ya gotta be careful in those places–they spread herpes…
Nope. You don’t get to decide what the real question is or that anybody ele’s take on the question is invalid. There isn’t a real official and standard definition for Jewish any more than there is for Christian. The answer might be more corerectly stated that they are Jewsh by heritage and Christian by doctrinal beliefs. Even that may not be enough for some members. Is there a legitimate historical and religious connection between Judism and Christianity? I would say yes. Is it reasonable for a Jewish person who has spent years hearing about the prophsied Messiah, to come to believe that Jesus was and is that Messiah. Unusual certainly, but given the historical connection, not unreasonable. Is it also reasonable for that Jewish person to see accepting Jesus as a fulfillment of Jewish law rather than a rejection of it. Again, I think that is reasonable.
To user your own analogy, If a person was born a raised in China and had deep roots there, then came to America and became a citizen do you think they might still consider themselves Chinese? China might not grant them any rights associated with citizenship, but it’s reasonable for that person to still consider themselves Chinese or at least a Chinese American. They might even have dual citizenship.
J4J may not be welcome to worship Jesus at their local synagogue but that doesn’t effect their legitimate claim to the tag.
Except in religion there often isn’t one accepted standard. Look at all the people who call themselves Christians who would disagree with each other on who actually is one. We’ve already established that those born of Jewish heritage, even if they don’t observe Jewish law are still considered Jewish by many other Jews. All I’m saying is that because of the historical and religious connection between Judaism and Christianity I think there could be a legitimate reason for them to consider themselves Jews even if others don’t agree.
I happen to agree with your objection to “if not more so” I just think there’s a legitimate and reasonable reason for a Jewish person who believes Jesus is the OT Messiah to still consiider themselves a Jew. I think thats what Harry was pointing out with the NT Paul quotes. It’s not an arbitrary reason or just pulled out of thin air. What other people object to doesn’t change that. Should Mormons stop calling themselves Christians because the Baptists don’t like it?
It’s not claiming that someone knows better than other Jews. It’s saying we believe differently about Judaism than other Jews and claim our right to do so.
Since there seems to be different Jewish factions with different practices they have every right to consdier themselves one more.
I’m only talking about sincere believers.
People who believe that Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism are called Christians. They are not practicing Judaism, no matter what they say. Those doctrines actually do have defined parameters and the worship of jesus as God is outside the parameters of Jewish doctrine, To say that they can define Judaism however they want is to say that no religious doctrine has any definition or meaning and there isn’t any point in using the words.
I don’t believe the comparison with LDS is really on point because LDS does adhere to the central tenet of Christianity which is the worship of Jesus as God.
As has been pointed out, Christianity was formed in a Jewish milieu. What’s more, its founder and his disciples and its early followers were all Jewish. Christianity’s teachings were born in a Jewish context and were seen as an extension of the Old Testament.
I believe we all agree on these points.
The Jews and later Gentiles who came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah (or ‘Christ’) eventually took on the identity of ‘Christians’. Nevertheless, they still took the Old Testament as a sacred text (even if they did consider it superceded by the New Testament). So were they still Jews?
I kind of think not. They had a new identity as christians. Being a christian meant (and means) that you believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Today many people will see more to it than that, but it seems to me that this is the core. A Jew who accepts the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is a christian in this sense.
In the years since the birth of christianity Judaism has been pretty clear that Jesus was not the Messiah (the claim that he was may have been a factor in his execution).
What I’m trying to get at is that the phrase “We have a word for Jews who believe Jesus was the Messiah: we call them Christians” makes sense and isn’t just being snarky. Far be it from me to dictate what a person calls themselves, but in my opinion Jews for Jesus are christian. They may consider themselves Jews, but they are certainly also christians. I also think that mainstream Jews have a right to not consider them Jews (theologically) since they clearly fall outside the boundaries already established.
Honestly, I see your point and think it is perfectly valid. I’m not saying they get to define Judaism for anyone else but themselves. Obviously definitions do vary from person to person and group to group. You have some that work for you and don’t agree with this one. Fine. I maintain that because of the historical and religious connection between Judaism and Christ they have a legitimate reason to claim “I’m a Jew that believes the Messiah has come. Believing that the Messiah has come doesn’t make me less a Jew or not a Jew anymore. It simply means other Jews don’t agree with me” They have a right to that claim and those who disagree are free to do so. My own slant would be that they are Christians with a Jewish heritage.
Mormons worship Jesus as God but still many other Christian groups do not consider them Christian. So I guess that means you feel other Christians have no right to claim Mormons aren’t Christian, or that those Christians are rendering definitions meaningless because of their attitude toward Mormons?
Man!! I love my new SDMB spell checker
I agree. You and other have a good reason to not consider them Jews. I wouldn’t consider them Jews either but if a sincere meber of that organization told me he still considered himself a Jew I wouldn’t argue the point because I see a legitimate connection. Thats all I’m saying.
I’d be more interested in challenging a church going peson who claimed to be Christian but lived far from anything Christ taught.
Do they ever CLAIM to practice Judaism? As far as I can tell, they do not.
Or rather, that they do not practice Judaism as other Jews would define it.
The claim is implied in the assertion of a Jewish identity, it seems to me.
Believing the Messiah has come does not make you not Jewish. Rabbi Menachem Schneerson was believed by his followers in Chabad to be the Messiah, and some think he still is, despite his being dead.
No, the problem is when you believe that the Messiah is the Son of God and that your sins can be forgiven if you believe in his death and resurrection. To say you believe that and are still practicing Judaism makes as much sense as to say you are a libertarian but think the government should set wage limits.
Exactly right.
And I think that’s reading far too much into their assertion. After all, there are Jews who profess to be atheists. Are they being dishonest as well?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but despite some claims by Christians that Jesus was the Mosiach (or however the hell you spell it :)) predicted in the Hebrew Bible, my understanding is that the circumstances of his arrival and perforation didn’t really match the predictions of the ancient prophets and thus a pretty good case can be made that Christians are not Jews, as their Messiah simply doesn’t meet the standards expected from a Mosiach. I don’t know the specifics of it, but that’s the impression I have.
With no exception that I can recall, Jews who identify themselves as atheists are using the ethnic/cultural identification of Jew, not the religious one. Their ancestors were Jewish, they would have been targets of Hitler’s goons, they are going to be harrassed by various “Aryan” groups, today. From that perspective, they are Jewish. An atheist who was sent to Treblinka was no less harmed for no longer believing in God.
Jews For Jesus do claim to be religious Jews, which is rather a different claim. Part of the issue, of course, is tied in with the earlier observation regarding the “tribal” nature of Judaism. It gets confusing because the whole discussion gets caught on different perspectives of religion and ethnicity that do not confuse most other discussions about religion. (Rabbi Donin rejected both “race” and “religion” when discussing “Jews,” settling on “the Jews are a people,” which conveys better the concept of who and what “the Jews” are, but does little to clarify the disagreements in this thread.)
This is definitely correct from a Jewish perspective. The “Annointed” as defined both in the Hebrew Bible (OT) and in Jewish expectation is quite a bit different from how he is defined in Christianity and in the New Testament. The Messiah, as defined in Judaism (and in the OT) is the heir to the throne of David. He will be a human king and a direct patrilinear descendant of David (the mother doesn’t count. Adoption doesn’t count) who will restore the kingdom of Israel, rebuild the Temple, return all Jews to Israel, cause the world to worship one God and bring world peace. The Jewish Messiah is not God and is not the “son of God” in any literal sense (although the phrase “son of God” is used in the OT to designate kings). The Jewish Messiah is not supposed to die or be resurrected and is not a redeemer of sins.
Many of the claimed fulfilments of prophesy in the NT refer to passages that have no Messianic meaning in their OT context (the “Emmanuel” passage, the “Suffering servant”). The Christian comeback to this is basically two-fold. One, that the NT is Divinely inspired and is the word of God, therefore whatever it says about those OT passages is true because “God says so,” and two, that those OT passages represent something called “dual prophecy.” They have one prima facie meaning in their OT contex and another, more cryptic, allusory Christian meaning which is elucidated in the NT.
Needless to say, these are highly interpretive and faith-based approaches to resolving apparent conflict between Christian belief and Hebrew scripture. Dual prophecy (like divine authorship of the NT) is either believed or not believed. It’s not something which can be methodologically proven or disproven.
Very interesting. Any suggestions of where to find more on this subject? Specific scriptures?
So why are we still arguing as though it’s conceivably the case that the Jews for Jesus are actual Jews? There’s no such thing as a “messianic Jew”, because the proffered Messiah simply doesn’t meet the requirements.
Further, the ethnic arguments are bunk anyway, since as has been pointed out, many of the Jews for Jesus are not actually ethnically Jewish - they’re just Southern Baptist missionaries who have a (quite possibly uncut) hard-on for converting the Tribe.
From a Jewish list of messianic prophecies as identified on the indicated web site from the electronic Jewish Encyclopedia:
Jewish Encyclopedia (ca 1906) - Messiah (Web site is quirky. Sometimes it works, other times it fails.)
Future ideal king:
Isaiah 9: 1 - 6
Isaiah 11: 1 - 10
Isaiah 32: 1 - 5
(The Immanuel passage of Isaiah 7: 14, alluded to by Matthew (1: 23) is not considered Messianic in Judaism.)
Further:
Micah 5: 1, 3 - 8
Jeremiah 23: 5 - 6 and 32: 15 - 16
Jeremiah 30: 9
Hosea 3: 5
Ezekiel 17: 23
Ezekiel 34: 23 ff
Ezekiel 37: 24 ff
Haggai 2: 23
Zechariah 3: 8
Zechariah 6: 12
Zechariah 9: 9 - 10
(In Deutero-Isaiah, the Jewish people, not an individual messiah, will be the source of the salvation of humanity. So, Isaiah 42: 1 - 6, 49: 1 - 6, 50: 4 - 9, 52: 13-53: 12 are not messianic in the sense of a person of the messiah. Although they do refer to the “servant of God” who will convert the nations to the service of God, the “servant of God” in Jewish theology is the Jewish people, and these passages not considered messianic.)
I have seen suggestions that Judaism stopped viewing other messianic prophecies after the rise of Christianity. I doubt that that is true. I think it more likely that Paul and Matthew were moved to see “messianic” forecasting in a great number of passages because they found the parallels in the life of Jesus and that the Jews prior to the life of Jesus had not actually viewed many of those passages in the same light.
Catholic interpretations of messianic prophecies as identified on the indicated web site: (I think this list is over broad, in that it views some verses as messianic prophecies when the collator really meant that Christians view them as prophecies of Jesus, not necessarily of the messiah.)
Cite for evidence that the bulk of Jews for Jesus leadership are ethnic Gentile pretenders - heck, the man claiming them to be “lying liars” couldn’t get the founder’s name correct.
On the other hand, the claim that Christians are authentic “spiritual Jews” while non-C’tian physical Jews aren’t is unnecessarily provocative. Maybe Paul needed to make that point in the first century, but I don’t think it’s something we C’tians twenty centuries later need pursue. I have no problem tho suggesting that we share with Jews a call from God to be “spiritual Israelites”.