What would Jews do/think if the Messiah criteria were fulfilled by different people?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I don’t know why that would stop them. Plenty of slave holders in the USA considered their slaves to be subhuman, and raped them anyway.

My Ashkenazi family has a streak of blue-eyed blonds. We don’t know when those genetics got in there, or whether it was consensual (or multiple occurences, possibly some consensual and others not.)

Humans are an outcrossing species. And a species a significant number of whose members are capable of intercourse with a plastic doll.

And another problem is that the word doesn’t mean the same thing in Judaism as in Christianity.

62

Jews are not a species, except in Mein Kampf. @Alessan is right that there is no such concept as a “full-blooded Jew”.

63

We had a whole thread about why that particular term (even if often meant lovingly, and even by members of the faith) is probably a bad idea.

Probably best to avoid it, especially if you aren’t a member of the Jewish faith.

Back to the discussion of “full-blooded”. My family really can only be traced back to the great grandparents generation (various European Jews) for obvious reasons. As I related in another thread though, my Mother and Father in Law became enamored of Ancestry and similar sites, so got kits for my wife and myself. Hers came back as a wonderfully American mutt mix of all sorts.

Mine came back as 99+% Eastern European Jew. So, yeah, I’m as “full blooded” as far as genetic groupings matter. But they don’t. Humans can interbreed, have interbred, and will interbreed in the future. Matrilineally traced societies were an acknowledgement of the fact (at least in part, not going to assume in full or even in majority) that between unclear understandings of human inheritance and unclear human morality (:wink: ) that the male parent may be unknown, but outside of elaborate plots, the female is certain.

Rules and law are almost always built to cover generalities, where exceptional individuals may lay outside them. I doubt strongly that if we accept the premise of the thread (that an honest to god Messiah by OT terms) shows up, that they, having literally accomplished world peace, would in any way worry about such minor issues. Instead, if you believed you were a Jew, and especially practiced as a Jew, you’d likely be a Jew as far as they were concerned.

People like myself who are by upbringing and “blood” (continue to sneer at it, but I’ll use the term) but don’t consider themselves religious (although bringing world peace might make me reconsider!) might be asked to consider whether we want to be a full part of the people again, but can’t imagine it being forced.

So, IMHO (since it’s that forum) a person would arise, bring about world peace, and invite all those who considered themselves Jews to return to Israel for the consecration of a New Temple. That along with universal health and prosperity would be an accomplishment worthy of being a Messiah, and it’s a world I’d likely be happy to live in.

64

Indeed.

For some years now my immediate reaction to the question ‘what would convince you that some entity is a god’ has been ‘bringing peace to the Middle East by some technique other than killing all or most of the humans in the area’.

65

I am advised, and apologize for my thoughtlessness.

66

For the record, I (and I am not a mod) didn’t think you were using it in any way that hasn’t in the past been used it pop culture - IMHO as a description rather than an insult. Which is why we -had- a several hundred post thread on it.

Equally for the record, I was not hurt or insulted by your use of it, so while I feel your apology is graceful, I did not and do not feel entitled to demand one. Just a gentle reminder in the same way my wife reminds me if I belt out some insult by reflex that I really shouldn’t when I consider what it implies.

67

Thank you. Thing is, I remember that thread; partially because when I was taking Hebrew for my foreign language requirement in college, I and the other Gentile in the class looked to see if there was a male equivalent to the term. (There is, apparently.)

In any case, the reminder was apposite and I thank you for it.

68

-And then we all hugged it out, and resumed waiting for a Messiah to show up so that we might all begin to argue with them about technicalities-

69

In my humble opinion, if the whole Messiah thing is true, and God brings us a Messiah, God will also know who God considers to be Jewish. Whether that’s based on matrilineal decent, patrilineal decent, cultural heritage, belief, or some thing that we don’t understand at all that God knows about.

70

Well, since the Knowledge of God being Universal across the world is one of our pre-reqs, you’re likely right! Although I hope JHVH has a good contract lawyer, because The People love themselves a good, nuanced, detailed, and one might say, hair-splitting argument over the littlest thing. :wink:

71

Yup. The actual answer to the question posed by the thread title is almost certainly “Three Jews, four opinions.”

72

Actually “two Jews, three opinions” :slight_smile:

73

Including about how many Jews and opinions!

74

No matter what, always more opinions than there are Jews!

75

Oh sure, play the god card.

76

Of course not. But they, or maybe the Crusaders, who were also post-Talmud, were probably the most likely population of large-scale Jew-marauders who didn’t come primarily from the Mediterranean basin. Then again, I suppose Roman Legionnaires could have come from a broad geographical/genotype range. No question they raped their way across Judea, this is attested to in many of the Tisha B’Av dirges. But Alessan said “in the past 2000 years”, which would seem to have meant after that point.

(Of course, pegging it to the Talmud does not necessarily mean that the rule originated in Talmudic times, as the Talmud is oral tradition that has been passed down through generations - obviously, just how many generations you believe that to have been will shape your view of the origins of the rule. But given that wide-scale consensual intermarriage was attested to in the later Biblical book of Ezra, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a firm rule was in place at least that far back. And what did they do? They sent away the foreign women and their children.)

I had thought so, but in fact, I’ve since found a cite which says that “Authors of that generation also mention regulations which sought to prevent the increase within the community of the children born to women ravished by the Cossacks.” Not 100% sure what those regulations might have been (as they’re full Jews if born to Jewish mothers). So I stand corrected, I guess the numbers were high enough to of some degree of concern. That said, I would still maintain that the overwhelming majority of Jewish children at large were (before the increase in intermarriage in the past century) born to two married Jews and not to any combination that would cause the child to consider themselves fractionally Jewish.

Ruth was not that, but a convert, and as such, fully a Jewess. Which leads to the next quote which I think is very relevant to this conversation:

You are correct that Jewishness is not defined exclusively genetically, and therefore “pure-blooded” is a misnomer. Jewishness is defined by having accepted the covenant between the Israelites and G-d, either personally (i.e., being a convert) or ancestrally (i.e., by being a descendant - defined in Jewish law matrilineally - of one who was present at Sinai (I know most of this audience does not believe that event occurred, so just substitute whatever point you feel a communal Israelite/Jewish religious identity was forged), or one who converted subsequently to that. When I speak (somewhat inaccurately, I’ll grant) of “full-blooded Jews” I mean Jews born of a union of two other Jews (including converts) rather than of a Jew and a non-Jew who had never converted. While certainly there have been outright inter-children integrated into the Jewish gene pool in the past, the numbers of those compared to those born of two-Jew marriages were a drop in the bucket. The notion that there have been no “full-blooded Jews” in 2000 years just does not ring true.

77

By the times the Romans got there Judaism was already a thing. The conquests that forged Judaism came earlier, with the Babylonians and Assyrians.

78

A what? WTF, dude?

79

I was avoiding use of a term that the prior poster used which had been flagged as offensive. But since I was not clear, I will restate it with a declaration of non-intent to cause offense:

Ruth was not a “shiksa”, but a convert, and as such, fully a Jewess.

80

Not to speak for @hajario, but I think they’re reacting to the same thing I did: your use of the term “Jewess”. Which from my understanding, even as a non-Jew, is about as offensive as “negress” or “Gypsy”.