So your only quibble with Sarah’s post was that you were doing that, but had stopped by the time she posted?
Yes, that’s right. And I really wouldn’t call it a quibble. Sarah is, as I’ve said before, a very level-headed and reasonable person. I thought of it, really, as a simulpost, given the timestamps, and was just bringing it to her attention.
Thank you for the compliment, Liberal…that’s sweet of you to say.
I think you’re missing FinnAgain’s point, though. We can see on the timestamp that my post and yours directly before it were made just a couple minutes apart, and you are right that I didn’t see yours when I posted mine. I don’t think anyone is confused by that.
I think we are all just a little amazed that you were trying to make the argument in the first place, and that it was so easily dropped.
Given that it was a question, not an argument, it seems reasonable to note that having received an answer, there is no reason to pursue it.
A point that I think everyone in the thread might consider emulating.
Since there’s no mod hat on that play, I hope I’m not violating any rules. That being said:
Lib himself called it an argument, not a question.
Even if it wasn’t (and one can make an argument via questioning, can’t one?), it seems rather apropos of the topic of the thread in general.
It’s interesting that in a discussion on Jewish identity sparked, in large part, by Christians who have tried to appropriate that Jewish identity to a certain degree, a poster who is typically very vocal about his Christianity made the argument that maybe Jews really do have a theology that’s fine with a God that doesn’t embody Unity, due to his reading of Jewish scripture.
Myself, I am interested in the thought process behind it because “Well, I know all the Jews in this thread have said that Trinitarian doctrines are fundamentally incompatible with Jewish theology, but that’s not how I read Judaism. Let me elaborate…” is pretty much the same thinking as “Well, I know that most Jews say that being a Christian means one can no longer claim to be religiously Jewish and many claim that conversion places one outside of the tribe, but that’s not how I read Judaism. Let me elaborate…”
I think it’s an amazing opportunity to get at this mindset as it does seem that, at least for a little while, Lib was prepared to argue that Jews’ understanding of Judaism was wrong but that his understanding was correct due to an ‘overlooked’ bit of the Torah. Sure, he later dropped it, but I’m mighty curious as to how it got started in the first place. Doesn’t that strike you as not only fascinatingly interesting, but very relevant to this thread in general? That a Christian, upon hearing that Judaism was fundamentally incompatible with a triune God, decided that his reading of the Torah shows that Jews might just’ve been wrong about their own religion?
Ah well. If there’s a mod hat on this instead of your just advice as a poster I’ll drop it, but this seems like the perfect forum for just that type of ‘witnessing’ whereby Christians attempt to define Jewish theology. I’d love to hear what the genesis (no pun) of the argument was in the first place.
And, erm, that should be “just your advice”, too. 
Nah. I was only expressing my hope that the personalities involved did not decide to play “gotcha” for the next two pages employing increasing rancor. I think you have outlined a perfectly legitimate point of discussion. As long as that discussion does not deteriorate into name calling and veiled or not-so-veiled insults, everyone is free to keep turning it over and exploring it.
That’s exactly what a poopyhead might just say, hypothetically.
(don’t hit me!)
Or might not if they are not satisfied with the answer. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t aware that I have displayed a personality here that would make you think that I’m prone to playing gotcha, name-calling, or veiled insults, but…whatever.
Although you weren’t directing this question to me, I would like to say that yes, I, for one, am interested.
Sorry, my fault then. I obviously did not explain myself adequately. When I first wrote:
DSeid asked me to take him at his word that my argument was mistaken. DSeid has always approached me with the greatest respect, and never misses when I show my cards. If he says I can take his word, then I can take his word. If he says my argument is indefensible with respect to something I am not familiar with in the first place, then I am satisfied that my argument is indefensible. I respect him and his opinions. He doesn’t give me smarmy. He doesn’t give me smartass. He doesn’t give me bullshit. He gives me the straight dope. Why should I not believe him?
I really meant it. When a good egg gives it to me straight, I have no choice but to back off. (I would have done the same had you intervened before him, but alas you were just a bit late.) I suppose I could hang in their arguing a point I no longer trusted, but I would have felt really weird doing that. But DSeid asked me to take his word for it.
I trust DSeid. It’s as simple as that.
If an answer is not sufficiently explanatory or seems inadequate, I expect posters to pursue it until the understanding is complete–even if the agreement is not.
What I prefer to not see are presumptions of bad faith when one or both parties are simply coming to the discussion with utterly different beliefs or mutually unintelligible vocabularies.
Did you see any presumption of bad faith to start this hijack ?
Well while I doubt that I deserve such accolades as there being no one more trustworthy than I, I appreciate Lib’s current understanding of the centrality of God’s indivisible oneness in Jewish thought, and his confidence in me as a trustworthy source.
Back to the op. I think this is a fair summary:
It seems that it is possible to have an identity as a Christian and not believe that Christ was/is divine or of the Trinity; to merely believe that Christ was one heckuva teacher and philosopher whose works are deserving of great study and reverence. That particular belief is not religiously incompatible with a Jewish religious identity. In fact many Jews would agree with those sentiments (Even if they feel that said teachings have been misinterpreted and abused by others in subsequent centuries to justify persecuting Jews.) So if that is how a particular individual defines his or her individual Christian identity then, yes, one can be both religiously Christian and Jewish. Many Jews would still take offense at that and be suspicious as to why someone would deign to try to hold onto both identities, but nevertheless, such is theoretically possible, and to some degree that would be their problem. In actuality however few, if any, who hold themselves to be both Jewish and Christian take that POV. They instead accept Christ as Savior and Messiah (in the Christian meaning of the word). And that belief is incompatible with being religiously Jewish.
Ethnic/cultural identity and Halachic identity are different issues.
Fair enough?
Yes, but why make the argument in the first place?
Do you, for example, believe that Judaism takes its theology directly from the Torah, and all one has to do is “cite scripture” in order to define modern Judaism?
Do you, instead, believe that husband and wife “becoming one” was possibly a tenet of Jewish religion and, if so, Jews would be logically incomplete in their religious views unless they acknowledged that, by gum, if a man and a woman can be one flesh than God and Jesus can too and it doesn’t violate the Shema?
You’ve also mentioned trusting DSeid, but where does trust come into it? Would you really have believed, sans any intervention on his part, that any Jews who were telling you about their religion were wrong and that your reading of the Torah enabled you to serve as an expert, able to properly explain Judaism to mistaken Jews?
Part of what I’m getting at is, what if DSeid was eaten by an elephant a few days ago and wasn’t here to set you straight (and Sarah got sucked up by a dimensional vortex a few hours after DSeid became pachyderm chow)… would you have still argued the point? Why, or why not? And what was its genesis in the first place?
Not everything that affects a thread shows up in the posts on it.
Read back through all the posts since the original question/challenge and note the tone in several of them. Then consider that the topic is volatile to begin with, (extending back through three other threads this week), and consider the aspect of Reports, e-mails, and PMs. If I have not named (generic) you as having created a problem, you might just assume that I do not consider (generic) you to be a problem, although my general comments are intended to get everyone to consider the whole context and consider carefully the expressions of their thoughts rather than posting as though nothing they say could ever be found offensive by another party.
[ /Modding ]
You’re very welcome. And yes, I do believe I now understand the Judaic line of thought: that the oneness of G-d is like the oneness of the value of pi — there is one and only one such value. There cannot be, say, two or three.
While you didn’t name me, you did quote me in that post. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly that you were directing your comment to me.
Let me just say that I don’t think I need you to remind me to consider the whole context and consider carefully the expressions of my thoughts rather than posting as though nothing I say could ever be found offensive by another party. I have tried hard for the past 3 years to put that kind of effort into my posting here. But thanks for the help.
That’s a very good question. I understand now the sense of why you’re following up so persistently. And I suppose the answer to why I started the line of argument in the first place is that I had seen no satisfactory explanation in my mind as to why the same word MUST — stressing “must” — have two different meanings; i.e., why they could not both be metaphors, when clearly one of them was.
Well, I was getting a lot of FLAK about how I was being silly, and using non sequiturs, and failing to exercize any common sense. When suddenly, out of the blue, here comes a person, knowledgable about Judaism by implication, who asks simply that I trust that one of the words cannot be a metaphor. He is not mean about it. He is not desperate about it. He even offers (but dreads) finding sources that will support his assurance. But there was no need for that. DSeid will not speak out unless he knows what he’s talking about, and I knew that. I knew also that he knew more than I about the topic at hand.
And so, I began my argument because I thought it was a valid one to make. I ended it when I became convinced by a trustworthy source that it was invalid. That is what we are supposed to do in these debates. At least, that’s what I expect of people — when presented with a compelling argument, we should change our minds. Otherwise, we will remain in intellectual ruts.
- Were you using an English translation, or did you go to the original Hebrew to see if they were, in fact, the same word?
- Several people before DSeid pointed it out to you, myself included, pointed out that Judaism is fundamentally incompatible with a triune God. Unless I miss my guess, several of us pointed out the Shema. Even if you had found the same word being used as a metaphor in one place and literally in another, do you believe this would have ‘debunked’ the point all those Jews made?
- Why was “because our religion chooses to see one as metaphor and the other as literal” not good enough until DSeid told you? If a religion chooses to use a word metaphorically on Thursday and seriously on Tuesday, why does that not serve as justification enough for why, within the context of its use by that religion its usage must conform to one pattern on Thursday and another on Tuesday?
It’s also worth pointing out that your original argument was (and still is) a non sequitor and is quite silly sounding to most folks who’re Jewish (and probably a good few who aren’t). Arguing that the language that the Torah uses to describe marriage should inform the language that Judaism uses to describe God is a non sequitor in that it, literally, simply does not follow. That’s part of what I’m getting at. If you were talking about the language used to describe God, you might have had an argument. But you didn’t. You used a line about marriage to extrapolate to an argument as to how similar language used in a totally different context might mean the same thing.
I’m trying to figure out why you thought it did, and what it would have shown if you could prove they followed. Did you believe, at the time, that you were going to use Genesis to show Jews that they were wrong about their religion, and it really does allow for a triune God? I know in the past that you’ve argued that Jesus is “the garden” and that absolutely all spiritual/religious paths lead to that ‘garden’. Was that, for example, the same sort of belief? That Jews just thought that they had a religion that was 100% separate but, in fact, it was totally compatible with Christianity?
I mean, we’re not talking a minor point of theology, but a major, major, major one. It seemed (and seems) that your original argument was not just about how the Torah contains language that we consider to be metaphor and language that we consider to be cut and dried (which is hardly a revelation to most Jews). But that, instead, the argument seemed to be that because one use of roughly similar language seemed to mean one thing, that another use of roughly similar language must mean the same thing and that Jews were wrong about Judaism when they denied it. (To put a finer point on it, that you’d somehow found a gaping logical hole in Judaism that Jews had been ignorant of but you were prepared to argue about what their religion really meant.)
Yes, but why?
Even if your original point was true and Judaism was using the same exact word/phrase/whatever to mean two different things, why assume that instead of using the same vocabulary in different ways depending on context, that Judaism might really be compatible with a triune God and all the Jews who said otherwise might just be wrong because they didn’t know their own scripture well enough?