Do modern American Christian churches have official positions on the salvation of Jews?

[bump]

@senoy

Or they are the same religion that took very different paths. Our local rabbi gave a lecture at our church about how both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity were reactions to the destruction of the Temple. Rabbinic Judaism decided that the spirit of the Temple could be kept alive through study of the Torah and so became migratory and concentrated on interpretation and memorization of the Torah. Christianity decided the Temple was embodied in Christ the Messiah, so the Temple was with us everywhere. So it was more like two branches from the same tree of Second Temple Judaism.

Now that’s an interesting thought!

[Nava]

@senoy

Or they are the same religion that took very different paths. Our local rabbi gave a lecture at our church about how both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity were reactions to the destruction of the Temple. Rabbinic Judaism decided that the spirit of the Temple could be kept alive through study of the Torah and so became migratory and concentrated on interpretation and memorization of the Torah. Christianity decided the Temple was embodied in Christ the Messiah, so the Temple was with us everywhere. So it was more like two branches from the same tree of Second Temple Judaism.

One of my favorite priests likes to remind people that not only are all Christian sects branches of the same tree, Christianity itselt is a Jewish sect that got really big (enough to have sects of its own, aaaaawww look at that baby church, whoooo’s a cutieeee…*).

• He’s one of those people who considers that being serious isn’t necessarily the same as being solemn

[TokyoBayer]

@senoy

Mormons are non-Trinitarian, so a special case. Joseph Smith had essentially a frontier, lay-person view of the Trinity which carried over into his works, so he thought that God has a real body, as does Christ, but the Holy Spirit is just sort of ether. He also made some sketchy promises regarding a process LDS calls ‘exaltation’ which essentially means that humans become co-equal with Christ (or at least can if they are good Mormons, or more accurately they perform certain rituals-called ordinances.) .

This is pretty close, and well informed for an outsider.

Joseph Smith’s theology evolved, and his views of God and the authority of the priesthood were no exceptions.

He produced the Book Of Mormon (BoM) in 1829, and the Church was formalized in 1830. Smiths role evolved in the 30s and he went from being one of many to being seen as the sole spokesman for God.

As time progressed, there were various tensions within the new church, and some of the theological changes were in response to challenges to Smith’s position. This directly affects the baptism ordinance.

The BoM reflects Smith’s earliest views. There is a debate if it is more classical Trinitarian or Modalistic, but in either case it required a rewrite in 1835 to reflect the evolving doctrine.

The belief that God also has a physical body developed after 1835 but sometime before 1838, the year that Smith’s First Vision Account was created. In this story, both God and Jesus both have physical, but exalted bodies.

The Mormon doctrine of exaltation actually is a belief that God the Father was once an ordinary man (although it’s a bit murky if he was a Christ-like figure in the world he grew up in). We all have the potential to become not like Christ but like God. (Well, you do. Dissenters such as I may not.)

The LDS Church does not publicly push this theology, as it’s tied up in the still-accepted doctrine of polygamy (God has many wives), but it’s never renounced it.

Smith’s early beliefs also were aligned with the common belief that the authority has been lost in a Great Apostasy, but that individuals could act in God’s name. The BoM reflects this as the is a story where a wicked priest saw the error in his ways, then baptized himself first then others.

As Smith’s expanding role became challenged, the theology was changed to where a divine priesthood became an absolute requirement for ordinances such as baptism to be valid.

A story was created to show that John the Baptist came to visit Smith and his cofounder to restore the priesthood so that these two could baptize with authority. Even Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) baptisms are not considered to be valid.

[Sdowiat]

@Broomstick

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)

I’m not sure where you are from or how you came away feeling the way you say, ( around Catholics Maybe… ? ) but around where I am a Christian Jew is very valued and held in HIGH esteem. They had to overcome a LOT to come to know and embrace Jesus as Lord and they would be “Pleased as Punch” to count you as a Brother. I implore you… Investigate again, maybe online. In my world, Southern Baptist / Christian Non-Denomination converts are golden. For what it’s worth, my two Tour Guides from the Holy Land were Converted Muslims. Not only was the tour incredible, with insights into Muslim views and feelings ( Very interesting and beneficial to a Christian ) but although that tour was 5 years ago, we all still have connections through Facebook and they have great posts.

Give it another review… with some other group. You will be surprised.

[EinsteinsHund]

@Sdowiat

I’m not sure where you are from or how you came away feeling the way you say, ( around Catholics Maybe… ? ) but around where I am a Christian Jew is very valued and held in HIGH esteem. They had to overcome a LOT to come to know and embrace Jesus as Lord and they would be “Pleased as Punch” to count you as a Brother. I implore you… Investigate again, maybe online. In my world, Southern Baptist / Christian Non-Denomination converts are golden. For what it’s worth, my two Tour Guides from the Holy Land were Converted Muslims. Not only was the tour incredible, with insights into Muslim views and feelings ( Very interesting and beneficial to a Christian ) but although that tour was 5 years ago, we all still have connections through Facebook and they have great posts.

Give it another review… with some other group. You will be surprised.

Heh, you want to to convince her that Christians don’t discriminate against “converted Jews”, the phrase we’re talking about, and then you come up with some cuddly story about “Converted Muslims” (upper case?)…:smack: (oh, and nice dig against Catholics worked in)

[UDS]

I’m a Catholic, and I work with adult converts to Catholicism. For what it’s worth, the term “converted Jew” is completely unknown to me. I have never come across it either in the Catholic tradition or in any of the others that I am familiar with. Nor does it seem particularly rooted in scripture, given that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

I can’t dispute Broomstick’s experience, obviously, which is of Christians who hold that Jews who convert to Christianity need to be segregated in some way. But I can say that I am pretty convinced that it is not a mainstream Christian position; it’s pretty marginal; I’m thinking “Jews for Jesus”, or similar. The mainstream Christian traditions would strongly repudiate this.