My point is that the question, “Is it possible to be both Jewish and a Christian” is not solely a question about Judaism. It shouldn’t be a surprise that two different religions might have two different replies.
Yeah. The fact that they are distinct (and, don’t forget, non-monolithic) religions is precisely why they have distinct answers.
And to my mind, people are free to practice whatever flavor of Christianity and Judaism they wish and it’s no more my business to tell the messianic Jews that they’re doing it wrong than it is for me to tell the Second Day Adventists, the Shia, and the Sephardim.
I certainly don’t wish to deny the common Jewish perspective on this question. My point is that it’s not solely a question about Judaism.
No, there is no symmetry here, since we do not have any Jews claiming that they are entitled to be called “Christians”. For some odd reason, none appear to want to be called “Christians”.
No, we have distinct answers because one group somewhat resents the actions of a (tiny minority) of the other group who is set on in effect subverting their identity in order to convert them.
They can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn’t make them “Jews” any more than me calling myself Cree makes me Cree.
Sure it is. These people want to be classified as “Jews”. That makes it “about Judaism”.
If they wanted to be classified as Cree or Algonquins, it would be “about aboriginal North Americans”.
They are, in effect, attempting to appropriate someone’s identity. How is it not about the identity they are attempting to appropriate?
The two are intertwined in the case of Judaism, since it is an ethnicity one can attain by conversion to a set of beliefs. You can’t seperate them out.
Point is, you can indeed point to a set of beliefs that are not Jewish - Judaism, at minimum, precludes multiple manifestations of diety, and in particular apotheosis of a human. You can’t be Christian (that is, believe in the divinity of Jesus) and be Jewish.
Wouldn’t “and yet” only really make sense if it’s the same people doing both? That one thing is frequently asserted and another, seemingly contradictory/hypocritical thing is frequently asserted doesn’t really mean anything unless it’s the same people doing both, not just members of the same group.
I suppose what i’m asking is; is it the same people asserting both those things?
Part of the problem with this whole thing is that there’s no “slander” being used against cults like Jews for Jesus. The fact of the matter is that they really do deliberately set out with the intent to deceive and appropriate Jewish religious symbols in order to trick Jews into becoming Protestant Christians. They’re vile.
Other groups are, simply, Christians, but they’ve glommed onto a stupid bit of marketing. I personally don’t care what they call themselves, but they aint Jews. Even “Christians of Jewish descent” would be fine. And despite the funny Christian invention of some sort of “biblical as divorced from modern, rabbinic Judaism” it’s pretty clear that when groups like JfJ attempt to subvert modern religious ceremonies like the Bat Mitzvah, they aren’t concerned with culture but are attempting to get rid of Judaism through (deliberately deceptive) conversion tactics. And let’s not forget that part of “Jewish culture” has been centuries of persecution by Christians, including but not limited to efforts to destroy Judaism through conversion. The idea now that destroying Judaism through conversion is part of or compatible with “Jewish culture” is laughable.
“Messanic Jews”, as in Christian sects who have simply chosen a stupid name? While they should at least have it pointed out why their name is stupid, they are at worst most likely clueless. Groups like JfJ, on the other hand, are evil.
Of course, virtually nobody makes the argument that groups like JfJ aren’t vile, let alone have a right to the title of Jews… other than JfJ’s and their apologists. Most importantly, Jews are united against them (which if you think about it, is absurdly rare). What you do get to do is have endless doctrinal squabbles to determine what ‘authentic Christianity’ is. But, sorry, no. The attempts of Christians to tell Jews who is Jewish is just dense. That’s it’s often couched in terms of “This is my Christian view of what Judaism should be, and since you don’t measure up, I now get to define Judaism.”
The complaints over how unfair Jews are to the JfJ cult are kinda… surreal.
It’s like those fundamentalists who claim that their religious freedoms are being curtailed if they’re not allowed to legislate how other people can live their lives. The JfJ’s/apologists, likewise, claim that they’re being discriminated if they aren’t allowed to define the theology/culture of other people’s religion and culture.
The question involves two different groups of people (well, three - Judaism, Christianity and the ones in the middle.) It’s absurd to say only one of those groups is entitled to any opinion on the subject.
The sum population of the different groups is irrelevant.
Not all messianic Jews (it may be a dumb name but it’ll do for the purposes of this thread) are involved in a back door attempt to subvert anybody. Some just feel that it describes themselves appropriately.
I suppose, were I a messianic Jew, faced with person who resented my belief as an attempt to subvert his identity, I would reply, ‘My personal beliefs are not always about you.’
Sure. On the other hand, if a Cree told you that you weren’t Jewish, you’d ignore him. Similarly, if a Jew told a Christian that the Christian couldn’t be Jewish, it would be fair to ask him what he knows about being a Christian.
That’s the part I’m trying to say - this is not just about defining Jews. It’s also about defining who’s a Christain and what are Christian practices. If the question was simply about ‘who’s a Jew?’ then it would be reasonable to rely solely on Jewish opinion. It’s not.
Not quite. It’s about people who want to be classified as both Jewish and Christian - not one or the other. If all they wanted was to be Jews they’d just go convert.
Well … it would be about Algonquin Americans or something blended and PC (I’m sure there’s some such group out there.) It’s not a very useful analogy because as far as I know, neither the Algonquins nor the Americans would argue that it’s impossible to be an Algonquin American and that attempting to do so destroys a culture any more than it’s already been lost.
They are not attempting to appropriate in the sense of taking away someone else’s identity. Calling themselves Jews doesn’t deprive anyone else from calling themselves Jews.
They are not attempting to just glom on to something that is unrelated to Christianity. The Jewish history of the Old Testament and the identity of the Disciples and so on - that’s all a legitimate part of the Christian Identity.
I know the two faiths have developed different traditions and I respect that. I respect that the Jewish answer is that one can’t be both a Christian and a Jew. I certainly don’t expect that the Jews should change their opinion on this subject and I’m not saying that they’re wrong.
All I’m saying, and I’ll stop beating on it since I’ve had my say, is - there’s another side to the quest and it deserves consideration as well.
Look - this is maybe a hijack but I’m curious. How do Jews in general feel about Christians using the Tanakh and calling it “The Old Testament”. (Tanakh is the correct term, right? I’m not trying to be rude here.) When Christians refer to Adam & Eve, or the 10 Commandments, or the Psalms - is that seen as subverting or appropriating Judaism? Or is it all just ancient news?
Judaism is a “branch” not “the root”. You can just as easily say that Judaism “split off the root” as soon as the Tanakh was compiled. Judaism was not the “root” because it was preceeded by Yahwism, a religion distinct from Judaism.
In fact, the whole comparison to the structures of a tree is horribly misleading. It’s far more accurate to describe it as a web. As you mentioned, Christianity owes much of it’s composition lot to “pagan” influence. What we see is Caananite and Midianite (and possibly some Egyptian) influences combining to create Yahwism. Then, Yahwism and Zoroastrianism fuse to form Judaism, with Christianity forming from mainstream Hellenic religions and Judaism.
Coupla points. One, many people call themselves Christians and do not believe in any Trinity, or even that Jesus is God. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter Day Saints come to mind. For them, their Christian God is not a Trinity. And two, the scripture says, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Does Judaism hold that a man and his wife are literally one flesh?
Well, seperate or not, I don’t care about ethnicity.
It’s an objective standard that has no spine to it. Contradictions and paradoxes abound even within single religions, so I don’t see the problem in accepting them when forming hybrid religions. Humans are perfectly capable of holding contradictory beliefs (George Orwell didn’t invent the concept of “doublethink” - he merely gave it a name) and when confronted with these contradictions can readily adopt any of a number of established mental strategies:
[ul][li]Will choose not to think about them (Orwell called this “stopthink”);[/li][li]Will declare that God moves in mysterious ways;[/li][li]Will declare that the contradictions don’t exist - it is simply that human minds are not (yet) capable of resolving them;[/li][li]Will declare that all will be made clear in the afterlife;[/li][li]Will reflexively accuse the person asking the question of being a heretic or oppressor; or[/li][li]Some other coping mechanism.[/ul][/li]
Personally, I think it’d be great if I could point out the contradictions in the beliefs of a religious person and have them go “You’re right, this is all nonsense!” but when has that ever happened? I have no illusions that you pointing out that is it impossible to be Jewish and Christian will have the same effect and I’m a little surprised you haven’t realized this, either.
The distinction between Jew and Christian or Muslim is well known to me on a religious basis.
There is also the distinction between Jew and Arab / German or caucasian.
I didn’t realize that essentially religion is the primary requirement. You can be born into it, but if you adopt an unapproved religion you are out.
This makes sense to me now in terms of the covenant( thanks to a link). A Jew must tow the line or he breaks the deal that makes him/her part of the chosen people.
The part that gets me though, is that historically, (if I remember correctly) the Old Testament frequently addresses those Israelites/Hebrews who adopt other gods without any reference to excommunication from the tribe. So the idea that one can’t adopt another god and remain part of the group has to be a more recent convention.
The argument made that Christians believe in a separate god because of the introduction of the trinity concept completely ignores the Christian belief that they follow the very same god that the Jews do. Moreover its a silly argument in this case, because it is completely irrelevant. The fact is that Muslims don’t have a trinity in their concept of Abraham’s god either, yet adopting their religion requires a rejection from the tribe as well.
Finally, can anyone give me an unqualified noun that would describe the ethnicity of an apostate Jew ?
Yes He came to remove all the laws by paying the price of sin. Those who accept Jesus are under grace, not the written code. But for many the setting free of the law comes as a process and many may need to keep certain laws until God sets them free of them. IMHO for some God may leave some restrictions, for others He will set free of all laws both scriptural and those imposed by man.
No, they were just killed, conquered or struck with plagues. Excommunication would have been getting off easy.
(Note that I personally do not support the death penalty for idolatry; I just wanted to note that worshiping other nation’s deities was not accepted in biblical times)
For an illustration of Alessan’s point see the story of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32). Moses upon his return had the loyal Levites execute “brother, neighbor, and kin … some three thousand of the people fell that day” And by some commentators POV that wasn’t even really for idolatry - they were just resorting to worshiping the intangible God in an unapproved manner - that’s why some were not killed. They were old school; no namby excommunication or exile back then.
To the point of this thread it seems that some of the issue is over who gets to decide issues of identity.
Can I, a pale male of Semitic and European Jewish ancestry just call myself “Black” and have that be accepted? Can I call myself a Muslim without ever having made the statement of submission to Allah’s will? Can I call myself a Hindu if I want and have that be accepted by others? How about if I find a group of other pale males who are willing to call me a White Black, or a Jewish Muslim? How about if I get a bunch of Americans to call me a Jewish Hindu because I like dal and curry? Am I then those things if I can get some small bit of some cultural trapping associated with the identity to hang onto me? Is my identity all mine to control?
It is nice that some Christians believe that someone is entitled to call themself a Jew (religiously) based on what they believe is essential to being Jewish. But we Jews, or at least the overwhelming majority of us, especially those who have any interest in our identity or our faith, don’t think so. Maybe it is presumptuous of us to declare them Christian, but from our POV they aint religiously Jewish any more.
Do all mainstream Christian sects believe in a trinity? I know Catholicism does. And where does that notion come from, anyway? I can’t recall any biblical references to that, although my biblical knowledge is pretty slim.
Yes, and who better to take as an authority on modern Judaism than that ancient progenitor of Christianity, [del]Saul[/del] Paul.
Good catch there, kanic.
First, there’s nobody in the middle. There are Jews, there are Christians, and there are some Christians who like to call themselves Jews. And no matter how absurd you think it is, the only people who get an opinion on who is a Jew, are Jews.
I’ll grant that some don’t, necessarily, intend to subvert and destroy Judaism. Groups like “Jews for Jesus” undoubtedly do.
If they feel it describes them, they’re lacking a degree of fundamental understanding. And yes, this brings us back to why it’s Jews, and only Jews, who get to pass judgment on whether or not a bunch of Christians who call themselves Jews are applying an accurate label.
2a. Notice, by the way, that they don’t name themselves “Messianic Christains” or “1 AD Christians” or “Temple Period Christians”. In fact, the word “Christian” appears nowhere in their name at all, and messianic scholarship/belief is not unknown in the Jewish community. So their very name appropriates a religion which they don’t belong to and suggests a Jewish tradition which, likewise, they don’t belong to. The idea that they just have to name themselves Jews in order to express their Christianity is kinda… loopy.
There are actual Jews who are actually concerned with issues of the moshiach. “Messianic Jews”, however, are Christians.
And you might have a point, assuming that they were merely personal belief. The fact that we’re discussing them, however, shows that they’re gone far beyond anything personal.
Try “If you said you were Cree and they said you weren’t, you wouldn’t be, even though you’d be a ‘third group’ in the middle and blah blah blah.”
It’s very, very weird how you constructed those bogus analogies in order to reach the conclusion you were shooting for. Jews are Jews, so a Cree telling them they’re not would be silly. Likewise, Christians are not Jews, so Christians claiming to be Jews are silly.
Yes, it is.
They’ve said that they’re “Messianic Jews”.
Jews have replied “You may believe in some sort of messiah, but you aren’t Jews”.
Done.
No, it’s really, really not. If Christians want to get together and determine if the “Messianic Jews” have left Christianity, y’all are welcome to your doctrinal struggles. Jews have been quite clear: Christians, even those with stupid names for their sects, aint welcome in the club.
Yes, it is. And yes, that’s the question. The question is “Can ‘Messianic Jews’ rightfully call themselves that?” The answer, given by Jews is “No.” bordering on “fuck no, are you kidding me?”
No. They don’t want to be “both”. They want to be Christians who just call themselves Jews.
Even if they did want to be “both”, Jews would still have the right to say that they aint in the club. You may want to be a member of both the Rotary Club and Kiwanis, but if Kiwanis won’t let you in, you can’t claim to be the Rotary Kiwanis Club. This isn’t rocket science here. You cannot claim to have any affiliation with the Jews if pretty much all of Judaism rejects your claim and, especially not if they see it as cynical/stupid/evil deception on your part. You don’t get to be “in the middle” any more than a Christian sect that declared themselves “Messianic Penguins” would be halfway to being penguins.
Cut this equivocation. Why the hell is it so common? Quit with the ethnic silliness. Nobody has, or will, deny that someone who was of Jewish descent is able to convert to whatever religion they feel like. How are you confused about that? Nobody has even challenged it.
Whether one (or their children) would remain culturally Jewish after long enough of having nothing to do with Jewish culture is another question, and answered, generally, “no”. We’ve seen it time and time again around the world, and we’re left with people who light candles on Friday because it’s a family tradition, but they’ve got no clue why and don’t care to know.
And no, the idea that there’s some sort of conflict between Judaism and some nationality (say, American… or German) is an age old anti-semitic trope and deserves scorn and ridicule. The idea that there’s some sort of conflict between maintaining one’s Judaism and holding to another religion at the same time is simply elementary.
Of course it does!
If “Jews” includes Christians, then the meaning of the word is that much further diluted. When talking about the Jewish community and/or religion, including non-Jews rather obviously works at taking away the actual meaning of the word. If, in 99 or 999 years or what have you, almost everybody who called themselves a “Jew” was a religious Christian, we’d need a new word for “Jew” to distinguish us from all the Christians. Of course it takes away Jewish identity to say that any non-Jew who likes the sound of the word Jew can be called one, too.
Judaism is as unrelated to Christianity in modern times as it gets. You’d have a point if this was 5 CE or 27 CE. It’s 2009 CE.
Your argument is pretty much “About 2000 years ago we split from your religion, started our own that totally turned most of yours on its head and explicitly said that all of your religious laws were now null and void. Then we conquered much of the world in the name of that religion and tortured, murdered and oppressed your people and your religion in the name of our new religion. And now we’d like to name ourselves in honor of our long connection to you.”
More to the point, the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians today are not descended from the Jews of ancient Israel, but from non-Jews from all over the world. The idea that, for instance, Roman converts to Christianity, or Druidic converts to Christianity should have any claim on Judaism is bonkers bazooie.
What you’ve essentially said, though is that “There are Jews, and there are non-Jews, the non-Jews would like to have their opinions considered and call themselves Jews. The people who actually are Jews say ‘no’. Maybe we need to find a mid ground.”
It’s the same silliness as “journalistic neutrality” where they’ll give the truth and some wacko fringe group equal air time because, after all, the truth must like somewhere in the middle and both sides must have an equal right to debate and equal validity to their arguments. Asking if “Messianic Jews” should have a say in what constitutes Judaism is a bit like saying that Creationists should have a say in what constitutes Evolutionary Biology.
In general, some but not all Jews prefer to call it the Tanakh and, if pressed, will point out that we don’t believe it to be “old” because we don’t believe that there’s any “new” one. I’m fine with “Tanakh” and the “Christian Bible”.
But if a penguin accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior…?
My understanding (which could very well be mistaken) is that the “Messianic Jews” was a movement specifically for Jews who wanted to become Christian (i.e. to follow/worship/accept Jesus as the Messiah in the Christian sense) without giving up their Jewish identity, culture, and customs—much as Jesus’s original Jewish followers did.
If a person who was Jewish in every sense of the word somehow became convinced that Jesus was who Christians understand him to be, and wanted to follow him, that person might well ask, “Can I become a Christian and still remain a Jew?” (Which is sort of the question that started this thread.) If by “remain a Jew” you mean to continue to hold to all the Jewish beliefs about the nature of God, including those incompatible with Christian beliefs, then the answer is No. But my understanding is that the Messianic Jews want to give as much of a Yes as possible to the question.
Which is not to say that the term “Messianic Jews” isn’t misleading, or that they are Jews who are messianic, any more than “Christian Scientists” are scientists who are Christian.
