Dunno about world-wide, but they are a small minority both in N. America and in Israel.
According to this article, 7% of American Jews consider themselves “Orthodox”:
Sure you can. Jew denotes both an ethnicity and a religion. One can be a non-observant view who has converted to Christianity.
That’s what I thought. Hell, I’m a lapsed Catholic, and I think they’re a bunch of major assholes.
Question – if by Orthodox Jewish view, even if you convert, you’re still basically a Jew, just a heretic or an apostate, would that be like being excommunicated in Catholicism? “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic?” You’re a Catholic, but you’re basically a heretic, and therefore no longer in a state of grace. (At least, in the eyes of the church.)
Just trying to understand how it works.
So the answer is: Yes and no.
I think it really ought to be pointed out that historically at least, it was entirely possible for others who were not jews to decide that people who 1) did not consider themselves jews and 2) were not considered to be jewish by various jewish groups were in fact jewish.
Whatever the individual or the religious community may think about it, the definition of a Jew has throughout the history of europe in any event been primarily based not on the identity an individual affirmed or the religion he practiced but on his ancestry.
Christian theology owes at least as much to paganism as Judaism.,
Christianity did not just add beliefs to Judaism, it adopted beliefs which contradicted Judaism.
How can you say the ones kept the same theology are the ones who “split off of the root?” How can you say that the ones who changed the definition of God and took up the worship of a human being were staying true to Jewish theology? Christianity is an utter contradiction to the Hebrew Bible and to all Jewish tradition preceding Jesus.
Jesus wasn’t a Christian. He probably would have been appalled at his own deification.
Yes. Christianity is a matter of self-definition and there is no central authority that gets the final word on who is a “real” Christian. As I understand the Unitarian faith, they see a Christian as someone who tries to follow Christ’s teachings, not someone who worships him as God.
Yep. And Marx wasn’t a Marxist and John Birch wasn’t a John Bircher. The faithful always attach a lot of baggage after the fact.
Fine, but completely irrelevant to the point I was making and the posts to which I was responding.
Before Abraham was, I am.
I and the Father are one.
And you will see the Son of Man at the Right Hand of God.
Many will come to me saying “Lord, Lord…”
You have heard it said …, But I say…
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Yep, utterly appalled.
Religiously, John Birch was a lot further to the Right than a lot of Birch leaders. He was a Fundamentalist Baptist missionary. JBS Founder Robert Welch was at the time a Unitarian. He’d been raised Fund’ist Baptist, “grew” out of it, but it is said, became a Traditionalist Catholic soon before his death.
Obviously, yes.
How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Yes, he would be appalled that later writers put such nonsense in his mouth.
You don’t know that he didn’t.
And only the first two quotes were from John’s Gospel.
The 3rd is in all three Synoptics and the 4th & 5th from Matthew.
Ah, but I’m sure JC didn’t say any of them, for “Robert Funk et al tells me so”.
Jesus consistently taught one thing about himself- that if he wasn’t God Himself, he is the next best thing to God & is our only hope of getting to Him.
Edit-
I see ya caught your mistake about John.
I’m leaving it up anyway.
Incidentally, most of those statements do not necesaril have divine pretensions anyway. The “Son of Man” was not God, calling someone Kyrios did not mean you were calling them God and I was told by a an ancient languages expert in college that in modern Aramaic, “I and ___ are one” is an idiomatic way to simply say you agree with someone.
Having said that, all these sayings are attributed by others (none of them witnesses), and cannot held to be proof that Jesus actually said them. You can’t cite the writings of those who deified him after his death as proof of that he had any such conceit himself.
Messianic Jew is a silly term (Like “Marxist Capitalist”) but while their theology strikes me as weird* and their name is dumb, I have no objection to them as such. They don’t pretend that they don’t worship Jesus as the Son of God for example. They don’t try to convert people by lying. I don’t get their theology and I think they should more accurately call themselves Kosher Christians, but personally, I have no real problem with them.
Let’s NOT confuse Messianic Jews with Jews for Jesus though.
Jews For Jesus, however is a scary, disgusting cult-like scam which, except for it’s silly name and it’s relative ineffectuality shares much in common with $cientology. It preys on the lonely and confused (old people, college kids who’ve left home for the first time), it suckers them in with lies (“We’re Jews, just like you! We just think Christ was a really good guy!”). They then urge their victim to cut off all contact with “unfullfilled” Jews, and once isolated and dependent on the cult, they start slipping in Christian theology. They also discourage Jewish women from having kids–so they’re practicing slo-motion genocide. (I’m sorry, I can’t find a cite for this. I’ll keep looking.)
*Didn’t Christ fulfill the Old Testament Laws? So you didn’t have to do 'em any more? Wasn’t that the point of the whole sacrifice on the cross thing? To me, keeping Kosher after Christ died so you didn’t have to is kinda spitting on His sacrifice.
There is no proof that he did, and it’s highly unlikely that he did. It would have been utterly contrary to his own religion and culture as well as to the expectations of the Messiah, and no such claims are attributed to him (that is, no claims that he himself claimed to be God) until faily late in Christian literature.
Yes, I posted too quickly after reading only the first couple of quotes, but as I’ve said, the quotes from the synoptics are not claims of personal divinity.
Maybe you’re unaware who has the burden of proof here.
He does not make this claim in the earliest layers of sayings tradition.
And really the term isn’t even that well-defined. I have a friend who refers to himself as a Messianic Jew. But he doesn’t keep kosher or really follow any non-Christian aspect of Judaism. For him it is just shorthand for being ethnically Jewish ( half - his mother ) and a mainline Protestant. He had exposure to Jewish religion and culture via his observant Jewish grandmother and has a lot of reverence for that side of the family ( he was furious when his Christian relatives put a cross on her gravestone, which he thought was incredibly disrespectful ), but is quite firmly Christian and makes no pretension to Judaism ( or wanting to convert them to Christianity - he doesn’t actively try to convert me and I’m an atheist 
).
I kinda wish he wouldn’t use the term, because I think everybody first assumes he’s a “Jews for Jesus” type when he says it. But he’s a stubborn one and likes it as a shorthand description.
How is my response irrelevant to this?
Seems a direct response.
Because my statements were about a person’s beliefs, not their family background. If someone claims to believe in some hybrid of Judaism and Christianity, what objective standard exists to evaluate that claim? What objective standard exists to evaluate a challenge to that claim? That some contradictions might exist is not and has never been a deterrent to religious faith.
I don’t care in the least, for the purposes of this thread, about any question of what makes an “ethnic” Jew or an ethnic any-other-culture.