Nitpick - that’s only true of some of the sacrifices, those of a lesser degree of holiness. Those with a higher degree of holiness had to be eaten only by males of priestly descent within the Temple’s courtyard.
Also, how do you define “Jews”? My mom was Jewish. I don’t self identify as a Jew, but some might say I am. Does my staying in western Pennsylvania wreck everything?
Yeah, that’s another problem with the Messiah issue. It’s one thing to say all full-blooded Jews must get back to Israel (which is already hard enough,) but when the 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 folks are considered in the equation…
In Jewish law (such as the Messiah would be following), there’s no such thing as a 1/2 (etc) Jew. If your mother was Jewish you’re Jewish, if your mother wasn’t Jewish, you’re not.
Presumably you are if you’ve converted?
(Though I think not all groups accept Reform conversions; which would add another complication.)
Of course, silly of me to omit. But of course, it’s only by birth that anyone would think of their degree of Jewishness to be fractional.
Pretty common, I think. Here’s the obvious example:
There’s nothing to wreck, because in a messiah situation we’re already done. There’s no global unrest or massive trials or charismatic antichrist to deal with: all that Armageddon stuff is a Christian innovation.
Remember that this is a mythology created by a people in exile. Saying that all Jews return to Israel is just saying that the diaspora is over, because that’s what heaven on earth looks like to a people with no home.
The only “messiah issue” is the one you’ve invented by deciding only certain parts of a religion are “doable” and then setting up some kind of weird ‘gotcha, ya Jews!’ hypothetical that is somehow supposed to “debunk” it. Or is the shocking reveal here that religion is logically inconsistent?
You’re why we can’t have nice things. 
There haven’t been any “full-blooded Jews” in 2,000 years - if there ever were.
What makes you say that? The intermarriage rate among Jews has, until the past century, been miniscule.
I can trace my descent back to 8 great-grandparents and 2 great-great grandparents, all of whom were born Jewish - and yet, I have blonde hair and blue eyes, neither of which originated in the Middle East. Like it or not, when two populations live in close proximity to each other, they start sharing genes. Eastern European Jews tend to look like Eastern Europeans, Yemenite Jews tend to look like Yemenites, Moroccan Jews tend to look like Moroccans. Intermarriage rates may have been miniscule in the past, but extramarital sex rates - consensual or otherwise - are a different story.
The child of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father may be Jewish, but genetics don’t care about Halacha.
Converts (whose descendants I would count as “full-blooded”) have added to the genetic mix as well, and also the self-selection for what the local population considers attractive. A desire to marry the fairer-complexioned will result in blondes among the population.
Don’t forget, also, that in pre-modern times, Christians and Muslims considered Jews to be sub-human. I genuinely doubt there were that many gentile men forcing themselves on Jewish women. I’m not saying it never happened, but to say that there haven’t been any full-blooded Jews in 2000 years is beyond exaggeration.
I think you have a slightly rose-tinted view of the past, Chaim. After all, white Americans considered Blacks sub-human, too, and yet modern Black Americans have nearly as much European ancestry as African. Rape was incredibly common in the past. What do you think the Cossacks did, hand out pamphlets? One credible theory I’ve heard is that Judaism became matrilineal because of the fact that it had to deal with such a large number of children of rape.
On the flip side, you can’t ignore the fact that no small proportion of our ancestors - of EVEYBODY’S ancestors - were, for the lack of a better word, big ole’ sluts. No matter what they tell you, sexual promiscuity was not invented in the 20th Century. Just ask Chaucer and Boccaccio.
A side question, if I may: so the Messiah must be male? That’s a prerequisite to be accepted as such, assuming all of the other tasks were fulfilled? Pardon any clumsiness in writing-I’m the barest amateur in these matters.
The Messiah must be a king from the House of David, and while there haven’t been many queens regnant of Judea, there were one or two, so the concept of a “king” being a queen can exist in Judaism, I suppose.
Of course not, they killed people.
The rule of matrilineality dates back at least to the Talmud, where its derivation from scriptural sources is written down.
Even if that’s true of the ancient Jews - and I’m not necessarily agreeing it’s so - that hardly means that there was a lot of sexual mixing between the Jewish and non-Jewish populations.
Yes. The Davidic line (like other intra-Jewish sub-group determinations) is purely by the male side. The queen that Alessan linked to was from the Hasmonean dynasty, not the Davidic line.
It’s not like the Cossacks were the first people to subjugate the Jews. In many ways, Judaism was forged by foreign conquest.
Yeah, i have no opinion on the source of matrilineal Judaism, but every population everywhere has always had its genes influenced by rape. If
Have to agree with Alessan – I think you’re being naïve, here. You think the Cossacks (or other anti-Semitic people who have lived alongside Jews) had no problem killing Jews but were disgusted at the thought of raping them? Seems self-evident that it’s easier to justify rape when you think your victim is less than human.
As far as consensual outcrosses, many societies have enacted social sanctions to try to control exogamy. But none of them have been 100% successful. Jew or Gentile, people are people, and thus like to make more people. There’s even a story of a celebrated shiksa in your own Torah – Ruth, the Moabite, who gets her own book in the Tanakh.