Another point has occurred to me:
What about Martin Luther? Was he Christian?
Not exactly. What Maimonides (and Zev) are saying is that you can’t believe that the Messiah has yet fulfulled the prophesies. You can believe that X will be the Messiah and will fulfill prophesies and still be a practicing Jew. You can’t redefine the purpose of the Messiah or deify him without breaking with core Judaic doctrine.
IMO…no.
It strikes me Ben, in his zeal to repudiate a past, is confusing defining and being analytical, with being judgemental and prejudiced.
It strikes me that just as modern Muslims in Lebanon define Druze as not Muslim, without an implication they should be killed or otherwise subjugated for that fact, it is equally possible to conclude, say Mormons are a post-Xian religion, to use an example.
Mere self-identification is an empty standard if words are to have clear meanings. (Of course the standard should also be a reasonable one generally accepted by the community(ies) in question or based off of such a standard, e.g. most Xians believe in X,Y,Z beliefs, and believe D,E,G is required to be Xian, else one is …)
The problem arises in the extra step, one that Ben is conflating with the mere definitional issue, of then concluding that because Group Z does not meet such standards they’re doomed to hell, blah blah blah.
As such, for example, taking the Jewish case (although I do believe it has been adequately explained) I see no issue involved in Jews saying, well he’s no longer a Jew because of X.
(Oh yes, Ben, in re the Lubavitch, it is my understanding that they go right up to the edge but have never come out and said the Schneerson -if I recall the name- is in fact the Messiah.)
Ben, you seemed to have overlooked a question that’s been asked of you by several people.
Can a bible-literalist, fundimentalist Baptist, God-fearing be an athiest? What if he or she wants to call his/herself an athiest? Who are you to say they can’t?
And one other question: why do you care how Jews define themselves?
Fenris
Ben,
There is no problem with believing that someone who is currently alive may be a potential messiah. Maimonides sets down rules regarding this. He states that if a person begins performing the messianic tasks, he is a presumtive messiah. If he completes them, then he is definitely the messiah.
As for the Lubavitchers, they fall into several camps. There were those who never beleived the Rebbe was the messiah. There were those who believed that the Rebbe could have been the messiah before he died. And lastly, there are those who still believe to this day that he is the messiah. People in the first two groups have no problems whatsoever. People in the last group, however, are (IMHO) seriously out of bounds theologically regarding Judaism.
Zev Steinhardt
This appears to be the common sentiment here. Tell me if I got this right. You can’t call yourself a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Christianity is incompatible with Judaism from the Jewish point of view. Well then what about some of the self described Jews in this community who have declared their atheism and thus their disbelief in any coming messiah at all ? Can an atheist be a Jew?
Asked and answered I believe, asked and answered.
One can gather from reading, attentively, this very thread, if one may be so bold, that the theological position for the Jews is on a dual tribal-belief level.
So long as you don’t “join another team” - Xianity being another team, like Islam, then you can be lax, and even unbelieving. Not a good Jew maybe, but still a member of the tribe.
Why this seems so disturbing to some people escapes me.
The answer to your question is a yes and no.
A person who is otherwise a Jew (i.e. born of a Jewish mother, etc.) and who professes to be an athiest is still a Jew, according to halacha. So, for example, if I met Abe Athiest, who was born Jewish, I could not provide him with a ham sandwich to eat, on the grounds that he is halachically Jewish. However, if I met Sister Camille, I could give her a ham sandwich with no problems whatsoever.
IOW, a Jew can declare himself an atheist. But WRT Jewish law, he is still a Jew.
Zev Steinhardt
What if Sister Camille’s (I assume we are talking about a nun here) mother was Jewish, zev?
Then obviously not.
I simply took the name from Sister Camille D’Arenzio, who was an instructor of mine in college. Definitely not Jewish.
Zev Steinhardt
OK, then- so Zev & other Jewish experts- what is required of the Messiah? If is was “peace in the Middle East in our time”, then, I have to admit He failed there.
And, then- those of the Apostles who beleived Jesus was the Messiah before and right after His death- they were following accepted Jewish pratice? It is just that now that some 2 thousand years have passed and Jesus has clearly not done wahat is required to be the Messiah, then any Jew to believe so is wrong? ( I don’t know if it has to be anywhere near to 2000 years- Zev seems to indicate that some small time after death is accepted as a waiting period for the “requirements” to occur).
**
From Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Laws of Kings chap 11. (available here for anyone who reads Hebrew). Translation mine.
From 11:1
“The king messiah will arise and restore the Davidic kingship of old. He will rebuild the Temple, gather in the exiles of Israel, restore the Laws of the Torah, bring sacrifices, and establish the Sabbatical and Jubilee years…”
From 11:3
“Do not entertain the notion that the messiah must perform signs and miracles or create new things or raise the dead or do anything along those lines. This is not the case, since Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest sages of the Mishna thought that Bar Koziva was the messiah … until he (Bar Koziva) was killed. And once he was killed, they realized that he wasn’t the messiah. But (while he was still alive) the Sages did not ask him for any (miraclulous) sign or wonder.”
From 11:4
“If a king arises from David, who follows the laws of the Torah as David his father did, according to the written law and the Oral tradition, and he gets all of Israel to follow it as well and fights battles for God, he is considered a presumtive messiah. If he does all this and is successful, and rebuilds the Temple in it’s place, and gathers in the exiles, then he is a definite messiah, and will cause all the world to worship God…”
No. The messiah must fulfill the requirements during his lifetime.
Zev Steinhardt
Only in the sense that someone like me, who was baptized and confirmed a Catholic, is always considered to be a Catholic by the Church, yet no longer practices her faith. (Like me again). However, I’m basically a lapsed Catholic, or a heretic.
Would that be right?
Actually, I’m doing the opposite. Rather frustratingly, no one here seems to understand my basic point.
I’m trying to deconflate analysis and prejudice. My entire point is that somehow the conventional wisdom at the SDMB- even among people who are neither Jewish, Christian, nor Mormon- is that Christians are not Jews, and Mormons are Christians, and anyone who says otherwise is shamefully ignorant, and in all likelihood a bad person as well. But in reality, it’s all just a matter of nomenclature. The question of whether Mormons are Christians has no more meaning than the current debate over whether Pluto is a planet- except in the light of the reasons why the question is being asked. And, very importantly, those reasons vary from person to person. (And, interestingly, Christian Science hasn’t been swept up in the common consensus, so DtC can still say that his belief that CSers aren’t Christians is just his opinion, rather than a fact so obvious and inalterable that none dare question it.)
Ask me today whether Mormons are Christians, and I might say yes. Ask me tomorrow, and I might say no. It’s not really a question I waste time on, any more than “are viruses alive?” or “is Pluto a planet?” It’s really a question of pure nomenclature to me. If I bought a weekly calendar that promised me Christian art, and it turned out to be a purely Mormon calendar, I’d ask for a refund. I’d also ask for a refund if a “Jewish Calendar” consisted purely of Christian art. And yet, the funny thing is that supposedly Christians ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY ARE NOT Jews, and Mormons ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY ARE Christians, and yet somehow I think most of us would, upon buying the Mormon “Christian” calendar, feel like we weren’t getting what we expected, and perhaps even that there was a teensy element of false advertising involved. At the very least, I’d think that the guy who made the calendar had an axe to grind. Because, you see, for all the talk about how we need to keep the dictionary pure, and thus we must all accept that Mormons are Christians, the fact is that using “Christian” to mean “Mormon” can be rather confusing, even if they really are Christians.
The reason why “are Mormons Christians?” is such a hot-button issue is because the real point fundies are trying to argue for is “Mormons are agents of Satan who are trying to fool people into believing a false religion that will send people to hell.” What is the appropriate response from a non-Christian if a fundie says this, and no more than this: “Mormons aren’t Christians”?
The appropriate response is not “Damn you, you ignorant slut, Mormons are Christians.” Because frankly, if you’re not a Christian, your opinion has no meaning whatsoever in terms of the debate. Even if you believe that Mormons are Christians, that’s a) nothing more than your opinion on an abstract matter of nomenclature, and b) very likely an answer to a completely different question, since the fundie probably isn’t talking about an abstract matter of nomenclature.
The appropriate response is, “Why do you say that?”
And if the fundie answers, “Because Mormons are trying to trick people into going to hell,” then the appropriate response is, “Just because you don’t agree with someone’s religion doesn’t mean that they’re agents of Satan, or even that they’re being deliberately deceptive.”
If the fundie instead answers, “Because they don’t accept Jesus as their savior,” then the appropriate response is, “Actually, they do.” And if you’ve told them this eighteen times, then you can throw in a few recitations of “damn you, you ignorant slut.”
And if the fundie were instead to answer, “Because they have Scriptures beyond those included in the Protestant canon,” then that’s it. If that’s their definition of Christianity, and they believe that adding to the Bible you can’t have extra Scriptures, then by their definition Mormonism really isn’t Christianity. If you want to talk to them about whether God would send someone to hell for not believing in their narrowly defined “Christianity,” that’s one thing, but the fact is that they’ve established that by their definition, Mormons simply aren’t Christian. Admittedly, if they switch to this position after having said that the only requirement for being a Christian is that one must accept Jesus as one’s Savior, then they’re moving the goal posts, and we should point it out. But, if they’re honest about their definitions, that’s another matter.
**
Actually, I believe I’ve already addressed this, if only implicitly.
Of course they can’t, any more than a Christian can legitimately call himself a Jew. Don’t be ridiculous.
**
I reserve the right to make my own definitions, for my own purposes. Maybe he has some definition by which he can legitimately harmonize the two, and if so, I’m willing to listen. Then again, maybe he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In that case, I reserve the right to think he’s an idiot.
But, very importantly, I’ll think he’s an idiot regardless of his ethnicity.
I don’t care- that’s their business. Why don’t you ask all those other guys why they care so much how Christians define themselves?
After all, if anyone has a right do decide whether Mormons are Christians, isn’t it the Christians?
BTW, for the millionth time: it’s spelled “atheist.”
BTW, zev, thanks as usual for your very educational contributions to the thread. And while it slipped past me before, thanks for your concern over my health.
If I might add a further note on the Jewish vs. Christian issue,
Zev has, I think, abundantly shown that the Official Jewish Definition of “Jew” is pretty complicated. And that’s what I find so funny. He’s entitled to his own definition, and I’m entitled to mine. One isn’t any more “right” than the other, certainly not in any moral sense. Which one is “right” just depends on which one is appropriate to the situation.
But it seems to me that a lot of Gentiles are jumping down the throats of ethnically Jewish Gentiles for saying that they’re Jewish. And yet, none of you can quite agree on anything beyond the fact that according to the Official Jewish Definition, Christians aren’t Jews. None of you, so far as I can tell, really know the details and implications of the OJD. I mean, if someone says they’re ethnically Jewish, and then tells you they’re a Christian, do you radically alter your lunch plans? “Damn, I thought he was an atheist Jew. If I’d known he was really an ethnically Jewish Christian Gentile, I could have given him a ham sandwich after all.”
If someone tells me they’re a “completed Jew,” then that’s an annoying and silly turn of phrase. It always makes me want to ask, “Completed Jew, eh? So, do you enjoy having a foreskin again?”
OTOH, if someone seems ethnically Jewish to me, and calls himself a “Jewish Christian,” then I’m not going to go, “Oh, wait- he’s really a Gentile!” Why? That’s just my definition. I realize that that’s not the OJD, and you’re just going to have to deal with it. If someone was raised Jewish, and eats Matzoh ball soup and reads Scholem Aleichem in the original Yiddish, then I’m willing to say he’s Jewish, regardless of his religion. Not religiously Jewish, but ethnically so. That’s why I don’t have a problem with “Jewish Christian.” “Jewish” in that case is an ethnic designation, like “Hebrew” in “Hebrew Christian.” Because you know something? If you think Jews who convert to Christianity are race traitors, then they’re not Hebrews anymore, either.
Now, all this is aside from the fact that Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism. It doesn’t matter how many layers of gold foil you wrap a package of bacon in, you’re never going to turn it into a chocolate coin. It’s not that Christianity is semi-Jewish but somehow runs afoul of one little rule. It’s that Christianity is, as best I can tell, not Jewish at all. And if I’m going to get on someone’s case about that, I’m not going to use some kind of racial profiling targeted at Hebrew Christians. I’m going to criticise anyone who claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, regardless of ethnicity.
Cool. I’m glad you agree. Since ignorance has been eliminated and the debate’s over, you ready to ask a mod to lock this thread down?
Just my 2 cents here…
As was stated early on in this thread, one of the defining parts of the Jewish faith is a firm belief in the coming of the Messiah. This assumes that the Messiah will, in fact, come some day, and it would be paradoxical to say that faithful Jew must always await the Messiah but never accept him when he arrives.
Jesus was Jewish, as were all his original disciples. Christianity was, in fact, originally nothing more than a sect of Judaism. You had, among other groups at the time, the Sadducees (who accepted only the written Mosaic law), the Pharisees (who emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form), and the “Christians” (who believed that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah).
The moment a faithful Jew believes that the long awaited Messiah has come, he does not suddenly cease being Jewish. He may be misguided, but he is still Jewish. And there is nothing intrinsically wrong that I can see with a person professing to be both a faithful Jew and a good Christian, if, in fact, he believes that Christ was the promised Messiah and not simply “the Son of God.”
Of course, having been born Jewish and raised Mormon, I might be a bit biased in my views here…
Barry
um…there shoulda been a in my previous post.