do them? So, we certainly don't believe in conversion by coercion, and in fact, discourage those who want to convert, so that only those who truly believe in the God of Israel and want to follow his commandments do convert. From a theological point of view, it is much better for a non-Jew to remain a non-Jew and fulfill the 7 commandments that Judaism has assigned to him, than to convert and fulfill only a few of the 613 that traditionally Jews have been commanded. In other words, we think that God is happier if a non-Jew remains a 'good' non-Jew, than converts and is a 'not-so-good' Jew.
The outcome from this point of view is that there are obligations for Jews, and obligations for non-Jews. A non-Jew is totally not obligated in the commandments that are specifically for the Jews. By trying to observe the specifically Jewish commandments(outside the context of contemplated converstion) the non-Jew is taking on obligations that are not his, and blurring the line between Jew and non-Jew. The non-Jew certainly can take on those obligations, by converting. But absent conversion, we dont belive that there is any heavenly reward for non-Jews who take on the specifically Jewish obligations, and, by blurring the line between Jew and non-Jew, are threatening the identity of the Jewish people. Jews for Jesus is a perfect example. Some in that group are Jewish, others are Christian, but they believe in Jesus, many in their publications say that they wear prayer fringes(tallit), observe Jewish holidays, etc. All they are doing is trying to blur the border between Judaism and Christianity. This is absolutely totally not acceptable. Judaism totally rejects syncretism in any form. Jews should worship in their way, Christians should worship in their way. Jews should not sing Christmas carols, and Christians shouldn't celebrate Hannukkah.
It's great to be a Fireman, and it's great to be a Policeman. Nobody says the Policeman has to put out fires.
I'm going to try something new and skip all of the comments above and say my own 2c.
I can understand the Jewish take on God's revalation to man: A one-time, really big show, and all later prophecies can not contradict it.
I can understand the Continuing Revalation stance taken by Ba'hai: Each genaration has different needs and as such there are different prophets scattered throughout the years, each bringing a message appropriate to their time. i.e. Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Ba'hai u'Allah, etc.. are all prophets and the chain may well continue.
I'm not sure what to do with the Christian and Muslims who say: "Until this point there were prophets but after _________, no more." It seem odd to me.
BTW, this is a question I've had for a while and only now had a place/chance to voice it.
PsychoToddler, you're so very profound.
Dilbert, thanks for explaining. I get it now.
So, we certainly don't believe in conversion by coercion,
Christians have only believed in coercion in contradiction of Biblical teaching. We're supposed to speak the truth and let people decide for themselves how they'll respond.
All they are doing is trying to blur the border between Judaism and Christianity.
I can see how that would result, but I kinda doubt that's their intention. I would expect they're acting based on conscience.
Christians shouldn't celebrate Hannukkah.
What about for educational purposes? I really enjoy learning about Jewish beliefs, because it helps me understand where I came from. Recently, it's become common for Christian groups to study/celebrate the Passover meal (once, not every year) so as to better understand the context of Communion and Jesus' resurrection. Does this bother Jews?
YS, I'm glad you stopped by.
I'm not sure what to do with the Christian and Muslims who say: "Until this point there were prophets but after _________, no more." It seem odd to me.
I can't say much about Muslims except that IMO their theology is screwy. As for Christianity, I'm not exactly sure how to explain it. Technically, there can still be prophets, but their words must be measured against the accepted canon of Scripture, which is considered the inspired word of God. Any 'prophecy' that contradicts the Bible would be thrown out, in accordance with various passages which give instructions for testing prophets. Personally, I think the gifts of prophecy, healing, and tongues are less common in Western society than in, say, Africa, because we have so much materially and don't realize our spiritual need. Gifts appear more strongly in those who depend more fully on God.
With that in mind, though, and given where the New Testament leaves us, it wouldn't really make sense for there to be any new, significant prophecies or words from God until the end described in Revelations. If I understand correctly, there will be at least two prophets at that time, which are Elijah and Moses resurrected. However, the interpretation of Revelations is widely debated among Christians, no matter what else we agree upon, so we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
The most important thing to keep in mind when studying Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is that their adherents don't just make up what they want to believe. In each case, it all comes from a source which they believe to be God's own words, so have no basis to argue with it. If you believe the religious documents are reliable, you just have to accept them and live by them, whether or not you like certain unpalatable details.
Does that answer your question? Feel free to ask more, and I'll do my best to answer.
Celebrations for educational purposes- It is one thing to learn about a ritual, and another to perform it, with the intent that one is performing the ritual, in conformation with God's wishes. Most 'ecumenical' community Passover seders wind up being dinners with a few symbolic foods, many speeches, and not much relation to a true seder. I dont have any problem with non-Jews learning about Jewish rituals and customs. When non-Jews are eating at my house for dinner, and we say Hamotzi(thanking God for bread, a short blessing before eating) I translate it for them and they get a piece of bread to eat also, they are not excluded. From my point of view, they are thanking God(which is something which is good for everyone to do, not just Jews) for the bread, while I am fulfilling God's specific commandment to bless God using a specific blessing prior to eating bread.
Looking at Hannukah, I have an obligation to light a menorah. From a Jewish point of view, the non-Jew has absolutely no obligation to light the menora, and thus if he does it, the act should have absolutely no religious significance for him. If he wants to do it as a cultural experience, I am not totally opposed, as long as it is clear that his doing it is not a religious expression from the Jewish point of view. I think it is far more important for non-Jews to understand and respect Judaism, and its practitioners, than to copy some superficial practices. I understand the social context and desire to show unity by comming to community seders and community holiday events, where there are Christmas and Jewish celebrations. From my point of view it is far better for everyone to celebrate the holiday with their own co-religionists and leave the unity celebrations free of specific religious overtones.
Okay, I don't think God wants me to participate in seder like he wants me to take communion. I would inherently be an outsider. But an ecumenical community seder seems kinda pointless to me. It's like the difference between visiting Paris as a tourist, and living with a host family in a small French town.
Hi Kiwi,
I have noticed you from time to time over at Vox’s and came here from Serena’s after you left a comment inviting her to the discussion. I sure wish she had added her considerable wisdom to this subject. I am relatively new to studying the Hebrew history concerning Christianity. So far this has been an enlightening conversation because it has opened my eyes to our Jewish brother’s mindset.
“In addition, anyone who believes that Jesus was the *begotten* son of G-d is a Christian, by Jewish definition. My understanding is that Jewish tradition holds that *all* humans are G-d's children. One can take that either literally or metaphorically, depending on how literally one views the tradition that G-d created Adam and Eve and that the entire human race is descended from them. However, the belief that G-d would send his holy spirit to impregnate a human woman is totally alien to Jewish tradition. Not only do Jews *not* believe that G-d has a begotten child, but we also do not believe that creating a begotten child is a way that G-d would chose to interact with the human race. The rabbis describe G-d as the One who differentiates between the sacred and the secular (hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol). One can't get more of a sacred/secular mix than an individual whose father is G-d and whose mother is human.”
My basic question is why? The scriptures are full of examples of G_d doing things out of the ordinary, and quite against what us mere mortals would deem proper. While He did not have to do things the way He did, from my point of view it makes sense. From my reading of scripture everything He did pointed to the time He would take on physical form and become the sacrifice that would end the need for the temporary atonement brought forth when unblemished animals were sacrificed. The scriptures are clear that he would do this especially Isaiah and Daniel.
Eaglewood, thanks for coming. I think you have two separate points here: 1) God can do unexpected things, and 2) there are prophecies about this particular unexpected thing.
Christians believe Scripture is the complete, inerrant word of God, and that nothing can be added to or removed from it. From this and other discussions, it seems Jews include rabbinical writings in equal authority with Scripture. I'm guessing that's where the "Jewish tradition" comes from which would make Jesus as Messiah an unexpected development. (Jewish commenters, please correct me if I have this wrong.) Given the beliefs you quoted in italics, a Jew believing Jesus was Messiah might be akin to a Christian believing Billy Graham was the reincarnation of Peter, or something equally incompatible.
Eaglewood, you say the Scriptures point to God taking on physical form and becoming what some Jews call a "human sacrifice". Can you cite verses for this? Maybe there's a difference in how Christians and Jews interpret the pertinent prophecies.
Eaglewood, you say the Scriptures point to God taking on physical form and becoming what some Jews call a "human sacrifice". Can you cite verses for this? Maybe there's a difference in how Christians and Jews interpret the pertinent prophecies.
I will do what I can. Might be a day or two before I find them, but I will. I know for sure there are some in Isaiah.
Kiwi and Eaglwood, here's something for you to consider, from Isaiah, chapter 9, verse 5, by way of Handel's "Messiah":
"For unto us a child is born
unto us a child is given
and his name shall be called
'Wonderful counselor, a mighty G-d, an everlasting father, a prince of peace.'"
The problem is this: Since Hebrew has no verb "to be" in the present tense, it is possible to translate the Hebrew that way.
But is it correct?
Consider the Hebrew name Yael. One can translate that name one of two ways: Either the name means that the bearer of the name is G-d, or it means that the first syllable of that name is G-d's proper name (which is a theological affirmation of G-d's identity). Sorry, we're getting into "taking G-d's name in vain" territory, so I'm going to get a bit creative with the spellings here: The Jewish interpretation is that Y-a is G-d (E-l), not that the girl whose name is Yael is G-d. In a proper Jewish translation, we add the verb "is"--in our tradition, that's an "understood" verb.
Now let's go back to Handel. The translation that he used is strictly a Christian one. No Jew would ever interpret the name of any individual that happens to include G-d's name as meaning that the individual himself is G-d. A Jewish translation might be 'Wonderful counselor is mighty G-d, an everlasting Father, a prince of peace.'
To be absolutely honest, this is one of the most serious issues for me in dealing with Christianity: Essentially, the Christian religion has taken our Bible and completely reinterpreted it in ways that are contrary to our beliefs. In essence, the Christian faith comes perilously close to telling The People of the Book what our own Book means. Personally, I find that a real problem.
Oooh, I hope the ice isn't too thin here... <treading lightly>
First, where on the internet would I find Tanach translations from the Jewish point of view?
Essentially, the Christian religion has taken our Bible and completely reinterpreted it in ways that are contrary to our beliefs.
Again, this seems similar to what Christian-based cults do with the Bible, only they don't have nearly as many followers, so we don't feel insulted as Jews probably do. I'm trying to be as sensitive as possible to this situation, without denying my own beliefs.
I'd like to figure out a timeline of this reinterpretation. Was it in Jesus' own quotes, or Paul's doctrine, or the "early Christian fathers"? Or maybe some reinterpretations are more recent developments, like certain popular doctrines that nobody ever thought of until the 1800s. Personally, I try as much as possible to go back to the earliest beliefs, figuring those closest to Jesus and the original writers are most likely to be correct.
I understand there's a small sect of Judaism that believes in the authority of Scripture, without rabbinical writings, which would be analogous to fundamental Christian belief. I wonder how they relate to the rest of Judaism, as far as beliefs, and how they relate to Christianity, in interpretations without the influence of rabbinic interpretations.
I hope I'm coming across as one who wants to learn, not as one who wants to argue or change your mind. I really appreciate the Jewish participation in this discussion, and patience with my incessant questioning.
" understand there's a small sect of Judaism that believes in the authority of Scripture, without rabbinical writings . . ."
The Karaites come to mind.
"where on the internet would I find Tanach translations from the Jewish point of view?
A yeshiva graduate recommended this:
The Hebrew Bible in English
To be precise, she recommended this:
Hebrew-English Bible
Thanks Shira! I'll refer to that when studying OT prophecy.
So how do other Jews view the Karaites? Are they batty?
Somehow the second link got screwed up and my archive link is added to the intended link. Here's what I think it's supposed to go to:
Hebrew-English Bible"
Try this:
Hebrew-English Bible
Weird. When I access that website from my favorites, it opens with no problem. Go figure.
Well, copy and paste this URL into your "URL/address window" (or whatever it's called), for lack of an alternative.
Thank you, Sally. It needed the http part at the beginning, and that's why it added my url.
Isaiah 9:5, JPT "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;"
So, in the future, when I don't have a buncha Jews gathered around me, where might I go to translate that? Anybody know?
This is kinda like detective work. Much more challenging than the criminal forensics game I got for my birthday, which turned out to be disappointingly simple.
Oops. Here's the URL:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Now that's just dumb. If the readers understood Hebrew, we wouldn't be reading a translation in the first place!
By the way, that's the "translation" that appears in the Hertz Chumash, to the best of my recollection. But, in the Hertz Chumash, there's a translation provided in the footnotes.
Here's more Hebrew for you: A Chumash is a book containing the so-called Five Books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) divided into the classical Jewish weekly readings (parshiot [plural])established centuries ago by the rabbis, accompanied by the additional readings (haftarot, or haftorahs, depending on your choice of Hebrew dialect), generally from the Prophets, assigned to each weekly reading (parsha).
I didn't see any footnotes section on that website.
So there's a schedule of Tanach readings? Neat! There are Christian Bibles like that, only there's no long-standing traditional schedule; lots of different daily reading plans have been published with varying popularity. It's become common for friends or groups to spend a year reading through the whole Bible.
The Chumash, or 5 books of Moses, are read portion by portion every week over the course of the year as part of the Sabbath Prayer service (and some other days too).
The parts from Prophets and other parts of the Tanach are read as the "Haftorah" which has nothing to do with half a torah.
It was instituted during a time when the Greeks ruled over Israel and forbade reading of the Torah. So they found other parts of the TAnach that had similar ideas and read those instead. That's why the Haftorah always has some connection to the torah portion.
EG, this last week we read the part with the splitting of the red sea and the song the Moses sings afterwards. The Haftorah had the battle of Devorah and Barak against Sisra, and the song that she sings afterwards.
Speaking of translations--or, in this case, mistranslations--the original Hebrew clearly describes the body of water split by Hashem at the time of the exodus from Egypt as the Reed Sea. Somewhere along the line, a translator goofed.
I will have to say this is very interesting and I feel little in over my head when it comes to discussing differences in how the scriptures are interpreted.
Okay....I'm going to get kicked here probably, but here goes nothing. I'm quoting snippets as I go....
"The terms Jewish Christian, Hebrew Christian, Messianic Jew, and Jew for Jesus are simply not acceptable to the Jewish community."
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Being Jewish is jointly and severally a race and a religion, as the term "Jew" has become vernacularized (no I don't know if that's an actual word) to mean both. You can be one but not the other, or you can be both. Either way, you're allowed to call yourself a Jew. It would be like telling somebody they couldn't call themselves a German if they didn't adhere to a prescribed German state religion. It is not at all similar to "Muslim Christian", as an Arab and a Muslim are two completely different things. "Arab Christian" would be the analogue, and it would be correct - just like "German Christian" or "African Christian" or "American Christian". For a person of genuine Jewish descent who has read their history and believes in Christianity, I would think it would be a point of honor to be a Jewish Christian.
I can see if the rest of y'all don't like it, but you can't tell somebody they're not allowed to claim they're a member of a race. That's decided at birth.
"Viewing Jesus as god, or something more than a human is a direct violation of a fundamental precept of Judaism."
This presupposes that it is known that Jesus was *not* the Messiah, or that the Messiah is known not to be an incarnation of God. I would suggest that this option is validly subject to debate.
"...which is why Christians dont keep kosher, wear fringes, put on tefillin...."
I'll concede that Christians don't follow Levitical ceremonial laws anymore, but I don't see that this makes us completely different from modern Jews. I've always wondered why Jews don't sacrifice animals in the Levitical manner anymore, as my reading of the Law indicates that the sacrifices are absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins. It doesn't make sense to me to have part of the Levitical law but not the rest of it, unless we're allowed to pick and choose - in which case, the question becomes a matter of what makes the Christian picking and choosing different from the Jewish picking and choosing. I'm honestly curious; I'm hoping one of you can point me to some info on this topic.
"Christian theology makes room for only one other religion, which is Judaism. We believe the Jews are God's chosen people, and that we became eligible for the gospel because most Jews rejected the message. However, in the end, the Jews will be redeemed."
Kiwi, you should know better. Wrong, unless you're at least somewhat dispensational. Non-dispensational Christian theology believes that a Jewish remnant will be saved, along with any Gentiles who join with them. Romans (9 I believe) deals with this topic, when it discusses the spiritual seed of Abraham vs. the natural seed of Abraham. Jesus also deals with it in his conversations with the Pharisees. Apparently there's an end-time remnant of 144,000 in Revelation, but that's far from the total of the Jews. You are correct in saying that Gentiles gain entrance into the covenant by being grafted into spiritual Israel, and that the New Testament also affirms the possibility of salvation for all - Jews and Gentiles alike. Some of each will gain it, many of each will not.
" Most 'ecumenical' community Passover seders wind up being dinners with a few symbolic foods, many speeches, and not much relation to a true seder."
I agree. Most Christianized seders suck in numerous ways. We did a seder meal once, and we did it according to the form that a local Jewish temple used. The only deviations from the standard form were for brief additions to explain the significance of the pieces and parts to Christians.
As a personal note, I almost had to clobber somebody when they thought serving a roast with a cream sauce was an acceptable main course for the meal. I believe that if you're going to do something for educational purposes, that you have the responsibility to educate people correctly or not at all.
The Christian basis for wanting to perform and/or learn about the seder, oddly enough, comes from the New Testament. The "last supper" was a seder meal, probably celebrated in Essene territory.
"Jews for Jesus is a perfect example. Some in that group are Jewish, others are Christian, but they believe in Jesus, many in their publications say that they wear prayer fringes(tallit), observe Jewish holidays, etc."
If they're not Christian, they don't belong in the group. If they're not ethnic Jews, they don't belong in the group. And if they're trying to cloak themselves in the Old Testament ritual, they've missed the point of the New Testament and might want to re-read their Bible.
On the other hand, if they're all ethnic Jews that believe in Jesus and they want to have their own group, there should be room for that in the realm of possibility, shouldn't there?
Keeping in mind that the Christian mandate is to proclaim the Gospel to all nations, asking a group to curb it's evangelistic outreaches isn't going to fly. We can, however, hold them to standards of honesty and integrity in the process - and you're welcome to remind people that the group certainly doesn't represent all Jews.
I understand that people that are authentically Jewish could be upset at organizations such as Jews For Jesus and the whole "Jewish Christian" movement, but I don't see that the climate is going to change any time soon. There are plenty of white Americans I wish I could split myself off from too. Every group has it's spotted sheep, as it were.
For whoever asked the question on resources for translation info, http://www.e-sword.net has free Bible software that has at least two keylinked Hebrew dictionaries available as free modules. Those, by the way, do get the "reed sea" translation right (in the Hebrew defintions, not in the translations unfortunately).
I'm genuinely curious on some of this stuff myself as well, so feel free to respond. Always looking for info....
PT, it seems the Jewish people are nothing if not creative!
Where might the Reed Sea be located?
Eaglewood, if you're over your head, perhaps you'll learn to swim. Stick around!
Walrus, why are you using two different names? They both lead to the same website.
I've always wondered why Jews don't sacrifice animals in the Levitical manner anymore, as my reading of the Law indicates that the sacrifices are absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins.
Ooooh, oooh, I know this one! They can't sacrifice animals because the Temple was destroyed. Instead they're required to pray for the restoration of the Temple. Though I don't know why they couldn't make a Tabernacle like in the Sinai desert.
Wrong, unless you're at least somewhat dispensational.
Now I'm totally cornfuzzled. I think I might also be somewhat dispensational. But I thought the Jews were going to be saved en masse somehow. I need to study more.
What's Essene territory?
I was using one of the E-sword Hebrew translations. It was the one I quoted above, which didn't translate the name. Lotta help that was.
Oh, and Walrus, Beloved wants to know why you don't ever call us back. He wants his movies.
Kiwi, use the KJV+ E-Sword translation and mouse over the Strong's numbers next to "Red" in the verses in Exodus.
As for animal sacrifices, I would respectfully ask somebody to show me the part of the law where God says "you have to sacrifice animals, that is unless you don't have a temple. If you don't have a temple, never mind."
Jews sacrificed things *EVERYWHERE* in the Old Testament. They won a battle, they sacrificed. They captured a city, they sacrificed. And pre-temple, back in the time of Abraham, they sacrificed too. So my question is, "If they've been sacrificing all along before the temple, and they sacrificed during the temple, why not sacrifice after the temple?"
As an interesting note from the Christian point of view, the destruction of the temple happened close to forty years after Jesus' time, so it arguably wasn't needed anymore.
The idea that ethnic Israel will be saved en masse is dispensational. Covenant theology believes that Israel will be saved, but that Israel is spiritual Israel. Again, I refer you to Romans.
Essene territory is the area where the Essenes lived. They were a sect of Jewish people that basically isn't mentioned in the New Testament. We know this because it seems that Jesus ate Passover a day early:
Joh 18:28 - Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
So either Jesus got his calendar wrong, or he just decided to eat Passover early, or there's another explanation. The Essenes would have been celebrating Passover a day early. From what I understand, it was a mark of distinction to separate them from the rest of the Jews.
Kiwi, use the KJV+ E-Sword translation and mouse over the Strong's numbers next to "Red" in the verses in Exodus.
The part I wanted to translate was the name in Isaiah 9:5, JPS "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;" Read above.
So work out of e-Sword with Strong's numbers. My comment stands. Keeping in mind that much of the Biblical text has nuances that you can argue either way for, but one is more appropriately correct. Like John 1:1...."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" can be translated "....and the Word was a God". The article is included by implication in the Greek, but nobody who's read the rest of the text would include it.
Alright, this will probably take several posts, but I'll do the rest I can to respond to the points raised.
The Walrus said, "Being Jewish is jointly and severally a race and a religion, as the term "Jew" has become vernacularized (no I don't know if that's an actual word) to mean both. You can be one but not the other, or you can be both. Either way, you're allowed to call yourself a Jew. . . .
I can see if the rest of y'all don't like it, but you can't tell somebody they're not allowed to claim they're a member of a race. That's decided at birth."
The late Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist Movement in Judaism (a relatively new denomination), described Judaism as "an evolving religious civilization." So I'm certainly not going to argue the point that the Jewish people is part ethnic group, though, since Jews come in every flavor--yes, Virginia, there are Jews of both the black and Asian races--I will object to Jews being called a race. So it's true that ethnic identity is decided at birth.
But religious identity is another matter entirely. True, I can't stop anyone from calling him/herself a Jew for Jesus. That's called freedom of speech. But calling oneself a member of two diffent religions is analogous to calling oneself a citizen of two countries. In order for dual citizenship to be official, both countries have to accept the individual's joint citizenship. One cannot be a dual citizen of two countries if one of those countries does not recognize dual citizenship. Christianity recognizes dual religious identity, but Judaism does not. One can call oneself a Hebrew Christian all one wants, but probably 95% of Jews don't accept that description. And we can't be forced to accept a person as Jewish anymore than we can force anyone to stop calling himself Jewish. That's called freedom of religion.
The Walrus (responding to this comment by Dilbert):
"Viewing Jesus as god, or something more than a human is a direct violation of a fundamental precept of Judaism."
This presupposes that it is known that Jesus was *not* the Messiah, or that the Messiah is known not to be an incarnation of God. I would suggest that this option is validly subject to debate."
Jewish tradition has never accepted Jesus as the messiah. That's a fundamental difference between Jews and Christians. For a Jew, that's not open to debate. For more information, see here.
"This presupposes that it is known . . . that the Messiah is known not to be an incarnation of God."
Point A, the belief that the messiah will be an incarnation of G-d is completely unknown in Jewish tradition. The messiah is supposed to be a member of the tribe of Judah and a direct descendant of King David. Though the religion of a child is determined by the religion of the mother in Jewish law, the tribal identity of a child is determined by the tribe of the father. It is not possible for a child to be both the begotten son of G-d and a member of the tribe of Judah.
Point B, well, if you're not willing to take Dilbert's word for it, take mine (also from a previous comment):
"the belief that G-d would send his holy spirit to impregnate a human woman is totally alien to Jewish tradition. Not only do Jews *not* believe that G-d has a begotten child, but we also do not believe that creating a begotten child is a way that G-d would chose to interact with the human race. The rabbis describe G-d as the One who differentiates between the sacred and the secular (hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol). One can't get more of a sacred/secular mix than an individual whose father is G-d and whose mother is human."
"This presupposes that it is known that Jesus was *not* the Messiah,"
Yes, that's exactly what Jews believe.
"or that the Messiah is known not to be an incarnation of God."
Yes, that's exactly what Jews believe.
I would suggest that this option is validly subject to debate."
Not by Jews!
The Walrus said:
"I've always wondered why Jews don't sacrifice animals in the Levitical manner anymore, as my reading of the Law indicates that the sacrifices are absolutely required for the forgiveness of sins. It doesn't make sense to me to have part of the Levitical law but not the rest of it, unless we're allowed to pick and choose - in which case, the question becomes a matter of what makes the Christian picking and choosing different from the Jewish picking and choosing. I'm honestly curious; I'm hoping one of you can point me to some info on this topic."
He also asked:
I would respectfully ask somebody to show me the part of the law where God says "you have to sacrifice animals, that is unless you don't have a temple. If you don't have a temple, never mind."
Jews sacrificed things *EVERYWHERE* in the Old Testament. They won a battle, they sacrificed. They captured a city, they sacrificed. And pre-temple, back in the time of Abraham, they sacrificed too. So my question is, "If they've been sacrificing all along before the temple, and they sacrificed during the temple, why not sacrifice after the temple?"
Excellent question, Walrus. I hope my explanation is both comprehensible and correct. (Dilbert, Mark/PT, or any other more learned Jew, please correct me if I'm wrong, and/or clarify, if appropriate.)
The cessation of the sacrificial system stems from the Jewish interpretation of a phrase that appears repeatedly in the book of Deuteronomy stating that sacrifices are to take place "bamakom asher yivchar, in the place that I will choose." The rabbis interpreted that to be a reference to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. So, while sacrifices made in earlier books of the Bible seem to have taken place just about anywhere, sacrifices taking place after the discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy (which was found hidden in the Temple) were deemed legitimate only if they took place in the Temple. With the destruction of the second Temple, the rabbis ruled that the Temple could not be rebuilt until the coming of the messiah. Therefore, sacrifices have been forbidden ever since.
Kiwi asked: "Where might the Reed Sea be located?"
In practice, the Reed Sea is what we call the Red Sea. In theory, there's some question as to whether what we now call the Red Story in English or Yam Suf, the Reed Sea, in Hebrew is actually where the Israelites crossed over into the Sinai Peninsula.
Kiwi, notice all the fun I've been having since you gave me tips for formatting bold and italics, not to mention creating hyperlinks,in comments? Thanks. :)
Being Jewish is jointly and severally a race and a religion,
PT said above, referring to ethnic Jews who are Christians, "I call them Christians."
Kiwi, notice all the fun I've been having since you gave me tips for formatting bold and italics, not to mention creating hyperlinks,in comments? Thanks. :)
Glad to be of assistance. Feel free to ask any other techie questions. They call me 'geek' for a reason.
I think you forgot this, Shira:
So how do other Jews view the Karaites? Are they batty?
Im not entirely sure whether the Karaites are still considered Jews. That's a question that I'd best refer to the more learned. (Dilbert, are you there?) I would appreciate it if someone with a Jewish day school/yeshiva education would be so kind as to chime in.
I am sorry I have not replied sooner. I have had to go back and do a lot of research to make sure I am correct. Rather than try to put all the information here in a comment section I think I will let the following web site suffice. It is comprehensive and it does cover the fact that a virgin birth was necessary for the coming of the Messiah. If the idea of a begotten Son of G_d is foreign to Jewish tradition then why does the prophet Isaiah explicitly foretell it? A virgin birth would necessitate a miraculous conception. Just because it does not fit your word view does not mean that is the method G_d chose to use.
http://members.aol.com/claywatts/end1st.htm#birth\
Shira Salamone
You explained the reason the rabbis decided to forbid the sacrifices but that does not explain why under the Law they are no longer necessary. Now under Christian theology we can explain it in the G_d himself in His perfection died for us, and that sacrifice was more than enough to serve His justice. My understanding is that even in times of captivity the Jewish people practiced the sacrifices when they could even without a temple. I could be wrong as my knowledge of Jewish history is shaky at best.
From my limited attention span during my Islam 101 course in college about a million years ago, between the professor cursing "Zionists" and non-Shi'ite Muslims, I think I caught the idea that Islam also considers itself a continuation of the biblical religion - first the Jews got it wrong, then the Christians, and now the Muslims have taken up the mantle. They believe Moses was a great prophet, the Jesus was a great prophet, and, of course, Muhammed tops them all (or is at least their equal). I don't know that any one is any closer to another than the other (is that even a sentence?).
As for the whole "Jewish Christian" thing - I think we're playing a bit with semantics here. Is a person who's born a Jew (which is not to say he is of the Jewish "race" - that's so 1920s) and who believes in Jesus as the Messiah/God still a Jew? Of course. In fact, even if he officially converts to Christianity, by Jewish law he is still considered a Jew. Clearly, he is taking a concrete step to distance himself from the Jewish community, to de facto denounce Judaism. Those who do not convert, who call themselves Jewish Christians, might not in their own minds be doing such distancing. But, as far as the Jewish community is concerned, they are kidding themselves. Because what PT is talking about, I think, is that there is no such thing as a Jewish Christianity. You can say, Ralph, but the very founders of Christianity were Jewish! To which I would say, exactly. And it's not Judaism that they perpetuated (I would also say, please call me "Ralphie." I didn't take four years of Latin so you could drop the "i.e.")
And it's "Jewish Christianity" that we in the Jewish community have a real problem with. Partially because, yes, there are those organizations that really do use it as a sham, regardless of whether their congregants consider themselved authentically Jewish or not. To these leaders, once you are saved by accepting Jesus, it doesn't really matter that you still light candles on Friday night. And to the Jewish community, that very lighting, when done in the name of Jesus, rings fraudulent, again, regardless of intent. What does the Jewish community consider a Jewish Christian? Deluded at best and a fraud at worst. What does Jewish law consider him? Legally a Jew who is breaking the law. The crime? Idol worship. Now, don't go get in a tizzy. The real translation for what is usually called "idol worship" is "foreign/strange worship" - to a Jew, that's what worshipping Jesus is. To a Christian, Jewish law considers it, well, kosher.
The Karaite thing could come in here as well, because what's happening there is a rejection of the Oral Law. A rabbi who will remain nameless once told me a secret. Shh! He said - the Torah is not a Jewish book (horror!). What makes Judaism Jewish is its interpretation of the written Torah, the written Law, through its oral law (the bedrock of which was handed to Moses along with the written one). The classic example of this is, Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." (Exodus 19:9) Nice commandment. One of the Big Ten, you know. But, um, how are we supposed to do that, again? That's where the oral law comes in - the details and the like.
The Karaites, like the Christians, reject the Oral Torah. But they don't reject an oral tradition or law of their own - they couldn't, for how else could they observe that same commandment? I don't know if they have their own set text or body of laws for that, but whatever it is they do, it comes from their own oral tradition. Hence, they are not Jews. When did that break happen, exactly? When did the lineage of the Jews who followed karaism (karaism?) cease to be Jews? I don't know, but I'm sure some smart person out there does. But a Karaite today is not a Jew.
Christians have their own interpretation of the Torah (and other biblical works, of course), too. I don't know the whole of it but a good start is the New Testament. This way you can have Matthew discuss the passage in Isaiah, for example, and give it a meaning that gives resonance to Christianity. For example, the Hebrew term "almanah" in Isaiah 9:14 (I think) that gets translated to "virgin" does not mean, well, virgin, in biblical or modern Hebrew - but that is so well known that surely there is a logical response to that point as well. I don't think the purpose of this comments section is to get into the whole verse-citing back-and-forth.
It's never been my understanding that Christianity makes room for any other belief system. This is not to say that forced conversion is or should be the norm, only that theologically there's only one thing going on. You could say the same for Judaism, in a way - that is, we believe what we believe and that other religions are wrong on certain theological points - arrival and nature of the messiah, end days, etc. But we don't pray or feel that everyone should become Jewish. What we pray for is that all humankind will accept the notion of one true God and worship him. (We also have the Noachide laws as discussed above which we'd like everyone to follow - so if you don't mind, could you snap to it?)
Since I brought it up, I thought it pertinent to mention an idea about the messiah in Jewish thought. This is intensely complicated, and no one less than Maimonides says we shouldn't dwell on the details, and just believe that he will come (and then I think goes on to dwell on the details for a while). But just to highlight a major difference: We don't believe that the messiah will be godlike, or eternal, or what-have-you. He will be a man who will die like any other. But he will be a great man, possibly a prophet, who will be a king (messiah - from the Hebrew moshiach - means anointed. Hebrew kings were anointed with oil when they became king) that will defeat the enemies of Israel and unite the world in worship of God. Other wacky stuff will happen, the details of which are speculated upon in the Talmud and elsewhere. Just food for thought.
Some more targeted responses:
YS: Judaism also says that prophecy has ceased, at least for the time being. Why, I'm not sure exactly, but I'd place my bet on God's distancing Himself from the world after the fall of the 2nd Temple. A wannabe prophet's words are tested, as described in the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin - so we got that in Judaism, too.
Walrus: What can I say? You have a very good point about the fact that Christians don't follow certain laws doesn't make them "completely different from modern Jews." It's the believing in Jesus thing that is the final separation, though. As for the sacrifices, that indeed stopped when the 2nd temple was destroyed. The sacrifices are now symbolically done through a.) prayer and b.) reciting the biblical verses about the sacrifices. When the 3rd Temple is built (may it happen speedily, in our days), the sacrifices will be re-instituted. That will be kinda yucky, but I'll do it if I have to (actually, as a non-priestly descendant of Levi, I won't have to do it - just sing a bit and clean some priests' feet, but that's another story).
"...if they're trying to cloak themselves in the Old Testament ritual, they've missed the point of the New Testament and might want to re-read their Bible." - Another great point. As far as the ethnic Jews who believe in Jesus wanting their community, fair enough. But it is a separate community from the Jewish community itself. And, again, a great point about spreading the Gospel. I also don't believe they should be asked to stop. On a related note, there's an anecdote that I think is recounted in Roger Kamenetz's The Jew in the Lotus where, at a meeting between Jewish leaders and the Dalai Lama, a rabbi asked the Lama (the Dalai?) if his eminence could encourage Jews who have become Hindus to go back to being Jews. The Dalai Lama said, in effect, it's your job to keep your own in the fold, to bring Judaism to Jews who at risk of converting out.
Re: sacrifices. There are certainly better explanations than this, but here goes: once the Temple was built, it became the chief place for sacrifices. There might have been an altar here and there at various times, but once the Temple was built it was clear that this was the place for sacrifices. It was pretty much forbidden anywhere else - there are intricate laws concerning penalties for offering sacrifices elsewhere. Second, sacrifices were not the only way to atone for sins in ancient Israel. I refer you to Golden Calf incident, where God gave Moses the ultimate tool for atonement - a simple spoken phrase that, when accompanied by sincere remorse (and compensation if another person was wronged), provided atonement. It begins with the tetragrammaton recited twice. Lastly, there were many types of sacrifice (thanksgiving, for example), not just those for sin, which also ceased. It doesn't mean no longer can give thanks.
Props to Dilbert and Shira who said a lot what I have said here, but better. I should edit this now that I've read their comments but I won't because a.) I'm lazy and b.) I'm egocentric and would like you to read all of my ramblings.
Kiwi - I won't beat around the bush. Yes, the karaites are batty.
Eaglewood - Shira pointed to the phrase in the law about "a place where I will show you." Whether or not the book of Deuteronomy was hidden, that works for me. In any case, it is clear in the oral law, which I discussed above. Again, sacrifices were not only about redemption from sin so the idea of Jesus making the ultimate sacrifice in that regard wouldn't cover the gamut there. It wasn't all about "justice." And even for sin-sacrifices, the mere animal sacrifice alone did not atone - it was a mere symbol of atonement, brought about by a sincere desire to change one's behavior, and followed-through with the actual changing of said behavior.
Quoted: "This presupposes that it is known that Jesus was *not* the Messiah, or that the Messiah is known not to be an incarnation of God. I would suggest that this option is validly subject to debate."
Not by Jews!
(End Quote)
I'm not saying that Jews accept that it's open to debate; Christians don't accept it as open to debate either. I'm suggesting that the truth is one or the other, and the arguments should be able to be sensibly made by both sides. Either Jesus was the Messiah, or He wasn't. There should be evidence to go either way.
As for the argument about the virgin birth, I've heard that gone over both ways. This is a case of multiple potential meanings of a given word (common in Hebrew). A synopsis of the "virgin" argument can be found at:
http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/virginProphecy.htm
I'm not endorsing the tone of the language they use, but the argument is the standard one.
For the counter-point, which goes so far as to deny that the Isaiah passage is even related to the Messiah:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2virgi93.html
Have at it.
Whoa, Ralphie, thanks for weighing in. (very heavily! ;o) )
I'm a little confused about the Oral Law. Was this something God gave to Moses? I always thought the rabbis came up with all that. Was any of it in the Torah? Because there's a lot more detailed laws in the Torah than just the Ten Commandments.
When I said Christianity makes room for Judaism, I meant that we believe at one time Judaism/the Tanach was all of God's revealed truth, while all other religions are a bunch of hooey invented by humans. (And FWIW, I think Christians do follow the Noachide laws?)
It seems you're saying that some people with Jewish genes are not actually Jewish because they haven't practiced Judaism for many generations. But such people weren't exempt from the Holocaust, and they can still get that horrible obscure genetic disease only Jews can get, and they may be persecuted if they appear Jewish. Isn't this kinda like when black people accuse other black people of "acting white"?
Ralphie, maybe you could hop over to Shira's and help us out with the question of whether Judaism believes in a separation between God and man?
Quick comments which certainly won't adequately address your questions:
The oral law was indeed given along with the written law to Moses. The extent of what was given is the subject of debate.
I'll try to give an example as I type here, exhausted. Hopefully more sober minds can determine if this is accurate. The written Torah says that we can't boil a kid in its mother's milk, three times. The oral law comes and says that these three instances refer to three prohibitions: cooking a mixture of milk and meat, eating a mixture of milk and meat, and deriving benefit from a mixture of milk and meat (e.g., selling somebody a cheeseburger). If you break one of these, you are breaking a Torah law.
The "meat" we're talking about here are permitted mammals. At some point, the rabbis needed to make a "fence" around this law, to ensure it wasn't broken, so they included fowl as well. If you eat a turkey cheeseburger, you're breaking a rabbinic law (if you're Jewish, of course).
I'm just using this as an example, so I don't really want to go into other issues that arise from such an example, but just so nobody from the Jewish side of the aisle tackles me, I want to mention that in practical terms of observance there should be no difference. We follow the rules of the rabbis just as we do those of the Torah. My point was to illustrate that there is indeed an oral law in Judaism that does not itself come from the rabbis.
Interesting point about making room for Judaism. I imagine Islam feels the same way about it and Christianity. As far as Christians following the Noahide laws, I don't think there'd necessarily be any conflict in doing both, but I doubt that many people are careful about eating meat that comes from a part of an animal that was severed after the animal was officially dead. My understanding is that most slaughter houses get right to it once the animal has been stunned.
(A Chabad rabbi's wife in San Francisco told me that a group of Noachides she knows told her that they only eat in kosher meat for this reason.)
Unlike "Diff'rent Strokes," Judaism isn't all about the genes. Anyone can convert to Judaism, of course. When it comes to converting out, a Jew is still considered Jewish according to Jewish law. His children, however, are not considered Jewish and would need to convert to Judaism if they wished to be considered Jewish from the perspective of Jewish law. Sure, they should get themselves tested for Tay Sachs before they get pregnant, but that's not the point here. And, yes, the Nazis considered anyone with a Jewish grandparent to be Jewish, but I for one am not about to let Hitler define for me who is a Jew (or anyone/anything else other than Jewish law, anyway). It should be noted, however, that Israel's Law of Return defines a Jew like this - and in terms of defense that's a good parallel, in my opinion.
As for God and man, David Bowie puts his faith in both. That's good enough for me. Saw that boy in concert once and, baby, he can sing!
You did pretty much answer my questions.
So God gave the written law, and also told Moses what it meant, to some extent that's unknown. Then the rabbis added some stricter rules to make sure. Right?
It's possible that Muslims consider us the same as we consider Jews. I don't know, but good point. Still, I'm not Muslim, and from my point of view Islam is hooey, just as from your point of view Christianity is hooey. All in perspective, huh? ;o)
I didn't know that about the meat thing. I'm not very familiar with the Noachide laws, but I vaguely remember them being pretty reasonable, obvious rules. Of course, corporations aren't exactly known for commonsense reasonable behavior.
I didn't know that about the Law of Return. I wonder if Jews who convert out, generations later, still know they're genetically Jewish. It would become important if they married another genetic Jew. Speaking of which, my grandfather was genetically Jewish, though he was adopted, so if my husband had Jewish genes back there somewhere, we could have a kid with Tay Sachs, maybe. That would be a Bad Surprise. But what are the odds? :oP
I didn't really understand your comment about corporations.
I never said Christianity is hooey.
I guess it's a good idea to have genetic testing in general, but based on costs, you probably want to have some statistical indicator that it's worth it.
I didn't really understand your comment about corporations.
It seems obvious to me that when you slaughter an animal, you kill it before you start hacking it apart. Corporations aren't known for being humane or reasonable, so it's not surprising that meat processing factories dismember live creatures. Kinda sick, IMO.
I never said Christianity is hooey.
Of course you didn't. But it seems the general feeling among Jews in this discussion, and I take no offense at that. We use the old definition of 'tolerance' around here, not the new one.
I guess it's a good idea to have genetic testing in general
I was only being hypothetical. We're not losing any sleep over that; we have much more urgent problems to lose sleep over.
Referring to the possibility of Jews becoming Gentiles, what's required to be defined as Jewish? I understand there are a few who don't even circumcise anymore, which makes them *way* different from the MO types I'm becoming familiar with.
What requires one to be a Jew? This topic is covered somewhat near the end of the comments here.
feh. Christianity is the second-oldest sect of Judaism in practice. The oldest being the decendants of the exiles to Upper Egypt at the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.
About a generation later, after the destruction of haHekel be'Yerushalayim, some rabbis met at Yavneh and invented a new Judaism based upon good works to atone for sins, rather than upon the Temple sacrifice, which was no longer possible (The Ethiopian Jews sacrificed on every hilltop and under every spreading tree until quite recently)
From them came the cHasid, the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform sects.
We are older, and stand in truer continuity to Second Temple Judaism than they.
FWIW.
One other interesting little tidbit. At the time of the Census under Octavian, there were 5 million Jews. Three hundred years later, there were one million. There had been no holocaust, no genocide. What happened? At least 4 out of 5 Jews followed Messiah.
some rabbis met at Yavneh and invented a new Judaism based upon good works to atone for sins... From them came the cHasid, the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform sects.
Are these two connected? If not, I'm confused who 'them' is.
We are older, and stand in truer continuity to Second Temple Judaism than they.
Who's we? Christians?
I've decided to chime in here.
Two items:
First, if the Mechon-Mamre version of the 1917 JPS translation has issues, try it here instead.
Second, as to sacrifice and the Temple, there are several places in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) that make comments about this issue. There are books of the Prophets that come from the period after the destruction of the first Temple, and before the building of the second Temple. Rabbinic Judaism* (the antecedent of what is practiced by Jews today) replaced the Temple cult once there was no Temple, but it had been in existence for a while before that event (how long is subject to debate based on dogma, and could be 400 years to 1300 years).
Avot d'Rabbi Natan (a rabbinic text) brings a proof-text from Hosea and links it to the destruction of the Temple, and the lack of the opportunity to perform sacrifices for atonement. Hosea 6:6 (1917 JPS translation): "For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings."
* An aside: as a first order approximation the Judaism practiced today should be more accurately called Rabbinic Judaism, just as the Christianity practiced today should be called Paulism.
If modern Christianity is really Paulism, what would the other forms of Christianity be?
I haven't read all the comments to your post, so I apologize if I am repeating what has been said and I'll keep it short.
The main theolgocial differences between Christainity and Judaism are, IMO: a. Jews do not believe God ever came to earth as a man. This is contrary to the whole concept of abstract monotheism, and seems to be a theological step "backward" toward idolatry, in that it attempts to limit and define God as a person; and b. Jews do not believe that one person can atone for the sins of another.
Nice blog.
Kiwi--
To first order.
In the same way that the sages expanded Judaism that encompassed the sacrificial cult and extended it beyond the Temple, Paul took a small messianic sect of the first century and extended it beyond it's initial boundary (needing to be Jews).
Since that time, there has been development in both religions; neither stagnated in the second century.
Kiwi,
Yes, we, the Christians, are the older, and mainline Jewish sect, compared to the Rabbinics and their three or four divisions. The only older would be the Falashah, if they still exist as they were in Ethiopia, who reject all but haTorah,and sacrifice under "every spreading tree and on every hill" which the prophets forbid them to do.
We aren't followers of "paulism", no such animal, and we do remain static in our beliefs, from the apostolic period to the present.
Oh, and the bit about "not acceptable to 95% of Jews", apart from being a caudal statistic, simply isn't true. 4/5 of Jews (at least) became followers of Messiah in the first two-three centuries, so it is the Rabbinics who are unacceptable (as Jewish religion, NOT as Jews, which they ARE acceptable as!) to Jews.
Thank you!
[url=http://xwtdjflf.com/wfgz/asia.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://kgvpavjh.com/hwnh/pmjb.html]Cool site[/url]
Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit
Thank you!
http://xwtdjflf.com/wfgz/asia.html | http://wonajmvq.com/vyos/nmob.html
its here
phentermine search ENGINE
phentermine
tramadol
Farm Search Engine
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home