# Jews For Jesus - For Real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2000, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936 "2000-07-26T17:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/81 "2000-07-27T20:54:59Z")
**Zev** : > [@](#): > > Maybe. But that’s not the Christian claim. The NT claim is that Joseph did not impregnate Jesus. You can’t have it both ways and say he’s God’s son AND Joseph’s son. He’s either one or the other. I completely understand that, but that’s not what I’m asking. Your original statement was: > [@](#): > > Jews don’t believe Jesus is the messiah for the following reasons: > > . . . > > 1. Lineage. The messiah has to come from David. Paternally (all biblical geneaology is paternal). The fact that Joseph (who was not Jesus’ father) was from David (putting aside the contradictory accounts) doesn’t wash. It runs counter to Jewish law. Tribal lineage always follows the father’s tribe . . . So, any geneaological connection between Joesph and Jesus doesn’t count. . . The way you stated it, it sounds as if you’re saying, “Jews don’t believe Jesus was the messiah [partly] because Joseph was not Jesus’ father, God was.” Looking again, though, I see what you’re saying, which appears to be, “If Christians are going to claim Jesus was the son of Mary and God, then he has no paternal claim to Davidic lineage.” Which makes more sense. That leads to an interesting hypothetical, though–as a Jew (and I guess anyone can answer this, not just Zev), what would be your thoughts on someone who it turned was the literal progeny of Mary and God, but clearly did not fulfill the Judaic requirements of messiah-hood? ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/82 "2000-07-27T20:57:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > > > If you don’t believe Joseph was Jesus’ father, who do you believe _was_ Jesus’ father? If you don’t believe God himself was Jesus’ father, doesn’t it stand to reason that Joseph _was_? > > > > I believe the Talmud teaches Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. \*\* > > I’m not so sure of that either. You’d be surprised how little mention of Jesus there is in the Talmud. > > You’ll have to get me a source to look that up in the original Aramaic to see if it really says that. I’m willing to bet that’s wrong. > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* I believe he is referring to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a. This was a reactionary bit of work written a few centuries after Jesus’ death and in an attempt to combat Christian encroachment. The Talmud is important, but as the work of holy men interpreting Torah, it’s on quite another level. Granted, I’m both a gentile and an atheist… 🙂 You’ll find it quoted on all sorts of pleasant sites concerning the Jewish “plots” “blasphemies” etc… Got some quick hits on: [christianbiblestudy.org](http://christianbiblestudy.org) [home.arkansasusa.com](http://home.arkansasusa.com) [new-world-order.org](http://new-world-order.org) Says it all, really… ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/83 "2000-07-27T20:57:58Z")
ZEV, Phil’s point is that _you_ can’t have it both ways, either; Jesus was either the Son of God OR the son of Joseph – unless you theorize some unknown father, such as the anonymous Roman soldier. But if Jesus was the Son of God, presumably his patrilineage would be acceptable to even the most rigorous Jew, and he might well be be the Messiah; if He was the son of Joseph, then his patrilineage includes the House of David, and He _still_ might be the Messiah. So the only way that a Jewish person can complain about His lack of pedigree is by theorizing some anonymous third party as His father, as set forth above. There is, of course, no indication of that as, diety or not, the only human father Jesus is known to have had was Joseph, son of David. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/84 "2000-07-27T21:02:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > A couple more things: For the Jewish people who don’t get the Trinity, let me ask you this: do you believe you have a soul, independent of your functioning body? Do you believe you have a mind that might be part of that body but separatable for purposes of discussion? Same deal with the trinity. Except for the time when Jesus was incarnate, Christians do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate entities. They certainly do not believe they are practicing idolatry or worshipping more than one God by worshiping the Father through the auspices of His risen Son, any more than you are breaking yourself in parts by distinguishing between your body, mind, and soul. That may be the only thing every Christian would agree upon. > \*\* I understand the difference between my body and soul. So too is my body made up of skin, bones, organs, etc. However, God is not man. It is a basic tenet of Judaism that God is one. God is not composed of parts as you and I are. He is simply one. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Oh, and to the extent that Jews distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as a ethnicity (as Satan pointed out above), it is certainly possible to be _both_ Jewish and Christian. For converted ethnic Jews, they cannot be otherwise, because _in the eyes of Judaism_, once a Jew, always a Jew. Again, I’m confident of correction if I’m wrong. \*\* True, but not entirely, It is true that a Jew who comes back after joining another religion does not _need_ a formal conversion, nonetheless, a symbolic one is done. In addition, while the Jew who converts to another religion may technically be Jewish, with respect to many Jewish laws, this person is no longer considered Jewish. He cannot count for the quorom (did I spell that right?) of ten for prayer. He cannot be a kosher butcher or scribe, be buried in a Jewish cemetery, etc. So, for all practical purposes, this person is no longer Jewish. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/85 "2000-07-27T21:02:23Z")
Sorry, Phil; you’re all over it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/86 "2000-07-27T21:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > That leads to an interesting hypothetical, though–as a Jew (and I guess anyone can answer this, not just Zev), what would be your thoughts on someone who it turned was the literal progeny of Mary and God, but clearly did not fulfill the Judaic requirements of messiah-hood? \*\* Well, Judaism doesn’t believe that a literal Son of God is possible, so the question is meaningless. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/87 "2000-07-27T21:06:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyberneticist \* > \*\* > I believe he is referring to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a. This was a reactionary bit of work written a few centuries after Jesus’ death and in an attempt to combat Christian encroachment. > The Talmud is important, but as the work of holy men interpreting Torah, it’s on quite another level. Granted, I’m both a gentile and an atheist… 🙂 > You’ll find it quoted on all sorts of pleasant sites concerning the Jewish “plots” “blasphemies” etc… > Got some quick hits on: > [christianbiblestudy.org](http://christianbiblestudy.org) > [home.arkansasusa.com](http://home.arkansasusa.com) > [new-world-order.org](http://new-world-order.org) > > Says it all, really… \*\* I’ll check it out when I get home. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/88 "2000-07-27T21:09:37Z")
Welp, looking for more references on that talmud thing… [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/jury/chap5.html#talmud](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#talmud) BTW, I still don’t see how the post just above this one invalidates what Zev said. The Messiah isn’t God’s son, that’s blasphemy. The Christians would deny he’s Joseph’s son. Therefore, he does not have Davidic lineage. This, aside from the other signs of the Messiah that did not occur… And of course, one musn’t forget the contradictions between the two lineages. IF someone even tries invoking the, well, one was Mary’s, then I’ll have to point out that both have Joseph in the lineage. Was the relationship incestuous as well? other entertaining sites with silly claims like “the Talmud is their holiest book…” that quote that talmud thing. [thelordswork.com](http://thelordswork.com) biblebelievers.org.au [jesus-messiah.com](http://jesus-messiah.com) Anyway, that Talmud was written in 600 CE apparently… ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/89 "2000-07-27T21:12:22Z")
ZEV says: > [@](#): > > I understand the difference between my body and soul. So too is my body made up of skin, bones, organs, etc. However, God is not man. It is a basic tenet of Judaism that God is one. God is not composed of parts as you and I are. He is simply one. So God is not composed of parts but Man, made in His image, is? Could not God choose to assume the body of a man if He chose? If He did, would that mean he no longer had a spiritual component as well? It is a basic tenet of Christianity that God is one also. But we do not put limits on how that One may be composed, whether in whole or in parts that nevertheless create a whole, since in God all things are possible. In any event, I am not asking you to agree with me, but merely pointed out that “parts” may in fact make up a “whole” and the “whole” be considered One (not Three). If you grant the _theory_, as you do for men, then you understand the nature of Christian belief, whether you agree with it or not. > [@](#): > > In addition, while the Jew who converts to another religion may technically be Jewish, with respect to many Jewish laws, this person is no longer considered Jewish. He cannot count for the quorom (did I spell that right?) of ten for prayer. He cannot be a kosher butcher or scribe, be buried in a Jewish cemetery, etc. **So, for all practical purposes, this person is no longer Jewish.** My bolding. With all respect, I laughed out loud at this, for a reason you could not know (being fairly new), which is this: We have discussed the subjects of Jews for Jesus and the nature of Judaism on the Board before – several times – and I was taken to task –_by Jewish posters_ whom I presume knew the tenets of their own religion – for arguing this _exact same thing_, that is, that a person may not, practically speaking, be simultaneously Jewish and Christian. I was told in no uncertain terms how wrong I was. So you’ll get no argument over this from me; if you get any argument at all, I imagine it will be from your fellow Jews. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/90 "2000-07-27T21:13:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **Actually, the Talmud does name Jesus’ father. (I’ve forgotten what it was). It does not, to my recollection, say anything about rape, however.** Perhaps you are right. I found a link which covers all this, and it says the Talmud says Mary actually was a slut, unfaithful to her husband. [http://www.messianicart.com/dalman.htm](http://www.messianicart.com/dalman.htm) If the Jews so easily dismissed Jesus as the messiah, they seem to have worked quite hard to sully his (and his mothers) reputation. No, how about a ref on that world peace thing? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/91 "2000-07-27T21:14:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyberneticist \* > > Anyway, that Talmud was written in 600 CE apparently… \*\* [nitpicker] Actually it was compiled over a looong period of time. The Mishnah (which includes the Hillel and Shammai I mentioned above) was compiled from about 200 BCE to 100 CE. The Gemara covers from the end of the Mishaic period to about 450 CE. [/nitpicker] Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/92 "2000-07-27T21:16:39Z")
ZEV, you surely admit the existence of the concept of a hypotehtical. _YOUR_ argument – not mine, but yours, was that Christians deny the actual paternity of Joseph so cannot use his bloodline to trace to the House of David. This is an irrelevancy to most Christians, since they believe He was the Son of God Himself. But talking about Christian beliefs – which you were – you must admit that _hypothetically_ there were two possibilities for Jesus’s paternity – God (in which case His lineage is presumably okay for a potential Messiah), or Joseph (in which case His lineage is still okay for a potential Messiah). The question does not become “meaningless” simply because you do not yourself believe in one of the hypothetically possible answers. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/93 "2000-07-27T21:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Was the relationship incestuous as well? Some (LDS for sure) say Joseph and Mary were cousins. As I recall, though, this requires a little selective interpretation of Mary’s lineage. ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/94 "2000-07-27T21:21:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > > **Actually, the Talmud does name Jesus’ father. (I’ve forgotten what it was). It does not, to my recollection, say anything about rape, however.** > > Perhaps you are right. I found a link which covers all this, and it says the Talmud says Mary actually was a slut, unfaithful to her husband. > [http://www.messianicart.com/dalman.htm](http://www.messianicart.com/dalman.htm) > If the Jews so easily dismissed Jesus as the messiah, they seem to have worked quite hard to sully his (and his mothers) reputation. > > No, how about a ref on that world peace thing? \*\* Well, this was 600 years later, Christians were fairly active then. You can surely understand some rivalry. Especially about claims being made about God. I found a ref for that World Peace thing in one of my fav. sites for this sorta thing, [OutreachJudaism.org](http://OutreachJudaism.org) - sort of a counter to Jews for Jesus. [http://www.outreachjudaism.org/messiah.html](http://www.outreachjudaism.org/messiah.html) BTW, you guys should read some of the questions answered. A lot of the stuff in this thread is repetitious. [http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html](http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html) ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/95 "2000-07-27T21:23:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > **you must admit that _hypothetically_ there were two possibilities for Jesus’s paternity – God (in which case His lineage is presumably okay for a potential Messiah), or Joseph (in which case His lineage is still okay for a potential Messiah).** Jodi – hence the teachings of the Talmud. Although, perhaps there is more than one Talmud and the one that says Jesus was a complete bastard is now passe. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/96 "2000-07-27T21:29:14Z")
jmullaney: > [@](#): > > I believe the Talmud teaches Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. and IzzyR: > [@](#): > > Actually, the Talmud does name Jesus’ father. What the two of you (I think) are referring to is a one-shot reference to a heretical Rabbinical student called “Yeshu ben Pantira” (I don’t off-hand have the exact place he’s mentioned.) Although many people have assumed this to be JC (because we Jews sometimes refer to him as “Yeshu”), I think (if I recall correctly) that the Rabbi he is said to have been a student of lived about 150 years before the time of JC. I’ll try to come up with something more concrete. Kimstu: > [@](#): > > That doesn’t use the word “Christ” or “Christianity” but I can’t believe any Jew wouldn’t recognize it as such! But many Jews who are ignorant of the details of their ancestral religion (which is exactly who J4J are targeting) would not recognize Christianity, thus described, as being fundamentally incompatible with Judaic beliefs. Jodi: > [@](#): > > Oh, and to the extent that Jews distinguish between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as a ethnicity (as Satan pointed out above), it is certainly possible to be both Jewish and Christian. For converted ethnic Jews, they cannot be otherwise, because in the eyes of Judaism, once a Jew, always a Jew. Orthodox Jews do not distinguish between Judaism as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion, but our definition of a “religion” is slightly different from that of non-Jews. Most people describe their religion as what they _do_ observe and believe. Judaism defines religion as what one is _obligated_ to observe and believe, and believe that all Jews by ethnicity have that obligation and are therefore also Jews by religion. The “Christian Jews” are _practicing_ Christianity - but are (in the eyes of Orthodox Judaism) _obligated to practice_ Judaism. Hence, once a Jew, always a Jew. pldennison: > [@](#): > > That leads to an interesting hypothetical, though–as a Jew (and I guess anyone can answer this, not just Zev), what would be your thoughts on someone who it turned was the literal progeny of Mary and God, but clearly did not fulfill the Judaic requirements of messiah-hood? Depends what he wants that status to allow him to do. It wouldn’t enable him to be king/messiah; it wouldn’t enable him to serve in the Temple (when it stood) as a priest. Perhaps, if he performed miracles and stated prophecies, they would be believed…as long as said miracles and prophecies conform to the constraints listed in Deuteronomy 13…which apply to ordinary human prophets as well. In other words, I can’t think of how he’d be treated, religiously, any different from an ordinary person. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/97 "2000-07-27T21:33:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*ZEV, you surely admit the existence of the concept of a hypotehtical. _YOUR_ argument – not mine, but yours, was that Christians deny the actual paternity of Joseph so cannot use his bloodline to trace to the House of David. This is an irrelevancy to most Christians, since they believe He was the Son of God Himself. But talking about Christian beliefs – which you were – you must admit that _hypothetically_ there were two possibilities for Jesus’s paternity – God (in which case His lineage is presumably okay for a potential Messiah), or Joseph (in which case His lineage is still okay for a potential Messiah). The question does not become “meaningless” simply because you do not yourself believe in one of the hypothetically possible answers. \*\* That may be. However… Scripture makes reference to the messiah being descended from David. It makes no reference to him being the Son of God. The requirements aren’t Davidic descent or Godly descent. It’s Davidic descent. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/98 "2000-07-27T21:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyberneticist \* > **I found a ref for that World Peace thing in one of my fav. sites for this sorta thing, [OutreachJudaism.org](http://OutreachJudaism.org) - sort of a counter to Jews for Jesus.** Well, I read Ezekiel 37 and am not convinced. These people’s bones are dead because they have lost hope. Since when is losing hope a terminal disease? So, I would have to say that the rising of the dead is symbolic here. Of course Jesus has returned hope. Much of the rest of this supports Jesus as the Messiah. I know y’all have some hangups about Isreal being a physical place rather than God’s kingdom being something greater that beach front property (wouldn’t that country be a little small, esp. since half of it will be Palestine soon?) but xtians take this talk of restoring Isreal symbolically also. Now, I guess Ezekiel 37:26 is what Zev has been angling at: > [@](#): > > [Lord God speaking]I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. Is that it? Surely, God has not gone to war against the xtians. (Although, come to think of it it has been raining here all week – better start building that boat). I don’t know how you get from this scripture to whirled peas, let alone world peace. Of course, if you can reference a Jewish translation which makes it clear that this one is wrong, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/99 "2000-07-27T22:05:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Scripture makes reference to the messiah being descended from David. It makes no reference to him being the Son of God. The requirements aren’t Davidic descent or Godly descent. It’s Davidic descent. Respectfully, I find this very amusing. You surely must be aware that some ultra-observant and/or Ultra-Orthodox Jews develop a reputation for exhalting the Law over everything, regardless of whether the indicated conclusion is a reasonable one or not. I find the idea that an actual, provable, bona fide, yep-He’s-the-One, Son of God would not be acceptable as a Messiah because He is not of the House of David to be a great example of this. Please don’t think I am insulting your beliefs, because I’m not; it just strikes me as, well, as incongruous. CHAIM says: > [@](#): > > Orthodox Jews do not distinguish between Judaism as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion . . .Judaism defines religion as what one is obligated to observe and believe, and believe that all Jews by ethnicity have that obligation and are therefore also Jews by religion. . . . Hence, once a Jew, always a Jew. Hey, you’ll get no argument from me; this is what _I_ said, and Zev corrected me, so you might want to take it up with him. You say, as did I “Once A Jew, Always A Jew.” Zev said, in effect “Practically speaking, this is not correct.” Since that was originally my belief as well (and, in my heart of hearts, since I am not a Jew remains my belief, albeit an irrelenant one since I am not Jewish and therefore not qualified to say who is or is not a Jew), I am truly interested in how the two of you will reconcile your positions. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936/100 "2000-07-27T22:09:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Scripture makes reference to the messiah being descended from David. It makes no reference to him being the Son of God. The requirements aren’t Davidic descent or Godly descent. It’s Davidic descent. > > Respectfully, I find this very amusing. You surely must be aware that some ultra-observant and/or Ultra-Orthodox Jews develop a reputation for exhalting the Law over everything, regardless of whether the indicated conclusion is a reasonable one or not. I find the idea that an actual, provable, bona fide, yep-He’s-the-One, Son of God would not be acceptable as a Messiah because He is not of the House of David to be a great example of this. Please don’t think I am insulting your beliefs, because I’m not; it just strikes me as, well, as incongruous. > > \*\* Hey, that’s fine and well. One question, however… So, if God was going to send his Son, why did He tell us He’d be sending a Davidic descendant? Zev Steinhardt [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jews-for-jesus-for-real/26936.md?page=6)