Ouch.
bad fingers! bad! bad!
Chaim and Rick, thanks for clearing it up. I was wrong.
Thas, welcome aboard. You make a good and thoughtful argument. You should fit in well on the SDMB. I do have a slight sticking point for you, though.
If I’m to understand your argument, basically a person is what s/he says s/he is. If I then call myself a cheese sandwich, is that what I am? Or am I a nut?
I don’t want to be contentious, and I understand your point as you’ve illustrated it. But I feel it breaks down pretty readily when practically and broadly applied.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
I’ve have read all the above posts. How many Jews have I known that call themselves Jewish and yet are the epitome of EVIL. The same applies to all other religions. If the “good” in the Judaic religion is practiced by an individual thats good enough for me. I don’t care whether the person is Jewish because his mother is Jewish or for any other reason. If he is a schmuck or is not a “good” person, then whatever he calls himself is meaningless and this goes all the way back to the opening thread and down.
“If you are not becoming to others, you ought to be coming to us.”
Lasky’s hair Salon
Dave - I agree with the problem about being able to simply apply a name - that’s why I made the objective vs. subjective argument. The argument I make completely falls apart when applied to objective things, but I think it stands up when applied to subjective things. So if you use the term Jew or any other term to mean, specifically, “had a Jewish mother”, then it is an objective term. I, on the other hand, see the word Jew as meaning something more akin to “follows the Old Testament, Torah, etc…”, and I think that such an interpretation, regardless of the religion it is applied to, is subjective. The way I see it, I am “Jewish by birth”, but not “Jewish”.
So I guess it depends on how you define the term “Jewish”, “Christian”, or whatever. And I guess I just argued myself into thinking that both viewpoints are valid, since my definition of “Jewish” or what a religion is has no more objective validity than anyone else’s.
Thas wrote
But wouldn’t the Pope have the right to say that you’re not a Roman Catholic ???
My point is this: If a group, organization, nation, whatever, is sufficiently organized that there is a general consensus regarding who is and is not a member, then why don’t you consider that consensus to be authoritative?
As long as we’re discussing Jesus’ biography, I’d like to question a comment Shayna made yesterday:
Over the years, I have seen many people refer to Jesus as a rabbi, and I have always wondered how accurate that claim is. From the accounts in the Gospels, it seems undeniable that he was a preacher; he clearly went from place to place talking about topics that were important to him, trying to influence the Conventional Wisdom of the time.
People who call Jesus a “rabbi” might be meaning it in a general sense, rhetorically referring to his preaching. But Shayna is clearly referring to Jesus not merely as a popular preacher, but as an ordained rabbi.
Unfamiliar with the Gospels as I am, I am wondering if this claim is spelled out there or anywhere else. Was he really a rabbi? The terms “rabbi” does appear in the Gospels, but generally in reference to the Jewish Establishment. It is ever used in reference to Jesus himself?
Keeves, I’m going to take a stab at that question. I’m Jewish. Both my mother and father are/were Jewish, as has been every member of my family for all the generations I’ve been able to trace back (at least to my great great great grandparents).
But I’m not only Jewish because of my lineage, I’m also Jewish because I was raised to practice certain (expounded upon later) Jewish traditions, and hold in my heart the basic tenets of the Talmud and its teachings.
I feel an enormous sense of pride in my heritage. I celebrate the Jewish holidays and remember the battles and hardships my ancestors endured, fought and won, so that I might have the privilege of enjoying the freedom to practice the religion of my upbringing (or choice). My sense of connecting and belonging to the Jewish religion and People is a very deep and abiding one.
It is a given that each branch of Judaism allows for the non-adherance of certain practices, while still calling its members Jews. I grew up attending a Reform synagogue that leaned very heavily towards the Conservative (we observe the 2nd day of Rosh Hashana, tossing bread into a lake/river/stream, which is traditionally a Conservative practice that Reform Jews don’t follow, etc.). However, I do not keep a Kosher home.
Now what if one day the “authoritative consensus” deemed that no one would be considered a Jew anymore unless they kept a Kosher home? (And accepted and non-accepted practices in Judaism have changed throughout history, so while this is highly unlikely, it’s not such a stretch for illustrative purposes.) In fact, there are braches of Orthodox Jewry that already do not consider me a Jew. But as far as I’m concerned, there is no one, no matter how “authoritative” they may be, that could ever tell me that I’m not a Jew or wasn’t allowed to call myself one.
They may not allow me inside the Temple, but they sure won’t stop me from taking out the Hagada at Passover and observing the traditions of the holiday. They won’t prevent me from lighting the menorah at Hannukah, remembering the evils of Haman and celebrating his demise on Purim, or repenting for my sins on the High Holy days.
So they can call me whatever they want. I’m a Jew.
And if I interpret his postings correctly, Thar feels exactly the same way, only the opposite.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Oops - I see that you have posed a second question, Keeves. I had not seen that prior to submitting my above reply. I will go back and read it and if I can answer it I will be happy to. I may have to bow to one of the Jewish scholars though, as it appears as though it’s going to require more than what knowlege I have.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Shayna said:
Not to mention the heroism of Mordecai! Purim’s a favorite… “Drink until you can’t tell the difference between cursing Haman and blessing Mordecai!”
Thar said:
In a strict sense, I suppose that’s true.
But I again make the point that certain words have commonly understood meanings. If yours fall outside those, while you have every right to espouse your beliefs, and to persuade others that your view is the correct one, intellectual honesty demands that you acknowledge the schism.
This is probably more of a Great Debate now than a General Question.
As to the “what makes a rabbi” question…
It falls into the same category. Presumably anyone could claim to be a rabbi. But I would suggest that graduation from a yeshiva, being awarded a simcha, is a prerequisite to an honest claim. Otherwise, “I am a rabbi – by my own definition, that is – would seem to be necessary.”
In Christ’s time? I have no idea how formal the process was then… but there is no evidence in the Gospels that he went through it. Of course, there’s no evidence of a lot of Christ’s early life, and yet he indisputably had an early life - so who knows?
- Rick
In my translation, Jesus is specifially adressed as “Rabbi” several times.
–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
In regards to who gets to say who is a member of a given religion, per the comment above and others -
“But wouldn’t the Pope have the right to say that you’re not a Roman Catholic ???”
The Pope claims ALL adults baptized in the Catholic church as Catholic. So when you see numbers on Catholics in the world, do the math. Total baptized, minus lapsed Catholics = a lot less than the Pope claims.
Shayna wrote
and also
You are mistaken. This is a contradiction.
ALL Jews (to my knowledge) believe that Jewish identity is not lost merely by non-observance, nor can a Jew lose that identity in any other way. Once a Jew, always a Jew.
I believe that your misunderstanding results from irresponsible reporters, who misunderstood a certain statement a few years ago, and chose to use that event to create a worldwide furor. A certain group of Orthodox rabbis expressed an opinion that certain beliefs and practices of Reform Judaism were so very different than what has been practiced by Jews for the past thousands of years, that they feel Reform Judaism to be not Judaism. Despite irresponsible reporting, they never claimed Reform Jews not to be Jews.
It is true that if a person’s father was Jewish, but his mother was not, then some groups would consider him Jewish, and other would not. But that is a separate point. The point on which all Jews agree is that if a person is Jewish by birth (by whatever definition one chooses to use) then that person remains Jewish for the rest of his life (according to those who subscribe to that definition – which in Shayna’s case is unanimous, since all her ancestors were Jewish).
Having done a bit more research, I just want to post a little more about the “Reform Jews aren’t Jews” bit.
The initial furor occurred on March 22, 1997, in an article (front-page, IIRC) in the Los Angeles Times. The article quoted the orthodox as saying that <<< the two largest branches of Judaism in the United States are not Jewish >>> but the headline said <<< Non-Orthodox Not Jews >>>
I’ll admit that even the initial complaint against the non-orthodox movements was unnecessarily inflammatory, but the headline which related to the people themselves caused a very violent reaction. The LA Times should have apologized and clarified their story, but instead, it was the orthodox group who clarified their statement a few days later.
Both of these articles are available on the LA Times website, at http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/archsearch-cgi?DBQUERY=reform+and+judaism+and+declare&DATE=1997&SECT=part+a&SORT=r%3Ah&NITEMS=25&x=26&y=4
Those articles cost $2 each to download in full, so if you prefer, you can read what one Conservative rabbi wrote to his congregation in June 97 at http://www.templeetzchaim.com/9706/rabbimsg.htm
We now return to the regularly scheduled topic of this thread…
Thank you, Keeves, for providing those links. I read Rabbi Paskow’s statement, and it leaves me with some questions. If the Agudas Harabunim don’t believe that Reform Judaism is Judaism, then how could they consider me a Jew? Am I still a Jew, but a non-practicing one in their eyes? Does that somehow make me a sinner to them, because I do not practice “real” Judaism as they believe it should be practiced?
Although they may have changed the way they worded their statement, I still maintain that if I were to ask any of them to their face if they considered me a Jew, they would say that they do not. I think their retraction was merely for “political” purposes, and not a reflection of their true beliefs.
I apologize for having made a somewhat misleading statement. However, it was being used in the context of the argument that just because an “authoritative” body within a religion says someone is not a member of that religion, doesn’t make it so. And in fact, although they may have done some fast footwork to cover their behinds in rewording their statement, there was still a claim at one time by an “authoritative” body within Orthodox Jewry that I was not a Jew. That claim didn’t make it so, which is what both you and I are in agreement on, and the point I was trying to illustrate.
As to the question about whether or not Jesus was a rabbi, I have not been able to find any supporting evidence so far in my search, but I have had this conversation in the past, as it pertained to the claim by some Christian groups that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. The argument was made that it was not Jesus’ Jewish followers who turned away from him, but the rabbinate at the time who became outraged about some of his “radical” views, and, in essence, did what the Agudas Harabunim did recently, and declared him not a “real” Jew. I came away with the understanding that Jesus at one time had been accepted by the rabbinate as a legitimate rabbi, but was no longer considered one by them once he started straying from what were considered to be the appropriate Jewish practices of the time. So therefore if he had been a legitimate member of the rabbinate, he must have been ordained by whatever methods they employed at the time. I hope that one of our more learned Jewish scholars here can come and clarify this point for us.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Phooey on all this stuff! It didn’t appear to me that the OP had anything to do with religion. It said the question was raised by non-Christians. Perhaps the persons who raised it were associted with some other religion, but why should we conclude that? Clearly, if those of various religions, particularly of various Judaic sects try to answer this question, you’ll get all kinds of responses – most steeped in religion or ethnic traditions.
Where are the irreligious experts on arqueo-anthropology around here? I think the original question here centered on the particular strain(s) of Caucasian that, in Biblical times, as well as today, is/are/was/were the center of gravity of the various designations of Hebraic peoples retaining certain common biological and cultural attributes that are generally considered today under the concept of ‘Jewish ethnicity’, whether of the “Western” or “Eastern” branches, but excluding persons sharing certain “Jewish” religious beliefs but mainly not of the aforesaid biolgical and cultural natures.
I think there’s some rather objective agreement on what is objectively and dispassionately biologically, and less-so, culturally, of “Jewish” nature. . .including all that which results in the Jewish subjectiveness expressed in this thread. 
Ray (Well, at least no island is a man.)
I’m not sure I agree. I suspect they would draw a line between “non-practicing and sinful” (which they might well think) and (not a Jew at all).
As an illustration, if one of their sons were to announce his intention of marrying you, they might be distraught that he was marrying such a non-observant, mom-practicing woman. They might be furious, and write him out of the will.
But they would not mourn him as if he were dead, as they would if he married a Gentile.
- Rick
My, how my little thread has grown.
Thanks to everyone for the great responses. To answer Nanobyte (and some earlier posts), the question was raised by a couple of Muslims. Muslims recognize patrilinear descent of religion; Jews recognize matrilinear; and that may have been the root of the question.
Shayna:
You’ve pretty much nailed it, except that to them, most non-Orthodox Jews are not sinful, because they don’t know any better…they were raised with an incorrect (by their definition) understanding of what Judaism is.
Absolutely not true. The Orthodox definition of who is a Jew is what it is regardless of the degree to which that person practices what is written in the Torah. They would definitely maintain, even in private, that you are a Jew…however, they’d say that the religion you’re practicing isn’t Judaism.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Now that the search engine is working, perhaps these topics that have been discussed at length in other threads still extant (or just recently deceased) can be linked to those threads by the interested participants.
I don’t have links for this thread, as I rarely patronize Great Debates - perhaps someone familiar with the pertinent threads can supply them here?
The OP in this case is asking for a factual answer to a question that inherently subject to debate. As such, I’m transferring this thread to that forum best suited for these discussions.
Nickrz
GQ Mod