Where have I heard this before?
Fair enough, Polycarp. Using ‘a’ was a poor choice of words on my part. My apologies if I gave offense.
In any event, the practical difference, in the context of this discussion is still unchanged. If a Jew, believes in any human being as divine (whether as a “stand-alone” God) or as an aspect of a tripersonal God, he is still committing idolatry under Jewish law.
Zev Steinhardt
Wow. Where did this thread come from? Is there some personal issue we’re not aware of, or is it just sheer bloody-mindedness?
Ok - let me draw you guys a picture. Judaism is, at its core, a tribal religion. Now, tribal religions work a special way: if you believe in the tribal religion, you’re a member of the tribe. If you don’t believe in the tribal religion, you’re also a member of the trobe, just not a very religious one. If you believe in the tribal religion, but like to tweak it around a bit, then you’re stil a member of the tribe - a troublemaker who deserves a talking-to, but a member. However, if you believe in the religion of another tribe, then you’re a traitor.
That’s why Jews can’t worship Christ - because that’s somebody elses religion. It’s cheating on your nation; playing for the opposite team; selling the game. You don’t follow jesus because that’s the Christians’ schtick, not ours.
Now, before someone says (again) “but the Orthodox don’t consider Reformim to br Jews!” Well, bullshit. Oh, I’m sure that some nutjob Rabbis (no lack of those, lemme tell you) actually believe that; but the vast majority sure dosn’t. When some dosim start shouting “You’re not Jews! You’re not Jews!”, as is their wont, occasionally, I just accept it for what it is - an insult. After all, when someone calls me a son-of-a-bitch, I don’t really believe that he thinks me part canine, do I?
Or if you want me to get technical… considering Christ to be the Messiah is Avodah Zara - “foreign worship”. Anathema with a capital A.
In other words, your definition of Judaism is the right one, and the definition of “nutjob” orthodox Rabbis is wrong, just because.
Your argument just seems like sophistry to me. You create a definition of Judaism, and then justify it by saying, well, if someone’s religion doesn’t meet my definition of Judaism, then it’s not the same religion. Ergo, it’s perfectly appropriate for me to say that they’re not Jews.
But, of course, the fundies can, and do, make the same argument. Christianity is based on the Christian scriptures. Mormonism adds on the Book of Mormon. Ergo, Mormonism is a different religion. The Book of Mormon is the Mormon schtick, not the Christian schtick.
What about the Lubavitchers? Are they Jews? (Or, to be precise, are they practicing Judaism?)
Zev, what do you think of Alessan’s definition? It seems to differ from your own.
And, last but not least, why is this such a big deal? In the fundies vs. Mormons debate, it’s a touchy issue because the fundies are implicitly saying that Mormons are leading people to hell. (In fact, my experience is that they’re implicitly accusing the Mormons of being in Satan’s army.) I don’t think anyone believes that Jews who convert to Christianity are all part of some deceptive plot to lead people to hell, so why all the scorn, and why all the zeal to prove them wrong whenever an ethnically Jewish Christian calls him or herself a “completed Jew”? I don’t hear Diogenes saying “If you knew anything about Jewish theology you’d realize that Jesus cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah” to Polycarp, but he said it recently to a self-described “completed Jew.” And yet, essentially every Christian believes Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, and in that light nothing could be more natural than for a convert from Judaism to Christianity to see himself as still practicing the same religion, under a new understanding.
I mean, at least people like His4Ever believe- mistakenly- that there is a high price for error here. And the Mormons are, understandably, grievously insulted by the implications of the statement that Mormons aren’t Christians. Why are people so snippy about the “who is Jewish” issue? Surely it can’t just be that people want to preserve a clear meaning of the word “Jew” in order to keep the English language a fine-tuned instrument of communication.
It appears that I have inadvertently made an ass of myself. And it also appears that I am not cut out for GD.
Messianic Judaism is, from what I have learned up to now, an underhanded effort aimed at converting Jews to Christianity. All I ask is that people be honest about your missionary efforts. Yes, I got emotional. I just don’t see how people can’t see how wacked this whole idea is. I shouldn’t be yelling at you guys because you don’t see this the way I do. It never occurred to me that I have ANY similar thought patterns to fundamentalists of any faith. You learn something every day.
Peace? (In particular, Polycarp, I hope I haven’t lost any respect you might have had for me. You’re one of my favorite Dopers.)
**
Is there anyone in this thread who is defending the use of deception in proselytizing? I’m just asking that you back your assertions with facts. How hard could that be?
It’s very unclear to me how or even if Jews for Jesus is engaging in dishonesty any more so than the Mormons are. Thus far, you’ve only made the same kinds of claims about Jews for Jesus that people like His4Ever make about Mormons, but at least His4Ever makes an effort to back her arguments with cites. And, like His4Ever, it’s such an emotional issue for you that you can’t handle discussing it. Why? What’s the big deal? If they’re so blatantly, infuriatingly dishonest, then it should be easy for you to dig up some proof. You could at least articulate what, exactly, is so dishonest about what they’re doing. Right now it looks like they’re “dishonest” in the same way Mormons are:
-
Jews for Jesus claim to be Jewish, but they’re not real Jews. Ergo, they’re lying.
-
Mormons claim to be Christian, but they’re not real Christians. Ergo, they’re lying.
**
You’re completely misrepresenting my position. If you had given me any proof that J4J was being dishonest, I’d be as infuriated as you are. But you haven’t even managed to explain clearly what, exactly, they’re doing that is so bad.
GD isn’t so hard. Just take a deep breath and do the following:
-
Give specific examples of J4J dishonesty.
-
Back it with cites.
And BTW, Poly and I aren’t the ones you should be apologizing to. You should be apologizing to the Christians on the SDMB who think of themselves as “completed Jews.” Because they are the one’s you’ve thrown unsubstantiated accusations at. It’s as if His4Ever apologized to Poly for losing her temper during an anti-Mormon rant, but didn’t apologize to Monty for ranting in the first place.
The phrase “completed Jew” is an insult to Jews.
Ben, I’ve usually got your back but you’re wrong on this one. Jews for Jesus et al are not just controversial strain of Judaism in the way that LDS is a controversial strain of Christianity. The simplest way I can explain it is that the worship of a human being as God is such a fundamental violation of Jewish theology that it can’t be called Judaism without rendering the word itself meaningless.
They do use deception in their evangelical tactics, but even if they didn’t they still could doctrinally Jewish when they are violating the most central precept of religious Judaism by worshipping a false God.
LDS does not violate the central tenets of Christianity in the way that Messianic Jews (some Jews prefer to call them "Hebrew Christians- a more aot description imo) violate the central tenets of Judaism.
I agree that Orthodox rabbis who denounce the reform movement as un-Jewish would be more analogous to fundies denouncing LDS, but in the case of JFJ’s, it doesn’t apply.
Maybe this would be a good analogy:
There is a Hindu sect in India called the Ramakrishna Order which worships Jesus as a god. However, they worship Hindu gods too and they don’t believe Jesus is a saviour.
Are they Christians? Would it be honest for them to call themselves Christians on college campuses as a way to lure kids into services?
I was trying to apologize for making an ass of myself. Apparently that was a wasted effort.
I am not equipped to argue about this on this board, which I did not KNOW until I tried. Read what Diogenes said. That is what I have utterly failed to say but what I was aiming at.
Read this. I went about this the wrong way. I didn’t mean to get sucked into this in the first place – I saw one sentence in one post in the original thread and wanted to correct it. I went about it ALL WRONG. I SCREWED UP. I’M SORRY.
Anybody on this board who calls themself “a completed Jew” should think hard about that – I’ve never known any Jews who consider themselves to be incomplete.
Ben: His4Ever doesn’t exist any longer as a username on this board. 'Twas changed to lynn73.
**
Do you consider Christianity to be an insult to Jews? Like I said, a person who calls himself a “Completed Jew” is just voicing an element of Christian theology which essentially all Christians believe in.
Let me put it this way:
I think Mormonism, Christianity, and Judaism are all false religions. You and I both know that Christianity is bunk, because Jesus cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. But why do you make an extra big deal of that when the Christian making that claim is ethnically Jewish?
It seems to me that “completed Jews” believe that they are worshipping the God of Judaism. They believe that their religion is Judaism. It’s just that God’s plan has moved to a new phase. The Jewish Messiah has now come. And that’s what all Christians believe. Now, you and I happen to know they’re wrong, but if you’re going to open that can of worms, then where does it end? If Polycarp voices his opinion that he’s worshipping the Jewish Messiah, sent by the God of the Jews, is that an insult to Judaism? Within the context of Christianity, “completed Jew” is a rather unremarkable fact. Judging the religion from outside the context of Christianity, sure, Christianity is a rather obvious load of hooey. But I don’t like the way some people respond to this part of Christian doctrine as though it were some sort of anti-semitic gaffe which is only held by some (stupid, nasty, conniving) Christians, when, in reality, it’s a fundamental part of Christian doctrine.
In any event, why should it be insulting? Incorrect, sure. Stupid, maybe. Insulting? Look, guys, people have different beliefs about religion. IIRC Muslims believe that Judaism is a corrupted form of Islam, but I don’t see people ranting about how insulting the Muslims are. People don’t even rant about the Christians, as long as they keep their mouths shut. For that matter, I don’t see atheists griping about how the awful and insulting it is that the Baha’i call themselves Muslims.
**
And I imagine that some Christians would argue the same thing about Mormonism- and I imagine they could do so even if they attacked real Mormon theology, instead of the usual strawmen.
**
You’ve proven your accusations against J4J by citing an anti-J4J site. How is that different from what His4Ever does?
Do they accept the validity of the Christian scriptures, and believe that their religion is the next phase of Christianity?
Again, I think the critics of J4J are using His4Ever logic. The secretive pseudo-religionists are using deception to lure people into services. But the “deception” in question is something which they actually believe to be true!
Mind you, this is separate from the deceptions listed in your anti-J4J cite. But one point I’d like to make is that one accusation that has been levelled at J4J is that they are “deceptive” by virtue of presenting themselves as Jews, when you don’t believe they are Jews. Similarly, fundies constantly accuse Mormons of being “deceptive” simply by virtue of the fact that Mormons claim to be Christians, and are using the trappings of Christianity to “lure” people into a non-Christian religion.
**
Do you admit that you might be mistaken?
Ah, now that I can understand. “Completed Jew” is an implicit knock against other Jews, a condescending way of saying, “Get with the program, people.” But what about “Christian Jew” or “Messianic Jew” or “Jew for Jesus”?
Zev and whiterabbit, no offense taken, and I hope none given. As has been my battle cry most of my time n this board, both in defense of my own faith and of those of others, “Disagree, if you will, with what I think – but don’t condemn ‘my views’ on the basis of what you think they are – and especially if I’ve told you otherwise explicitly.” If I’m hostile to lynn73 for any reason other than her refusal to grasp what it is that our gay colleagues here are saying to her, it would be her insistence that I’m “watering down the gospel” in what I have to say about Christian beliefs. I’m saying exactly what I think is right, no holds barred, and she’s so hung up on certain Biblical strictures as “God’s Law” that she cannot see the reality of God’s Law for what it is (IMHO, of course).
Ben was quite subtle in both titling this thread and in his quoting my post to zev with the comment, “Where have I seen this before?” or words to that effect – it’s precisely what “true Scotsmen” insist on doing. (And yes, on the rare occasions I eat porridge, I do like sugar on it! ;))
Now, so far as I’ve been able to establish, “Jews for Jesus” is in fact a group of Baptists, at least one of which is of Jewish decent and a convert from Judaism, who are teaching Baptist doctrine to Jews on the basis of Jesus as the “fulfillment” of Judaism.
This is not in and of itself evil. There was a Pharisee named Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin and a Roman citizen from Tarsus, who experienced something quite similar and proceeded to proclaim a quite similar message.
Quite distinct from “Jews for Jesus” are Messianic Jews who combine a contination of the cultural/religious practices of Judaism with the belief that Jesus is indeed the Messiah who was to come. They are, unquestionably, ethnic Jews; they are Christians by belief, by definition. And they consider themselves to have remained Jews – as did Paul, and indeed all of the Twelve.
They do not fit the Orthodox definition of a practicing Jew, as zev ably demonstated above. But, on the same token, I don’t fit lynn73’s definition of a “Bible-believing good Christian.”
And, of course, the conceptualization of the Father and the Son to which good LDS members adhere is not precisely the one that the overwhelming majority of the rest of Christianity adheres to, among several other, less important differences of doctrine (and covenants;)).
Mormons consider themselves Christians. And by Paul’s definition, they are.
Messianic Jews consider themselves to remain Jews.
While I will conceded that there are cases in which someone twists a category so far from the commonly accepted definition as to make it absurd to accept their definition as encompassing what they intend it to, I nonetheless proclaim my own standard:
Polycarp’s Princiuple: Whenever an individual or group identifies itself as being member(s) of a larger group, they are the ones who have the final say on whether they are or not.
There are two cavils to this: in so identifying themselves, they must not be reinterpreting the commonly held and historic significators of that group to an extreme beyond what may be reasonably accepted, and the principle presumes that there is no objective formal membership criterion to which reference can be made. If december, for example, alleges himself to be a Democrat, the questions of whether he subscribes to the principles espoused by the Democratic Party can fairly be raised, and only a careful and documented point-by-point demonstration that what he holds as a political credo can stand on all fours with the Democratic platform would justify accepting his claim. Also, since one registers one’s political party affiliation if one chooses to join a party in the U.S., it is only fair to adjudge his claim to be a Democrat on whether he can demonstrate that he has indeed registered as a member of that party. (I trust he will find it amusing rather than offensive if I also commented that one should also commence preparations for exchatological events if he should ever make that claim! ;))
Messianic Jews are Jews – by their own understanding of what it means to be Jewish. Mormons are Christian, by their understanding of what it means to be Christian – and by a fair application of the Pauline definition as well.
However I’ll just note that they don’t. That is most Baha’i don’t consider themselves Muslim.
Perhaps so, though from what little I know on the topic it seems quite a bit hazier. I have to agree with Diogenes that definitions have to have some meaning and at heart what originally separated Christian from Jew in a religious sense was the Christian acceptance of Jesus as the messiah, it’s veneration of him as divine, and the adoption of the New Testament ( and its various precepts ) as an additional set of revelations. From where I sit the difference seems quite a bit starker than that separating Mormon from other Christians.
If you’re going to consider Judaism a separate religion from Christianity, I don’t see how you can consider a Jew that follows Christian theology ( on at least one very substantial and critical point ) to be a Jew in a religious sense ( tribal identification, of course, being a side issue ). The only way that would seem to be workable is if you were to consider Christianity, Islam, et al as being mere sects of Judaism and not really separate religions at all. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, personally.
As for the hostility towards J4J, I suspect it stems from the same impulse that prompts some religious Jews to lament outmarriage - It’s seen as a dilution of a historically threatened culture and faith. I’m not sure I agree with that take, but I can certainly understand and empathize with it.
- Tamerlane
Just to add to Zev’s excellent points:
#1) Jews do not believe in a (note the capitalziation) Messiah (IE a divine/semi-divine being. Our concept of the messiah is a king and teacher. But 100% human.
#2) C’mon Ben. Tell me you’re playing Devil’s advocate. A “Jew” who believes in a/the Messiah is as ludicrous as a fundimentalist Biblical literalist Baptist calling themselves an Athiest.
Pretty much the definition of “Christian” is “One who accepts that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who died on the cross for humanity’s sins and rose after three days.” If I understand correctly, the people claiming that Mormons aren’t Christians are quibbiling over the definition who/what Jesus was (I think. I’ve never paid that much attention to Mormon bashers).
Mormon/Christian is quibbing over a minor doctrinal difference (if one even exists).
Jew/Christian is about the basic core tennants of both faiths.
I’ve got no problem with Jews who convert to Christianity but want to retain their cultural roots. “Messianic Jews” is a fine term to describe them. It doesn’t try to be coy. “Christian Jews” is as silly an oxymoron as “Deist Atheist”, “‘Jews’ For Jesus” is stoopid, offensive and designed to mislead and “Fulfilled Jews” or “Completed Jews” is fightin’ words, IMO.
Fenris
Ben: is there any point whatsoever at which you’d be willing to say that a belief system has diverged so completely from the beliefs that define Judaism that it simply cannot reasonably be considered a form of Judaism?
If someone said, “I consider myself a soft atheist. I believe with absolute certainly in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God who created the world over a period of 6 24-hour days approximately six thousand years ago, exactly as described in the Bible, which is His literal and inerrant Word. I believe that all men are sinners and fully deserve to be damned to eternal torture, but God in His mercy has provided His only Son Jesus Christ as a perfect sacrifice for the redemption of our sins, so that anyone with faith in Jesus as their personal Savior may have eternal life in paradise,” would you be willing to say, “No, I’m sorry, that’s just not what ‘soft atheism’ means”?
(…um, okay, freaky. For the record, I simulposted with Fenris, and our both simultaneously coming up with the example of a fundamentalist Christian calling themself an atheist is a complete coincidence.)
Shodan:
Adding a bit to zev’s response earlier:
Maimonides is an accepted authority because
a) the words he wrote are clearly based on, and traceable to, their sources in the Talmud and, from there, to the Bible, and
b) he was awarded the title of “Rabbi” by scholars of the preceding generation, who were awarded said title by their predecessors, etc., by dint of his ability to properly understand and derive from the Bible and Talmud.
Point “a” is key here. Maimonides, in the texts that Zev refers to, is not stating a new law. That text, knows as the “Mishneh Torah” or “Yad Chazakah”, is a compilation of Talmudic legal rulings, distilled from their sources (where the actual legal ruling can be obscured by much discussion) and organized in an easier-to-find structure. This is not true of the authors of the New Testament, and the other strike against their authority (from a Judaic perspective, of course) is Point “b”.
I’ve made this point once before, but it bears repeating, I think, in this thread. There are Messianic Jews who have no association with Jews For Jesus or any organization which specifically targets Jews for concentrated proselytizing efforts. I would go so far as to suggest that the majority of Messianics have no association with J4J, which is not the oldest or largest Messianic organization.
Is there a proselytizing aspect in Messianic Judaism? Yes, there is, as there is in all flavors of belief in the man known as Jesus. Is that proselytizing deceptive in nature? I’d suggest that that’s much more a matter of perspective than a question of fact.
OR…it’s a huge conspiracy! :eek: 