Seriously?
If you accept Jesus Christ as your savior you’re a Christian… unless you’re the sort of person who believes the Jews are so special they can’t possibly become Christians, only “messianic Jews” or “Jews for Jesus” or whatever they’re being called these days. Which, frankly, is pretty damn insulting and bigoted.
years ago, Cecil answered whether Martin Luther was anti-semitic (his work seems to)
But if Hitler were in heaven with all the folks he persecuted wouldn’t that be hell for him?
The Catholic position is that we can reject salvation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone ever actually has. It’s possible that your grandfather, or Hitler, or anyone else, repented at the last moment, and there’s no way we, still among the living, can know they haven’t.
It’s not that simple. Many Orthodox Jews (and others) consider a Jew always a Jew no matter if they convert to another religion. If they choose to return the fold they can become a full member of the community without conversion to Judaism, because they are still Jews. And this may carry on through the matrilineal descendants of such “lapsed Jews” although that will depend on the community involved.
But that’s not the Op: "Do modern American Christian churches… "
Evangelicals are a minority.
Yes, but do the Jews say you are no longer a Jew? And the answer is, not surprisingly- yes & no.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269075/jewish/Is-a-Jew-Who-Converts-Still-Jewish.htm
Apparently, Jewishness is about neither religion nor race. Unlike a race, you can get in, but unlike religion, once you’re in you can’t get out. As with Achan, once you are a part of this people, you are the entire people. As Israel is eternal, so your bond with them is irreversible, unbreakable and eternal.
So, yes- *seriously. *
So that’s what Hotel California is really about.
Oddly that does fit one line perfectly…:eek::p:D
and what a *mohel *does fits another…
Gee. I’m not even close to being an expert on early Christianity, and I knew that. But I’ve learned to try and not underestimate ignorance, so I don’t doubt you.
Disraeli? Certainly not. I doubt his political supporters would have thought he was. And as for Peter, who knows what he really thought. If he still viewed Jesus as Messiah, yes, if he somehow accepted more or less modern Christianity, no. The real situation is probably somewhere in the middle.
Read about in that site. I don’t think that this guy is exactly mainstream.
I think that most Jews would say they have renounced Judaism. If you show me statements from various Rabbinical boards saying these people are still Jewish, I’d be a lot more convinced.
OP here - I appreciate the discussion here. I’m interested in whether particular churches (Methodists, Reformed Adventists, Montana Synod Lutherans, whatever) have doctrine that specifically addresses Jewish salvation. It seems somewhat suspicious to me that many Evangelicals appear to venerate Judaism and Israel while maintaining that salvation comes only through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The RCC at least says that salvation can come through God’s grace in some literally mysterious way that doesn’t require acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. The Methodist doctrines linked to above say that the covenant between God and the Jews is still in place, but that can be considered a collective covenant (ie ‘there will always be Jews’) rather than a personal one (every individual Jew is eligible for Salvation), and doesn’t address whether Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah can achieve Salvation.
I appreciate that churches might want to leave things vague so as not to offend any sensibilities, or so as not to rehash any anti-Jewish sentiment, or because of genuine doctrinal uncertainty, or because it’s never come up as a FAQ. I’m just looking for explicit statements like that of the RCC; something like “we as Third Schism Congregationalists, Reform, believe that the covenant between Jews and God means that the fate of Jewish souls is in the hands of God and is unknowable to us”, or “Scripture informs the Elders of the Egyptian Communion that the Covenant of the Jews is in abeyance, and therefore…”
Reject God’s Mercy.
Reject God’s Mercy, which is offered to all.
“Jesus as the path to salvation” and “God’s mercy” are two different concepts: the Sacrifice offers Salvation, it is the realization or actualization of God’s Mercy on this earth, but as another poster put it “some churches consider that as booster packs” - some don’t. Those believers who are exclusivist tend to also exclude any version of Christianity not their own. The question in this thread’s OP could be rephrased as “is Jesus the only path to salvation or a path to salvation?” Which option is chosen has to do with how that church/person approaches issues of free will (including God’s) and of unfathomability; “God doesn’t play dice” meets “don’t tell God how to do His job”.
Telemark sez the same thing. They may have renounced but they are still Jewish.
"*Hakham Se‘adyá ben Maimón ibn Danan, one of the most respected Sephardic Sages after the Expulsion, in the 15th century stated:
Indeed, when it comes to lineage, all the people of Israel are brethren. We are all the sons of one father, the rebels (reshaim) and criminals, the heretics (meshumadim) and forced ones (anusim), and the proselytes (gerim) who are attached to the house of Jacob. All these are Israelites. Even if they left God or denied Him, or violated His Law, the yoke of that Law is still upon their shoulders and will never be removed from them.[4]*
So, as has been said if you ask two Talmudic sages their opinions, you will get three answers.
There’s always this, if you scoot down to “Jews who have practiced another religion.”
As usual, there are three opinions, but this isn’t the first time I’ve heard “once a Jew, always a Jew.” The rationale is that a gentile is obligated to follow the seven laws of Noah, while a Jew is responsible for all 613 mitzvot. If you have a responsibility, whether it’s to follow the mitzvot or care for your children, you can’t just decide you’re not in the mood anymore and ditch it. Like it or not, the responsibility is yours. From this pov, the Jews for Jesus are Jews—sinful Jews, who are not practicing Judaism, but Jews.
E.T.A. Ninjaed!
That’s the Jewish viewpoint.
The *Christian *viewpoint, based on my experience, is that anyone who converts to Christianity is a Christian EXCEPT Jews. I have often heard the term “converted Jew” but I have never heard “converted Buddhist” or “converted Hindu” or “converted atheist”. Those folks are all “Christians”. Only Jews are stigmatized with being given a label that identifies their prior religion.
Which, frankly, has always been a big turn off for me - what, I’m not allowed to be a full member of your church because of my father’s ethnicity? Screw you, then - if I’m not allowed to be a full, un-hyphenated member of your church, if you won’t let me actually be one of you, there’s no way I’m joining up to be a second-class member of your congregation.
(Those same Orthodox Jews you mention, by the way, don’t consider me Jewish at all so their rule doesn’t apply to me)
Definitely not the RCC viewpoint.
Preventively: yes, one of the groups that Catholic Inquisitions focused on was converted Christians, but this was for converts from any religion.
True, but many Christians in the US don’t regard Roman Catholics as Christians. Don’t ask me to explain that - I don’t belong in any of their camps.
RCC is a minority Christian sect where I lived the past two decades. Evangelicals are much, much more common here.
IMO Evangelical Protestants are much too small a % of all Christians worldwide to use their terminology* in any serious discussion of what ‘Christians’ think.
And even beyond that, I think you’d have to demonstrate further the existence of this differentiation in converts and moreover why it should be considered a ‘stigma’, given the generally very positive view in EP doctrines for Israel and Judaism AFAIK.
*very few EP’s now explicitly consider Catholics not to be Christians if the question is put that way, yes or no, but their habit of calling themselves simply ‘Christian’ when they mean ‘Evangelical Protestant’ is still confusing. Free speech, but I don’t think that confusing habit should be adopted by non-EP’s in general discussion of what ‘Chrisitian’ comprises. Likewise I wouldn’t base it on the Catholic implication that Mormons aren’t Christians (the Church does not say that in so many words, but converting to Catholicism from LDS you have to get baptized in the Catholic Church, converting from Methodist, etc, you don’t). For purposes of general discussion I think ‘Christian’ implies sects which consider themselves so, and where all or most other Christian sects don’t push back on that explicitly.