The person is still a Jew. However, with regard to Jewish law, he is treated in many respects as if he was not Jewish. It can be said that in many respects, he does cease to be Jewish. One major difference, however, is that if he wants to return to Judaism, a formal conversion is not required (although a symbolic one is recommended).
Zev Steinhardt
On the topic of “Christian Jews”, I remember reading somewhere that the Puritans commonly thought of themselves as “Christian Jews”, giving (for example) their children Hebrew-sounding “Biblical” names, etc. Anyone know anything about this?
Notable example: Jean-Marie Lustiger, Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris, often mentioned as a strong candidate for the papacy after the death of John Paul II. Born a Jew, raised Catholic. And he might end up as Pope (which I would love, if only 'cause it would shake things up a bit).
It was the belief that the promises of blessing made to the Jews was extended to them. The colonial settlers of America (and the trekboers of South Africa) also felt a shared identity with the Exodus/Joshua story. Like the ancient Israelites, they were trying to build God’s kingdom in the wilderness, threatened by the elements and by pagan savages.
This jibes with what I read. I also read (and I must look up the source) that many Puritans expected Jews to flock to Puritanism, and were dissapointed when they did not.
This seems to be a recurring motif for some Christian sects - that if only they could convert the Jews to their particular sect, all sorts of good things would happen, from validating their sect to heralding the second comming.
For some reason this appears to be a peculiarity of Christianity. As far as I am aware, there is less emphasis in Islam on converting Jews and Christians to Islam as being of any special import; and of course none at all in Judaism on converting Muslims and Christians. Nor is the conversion of Muslims to Christianity loaded with any particular significance in Christianity.
No, as far as I know, the only act of conversion to have actual religious significance (other than the general desire to convert everyone) is that of Jews to Christianity.
Christianity tends and has historically tended to see itself as Judaism’s successor. The idea has been that God first showed himself to the Jews and made it clear that He was going to come as Jesus. Then Jesus came along, and it was obvious that he was God, and in denying that, Jews were just being stupid or stubborn.
That is indeed true, but not the whole story. Is not Islam, similarly, the successor to both Judaism and Christianity? Mohammed is the “seal of the prophets”, after all.
Logically, it would follow that Islam should put as much emphasis on the conversion of Jews and Christians as Chistianity does on the conversion of Jews. Yet Muslims don’t appear to care nearly as much (beyond the desire to eventually convert everyone). As far as I know, there is no “Jews and Christians for Mohammad” to complement the “Jews for Jesus”.
Jews for Allah
Muslims for Jesus
Christians for Muhammed
The Jews don’t seem to be trying to convert anybody.
Great jumping Jehosaphat! :eek:
Well, I am fully refuted - I never dreamed that these organizations existed. The only one I ever heard of before is the “Jews for Jesus” - the original, accept no substitutes!
Good job hunting, Diogenes.
Diogenes, when I read the chapter, my understanding makes me want to believe what your saying. Again, I am no expert and have not read enough of Isaiah, or for that matter, the Tanakh/OT, to even know much about Ahaz or Isaiah. I was trying to point out, as you seem to agree, that some Christians chalk it up to type and shadow. Thanks again.
And for Radon, I would like to repeat that some Christians are not trinitarians. They know that the trinity is pagan and some believe it goes back further than Plato–I know one who believes that Nimrod, Samaramus(sp?) and Tammuz constituted an ancient trinity. The Roman Catholic Church instituted many Pagan customs and doctrines. This site talks about the Pagan Holidays, of “Christmas,” Easter, May Day and Valentines Day: Holidays and Holy Days
I agree that Judaism and Christianity are two seperate and “incompatible” faiths. Some Christians believe that God “did away with” the Law you are referring to(no Swine/Sabbath keeping/ etc…) by making a new Testament–a new covanent with man. Not all of the Ten(+) Commandments apply exactly the same way, and new commandments are made in this new covanent. The “Oneness Christians” believe God came in the flesh and that one can accept him(the Holy Spirit referred to in Genesis and Acts, etc…) as a gift.
A new covanent is just, in essense, God changing his mind. Here is different example from Numbers where God is commanding Moses to relay a message(also out of context).
Actually, I recall (unfortunately I don’t have a cite–though I suppose I could look if someone asks) that Muhammed was quite upset by the Jews’ surprising (to him) failure to convert to Islam, and that his attitude toward Jews changed from an extremely posative one to a much more ambivalent one.
It makes a lot of sense that both religions would have difficulty accepting Jewish non-acceptance, since both see themselves as the fulfillment of promises made to the people of Israel. It is exceedingly strange that God should choose to fulfill his promises to Israel in way that doesn’t actually seem to benefit Israel. It is one thing to say that the Jews rejected God’s fulfillment (although that does lead pretty directly to Antisemetism, as Captain Amazing pointed out). But possably THE fundamental teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures (after the Shema) is that God’s faithfulness overcomes humans’ (and Israel’s) unfaithfulness. If the promises God made to the Israelites have somehow been transfered to the gentile Church, has God abandoned Israel? Is God unfaithful? This was a big problem for Paul, and is the main issue of Romans. (Justification by faith was really a side argument.) His answer was “By no means!” (11:1, 11:11). God would ultimately fulfill all his promises to Israel, so that in the end, “all Israel will be saved. . . . for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:26, 29). This has led some denominations (like the Southern Baptists) to see the conversion of Jews as a prerequisite of Christ’s return. Others recognize that it refers to God’s faithful action in history and have repudiated such prostylatizing. The Catholics have, in fact, gone so far as to say that this passage tells us that Jews do not need to convert to be saved! ;j
I missed shoe’s post on preview. Most of the “trinities” on that chart seem to merely list the three most important deities out of a large pantheon. They could just as easily have listed the two or four most important, if the wanted to claim Greeks and Romans worshipped a diad or a quatrine. (I’d especially question the claim that Athena was more important than, say, Poseidon.) The basis of that site seems pretty overtly anti-Catholic.
Nevertheless, NO pagan religion, AFAIK, made the same claims about their deities that Christians from the begining have made about the Trinity–that they are both seperate and one, different instances of one essence (a better translation, IMO, that three persons, one substance). The only one that comes close is Hinduism, and I have a hard time seeing how Christianity could have copied from that. Seriously, go study the early church councils where these doctrines were hammered out. You don’t have to agree with their conclusions, but the arguements by which they were reached is pretty clear.