I agree with lissener in all particulars. He’s not making a value judgment, as some of you seem to imply, he’s just stating the obvious of what it means to currently be a Jew.
Protestants could be defined that way, and doing so would not be approachingthe issue from the wrong direction, it would just be looking at it from a different perspective.
So, what you’re saying is that if a “Messiah” comes, fulfilling all the actual Biblical prophesies, anyone who accepts him will then become not-Jewish, and only those who reject him will remain Jews. Why? What if the followers of this Messiah (let’s call him Bill) don’t call themselves Billists, but continue to call themselves Jews? They don’t change their dietary laws, the way they worship, or any of their other beliefs.
Thanks for injecting sarcasm into a discussion that was, I guess, sadly lacking it before.
I’m not making a value judgment; I’m examining an apparent contradiction.
No matter how many messiahs come and go, accepted by no matter how many people, there will always be some Jews who refuse to accept him/her as a messiah.
Those Jews will, quite properly IMO, continue to be called Jews.
Therefore, that inevitably permanent sect, or whatever you want to call it, the “eternal Jew,” is defined by that contradiction: the refusal to believe in a messiah; an eternal not-yet-ness. That eternal not-yet-ness–a kind of poetic martyrdom–“messiahs are for everyone but us”–is what I’m pondering as an essential aspect of the Jewish character, such as there can be any such thing as a Jewish character.
In the early days of Christianity, there were some that believed that circumcision was required to be “Christians” … the Apostle Paul argued it wasn’t necessary. However, those “Christians” who disagreed with Paul are still “Christians” if anyone wants to call them that.
There were also some “Christians” that believed that Jesus was not flesh but of some type of spiritual entity that could not feel pain.
(Keep in mind all this debate about “Christianity” among the “Christians” was happening before the Bible / New Testament even existed.)
Most Christians define the essence of their religion on belief in sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That’s the core idea. That’s basically the religion, and all else is commentary. The belief does not hinge on other side issues such as circumcision, Jesus’ flesh, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc, etc. Imagine if someone picked one of those “side issues” and said that definition of Christian’s will always be tied to it instead of the core idea itself.
In other words, you’ve drawn a line in the sand on the definition of a “Jew” that’s arbitrary and meaningless. The arrival or non-arrival of a messiah is not the core essence of Jewish faith.
But if they do battle with general Judaism, they’ll be God’s Opposin’ People!
Yeah, I’m not proud of that one.
I don’t mean to suggest that it’s the singled defining characteristic. But—and most of my experience with the idea of Jewishness is from reading Jewish authors; most of my Jewish friends are relatively non-observant—that aspect of eternal not-yet-ness strikes me as part of that (admittedly literary, as opposed to real life) Jewishness. Maybe this should be in Cafe Society, since I guess I’m talking more about the Literary Jew than the Actual Jew.
Lissener, it looks like we’re heading for another one of those “debates” where you keep saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t understand what’s being discussed. But we are able to grasp the concept you’re presenting; and having considered it, we’re not agreeing with it. So is there a point to be had here?
But you did:
Essence = “the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features”. First entry in dictionary.com.
And it looks like you’re going to pull an ad hominem out of your ass in order to derail a discussion that’s proceeding along in good faith. First of all, I challenge you for a cite for your ridiculous, unfounded self-perpetuating meme: I have never said that anyone who disagrees with me therefore simply doesn’t understand me. Obviously, if you don’t understand me, you’re not likely to agree with me, but I’ve never put that cart before that horse and suggested the opposite, as you accuse me of. Cite me or withdraw it.
Second, if I continue to try to make you see my point, why is that a crime for lissener, but standard discussion for the rest of the planet? Just because I state my opinion, does not mean that I am insisting that you must agree with that opinion. It never occurred to me that this discussion would receive universal agreement. But how is actively, generously it seems to me, and in good faith continuing to discuss this subject, in an attempt to make sure that I’m expressing myself clearly–especially because some of the responses have made it clear that I have not made myself completely clear–how does that deserve the kind of ad hominem bullshit you’re lobbing? If you are offended by what I’m trying to communicate, or whatever, then find another thread. Thanks.
Then it’s a good thing I came back to clarify.
That “first” in a dictionary = “most correct” is not correct.
Clarify? Looks to me like you changed the subject. So, what now is the subject?
Never said it was. My impression is that is the most commonly used definition. At any rate, you’ve changed your thesis, and I don’t know what it is any more. I doubt anyone else does, either.
“Acceptance” doesn’t even really have any application to the Jewish conception of the Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is not an object of worship, not God or the “son” of God, not somebody who has to be “accepted” or rejected. The Jewish Messiah is a human King. Saying that there will be Jews who don’t “accept” him is like saying there are people who will refuse to believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States after January 20. If someone becomes King of Israel and rebuilds the Temple and brings world peace, then that’s the Messiah, and “acceptance” has nothing to do with it. The Jewish conception of Messiahship is based on accomplishment, not personal identity – that is, the accomplishments are not identifiers, they are definers.
To use an analogy I’ve used before – it’s like there’s a prophecy that somebody will cure cancer. If somebody cures cancer, then he was the guy that cured cancer. If he doesn’t cure cancer, then he wasn’t the guy who will cure cancer. “Acceptance” doesn’t enter into it.
I should’ve said “an essential aspect,” or . . . what I in fact said later in the thread. If you insist on stopping at the OP, and refusing to accept anything further in the thread, then well I’m not gonna call that good faith discussion and probably ignore you. Why would you assume it’s more likely that my clarifications are dishonest, rather than that I wrote the OP in haste and didn’t take a lawyer’s care in the language? If this were a real-life conversation, you’d take my clarifications at face value, rather than insist that further clarifications are not allowed. If you have never in your life said during the course of a conversation, “wait, that’s not really what I meant,” or “let me try to make that clearer,” then you’re just too smart for me to discuss anything with.
Your impression would be incorrect.
Oh, please. I never said any of those things. I just said I can no longer figure out what you are trying to debate. Can you rephrase the thesis?
Thanks, that’s very helpful.
It’s an easy cite. As I wrote, this thread is an example of it. Which is my point. You don’t seem to bother reading or considering what anyone else says in these threads. As far as I can tell, you just scan through other people’s posts to see if they agree with you. And if not, you respond by repeating your original point. You never address the issues that other people raise, not even to refute them.
Ah. Your post is your cite. Awesome. Since you’re wrong–and *my *post is *my *cite–I win. I have never, ever said that someone’s disagreement with me was simply because they failed to understand the issue. Cite a specific contradiction, or shut the fuck up. Thanks.
Just which books have you been reading? Honestly I’ve not seen too many literary Jews even with Messiah-denial complexes. Messiah just is not that big of a deal concept to most Jews and never really was.
Although your position does remind me of the old joke: One of the best jobs to have in the shtletl was to be the guy on the look out for the coming of the Messiah. Why? Job security.
In a nutshell, your friend’s understanding of Judaism is oddly flawed if he’s the son of a rabbi. The messiah, while an old Jewish concept, has nothing that states we Jews must reject someone who fulfills the prophecies.
Jews who ‘accepted’ the Messiah would still be Jews. Jews who did not would simply be wrong. Your claim that only those Jews who didn’t accept the Messiah would be Jews is, well, inventeted. It bears not even a passing resemblance to Jewish theology or culture. And it does indeed seem to be informed by the Jews’ rejection of Yoshua Ben Yoseph. Which is pretty much saying that Jews won’t accept someone as their prophesied Messiah if he fulfills virtually none of the important qualifications, at all.
Saying that disbelief in any historical claimants to the title, in any way shape or form, defines Judaism is simply and powerfully wrong. And as pointed out, it betrays a viewpoint that is uniquely culturally Christian. From a Jewish point of view, there has never been a messiah here who we could reject. If you want to argue that Jews don’t accept claimants to the title who don’t meet the requirements then, yeah, fair game.
And as Dio points out, it wouldn’t exactly be up for debate. Become King of Israel, re-establish the Temple, usher in world peace and such? You’re the Moshiach. Jews could be free to say “Yeah, he’s the Messiah all right” or even “Naw, I think it’s just luck”, or even “Yes, he fulfilled the prophecies but I believe that he was simply in the right place at the right time and the Messianic Age is more of a metaphor than an actual Godly event.” and they’d all be Jews, still.
If you contend otherwise, cite the Talmud or the Tanakh to back up your claim. “Literary Jews” simply won’t cut it.