# Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic



## Tez3

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> My definition of self defense is not having hate or murder in your heart.
> 
> The fear and survival instinct causes someone to defend himself.
> 
> Murder and killing in justified self defense are two totally different things as far the denomination and stances of Christianity on this issue are concerned.
> 
> Just protect your family and yourself.
> 
> Keep religion and self defense separate then you will be o.k.
> 
> Don't make it harder or confusing. Keep it simple.


 
I think SL was referring to the fact that the commandment should read 'murder' as 'kill' is a literal mistranslation of the original, I don't think he was getting into a theological argument. 

Brother John you may take the Bible literally, I don't know, but it's actually my people's history and writings, you're welcome to enjoy it of course but do remember its Jewish origins and the fact your Jesus was Jewish with Jewish thinking, mores and morals, he was also targeting his work towards Jews. The whole message thing got diverted off it's course when the Christians got hold of it not to it's betterment I should add.


----------



## yak sao

Tez3 said:


> I think SL was referring to the fact that the commandment should read 'murder' as 'kill' is a literal mistranslation of the original, I don't think he was getting into a theological argument.
> 
> Brother John you may take the Bible literally, I don't know, but it's actually my people's history and writings, you're welcome to enjoy it of course but do remember its Jewish origins and the fact your *Jesus was Jewish with Jewish thinking, mores and morals, he was also targeting his work towards Jews. *The whole message thing got diverted off it's course when the Christians got hold of it not to it's betterment I should add.


 


What about the woman at the well? She was samaritan.


----------



## Tez3

yak sao said:


> What about the woman at the well? She was samaritan.


 

No idea, haven't read it.


----------



## cdunn

yak sao said:


> What about the woman at the well? She was samaritan.


 
Despite the deep divide between them, both the Jew and the Samaritan claim to be the descendants to the tribes of Israel. At the deepest level, the Samaritan woman, too, worshipped the same god with a portion of the same scripture.

To say that she was not "Jewish" in this greater sense is to say that the Constitution is for Americans, but not Hawaiians or Alaskans.


----------



## Brian King

> "Brother John you may take the Bible literally, I don't know, but it's actually my people's history and writings, you're welcome to enjoy it of course but do remember its Jewish origins and the fact your Jesus was Jewish with Jewish thinking, mores and morals, he was also targeting his work towards Jews. The whole message thing got diverted off it's course when the Christians got hold of it not to it's betterment I should add."


 
Ha, for a moment I thought I was back in the study area with the purposely insulting and amusingly arrogant comments so common there. My mistake.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3

Brian said:


> Ha, for a moment I thought I was back in the study area with the purposely insulting and amusingly arrogant comments so common there. My mistake.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


 
Well my comments weren't intended as insults just I'm very fed up of people who think the Bible is only what they say it is, it isn't. I'm not being arrogant, I'm actually quite upset about others arrogance in deciding what a book written by my ancestors says and how we should behave according to their interpretation of it. besides it has nothing to do with martial arts.
Interprete it how you want but don't claim yours is the correct version.


----------



## celtic_crippler

There's multiple occurances in the bible as evidence that "God" endoreses violence for a wide range of reasons. I wouldn't worry too much about one's soul being in jeopardy for defending oneself.


----------



## Brian King

> Well my comments weren't intended as insults


 
Whatever the intent they are very insulting and it is a pity you do not understand this.



> I'm not being arrogant


 
LOL of course not, you are being very arrogant. Are you part French perhaps?



> I'm actually quite upset about others arrogance in deciding what a book written by my ancestors says and how we should behave according to their interpretation of it


 
AH so your interpretation is correct and all others are wrong and you are mad at them for telling you that you are wrong and they are right, so mad that you must tell them they are wrong for telling you that you are wrong when you are right and they are wrong for thinking that they are right and thinking that you are wrong when you know that you are right and they are wrong and why cant they see that they are wrong and you are right, why must they keep saying they are right and you are wronggah I can see how with you being so right can get very frustrating when others do not see how wrong they are. Kettle meet frying pan



> besides it has nothing to do with martial arts.


 
In your world and in your opinionNOT in mine yet I try to keep those opinions out of the general forums and restricted to those that ask for it. You dont, funny that difference.



> Interprete it how you want but don't claim yours is the correct version. 


 
Why not, I do not see how it makes your interpretations or your own faith any weaker especially as you are making the very same claims of correctness. If we disagree on faith why should it matter to you what I believe since you disagree and do not believe what I do. FWIW It bothers me not a whit that your beliefs exclude me as I do not share your beliefs , heh maybe it is a Brit thing or Jewish thing but you seem very insecure in your beliefs.


Laurentkd So sorry for the further derailment of your thread. I have no idea of the link nor of the article in question and do not remember the thread asked about at all. If you find it perhaps you could PM it to me. Must be a good one if you remember it after a year and seek to refresh your reading of it.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3

Brian said:


> Whatever the intent they are very insulting and it is a pity you do not understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course not, you are being very arrogant. Are you part French perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> AH so your interpretation is correct and all others are wrong and you are mad at them for telling you that you are wrong and they are right, so mad that you must tell them they are wrong for telling you that you are wrong when you are right and they are wrong for thinking that they are right and thinking that you are wrong when you know that you are right and they are wrong and why cant they see that they are wrong and you are right, why must they keep saying they are right and you are wronggah I can see how with you being so right can get very frustrating when others do not see how wrong they are. Kettle meet frying pan
> 
> 
> 
> In your world and in your opinionNOT in mine yet I try to keep those opinions out of the general forums and restricted to those that ask for it. You dont, funny that difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, I do not see how it makes your interpretations or your own faith any weaker especially as you are making the very same claims of correctness. If we disagree on faith why should it matter to you what I believe since you disagree and do not believe what I do. FWIW It bothers me not a whit that your beliefs exclude me as I do not share your beliefs , heh maybe it is a Brit thing or Jewish thing but you seem very insecure in your beliefs.
> 
> 
> Laurentkd So sorry for the further derailment of your thread. I have no idea of the link nor of the article in question and do not remember the thread asked about at all. If you find it perhaps you could PM it to me. Must be a good one if you remember it after a year and seek to refresh your reading of it.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


 

You are frankly one of the most insulting people on MT, you put words in my mouth, you decide I have agendas I don't and now you decide I'm insucure. I'm not, I'm just very pissed off. When you've finished with your snide and just a bit sick character assasination try walking a while in my shoes and see how much you enjoy your anti semitism.


----------



## Brian King

> You are frankly one of the most insulting people on MT


 
Yup, your opinion is held by some others I would imagine. I do not give administrators, mentors (was really surprised at the invite to become ao mentor and if you remember gave it a lot of thought and gave MT a chance to take it back before accepting) or moderators (or web site owners) much slack, I try to hold them to just slightly less standards than I hold myself but still higher standards regardless. People who are new to posting, writing in a second language or very young I try to give more slack.



> you put words in my mouth


 
I try to use the quotation buttons and get the words exactly as others put them down? If I have misquoted you my apologies. 



> you decide I have agendas I don't and now you decide I'm insucure. I'm not


 
OK good to know, but to be fair I did say you seem to be insecure not you are insecure giving you the benefit of doubt.



> I'm just very pissed off


 
Well, my grandpa (RIP) used to say better pissed off than pissed on LOL Not sure if you will get the farmer humor but it is a way of saying being pissed off is kind of natural at times, it is what you do with that anger and what you let it do to you that is important, not the fact that you are pissed off. 



> When you've finished with your snide and just a bit sick character assasination try walking a while in my shoes and see how much you enjoy your anti semitism."


 
*Snide* 
_snide [sn&#299;d]_
_(comparative snid·er, superlative snid·est) _
_adj _
_derisively sarcastic: derisively sarcastic _
_&#12288;_
_[Mid-19th century. Origin ?]_
_-snide·ly, , adv _
_Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved._

Snide OK sure I can own that, LOL and these are my toned down replies LOL. I did have and do have contempt for the logic and arrogance in your rant. Perhaps I could have more empathy for your passion in your rant and give you more leeway as you are clearly upset and emotional. So my apologies Tez3 I will try to work on that.
&#12288;
&#12288;
*char·ac·ter as·sas·si·na·tion* 
_n _
_attack on somebody's reputation: a deliberate and sustained attack on somebody's reputation _
_Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved._

Ah, much like calling somebody an anti Semite if they disagree with you and say so.

_an·ti-Sem·i·tism _
_n _
_behavior discriminating against Jews: policies, views, or actions that harm or discriminate against Jews _
_Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved._

As I wish to grow as a human please point out any of my behavior discriminating against Jews: policies, views or actions that harm or discriminate again Jews, I can assure you they were unintentional and I honestly do not see them in these posts nor in my life.

If quoting what you take the time to write and taking the time to offer my own opinions of such writings is character assassination then I must be guilty. Tez3 we both know that there is true anti-Semitism in this world, people killing and beating Jews simply because they are Jewish. Throwing that charge out is serious, my name is attached to every post I write, not some made up handle and throwing out that charge over this little disagreement shallows and weakens that very real crime not to mention harms my own reputation. It is ok I can deal with that and those that read my writings and know me and what I have done and accomplished in my life for the Jewish people know how ridiculous and insulting that charge is. I avoid shoes that do not fit (a guy thing) so do not walk as a poor misunderstood victim. You should try it sometime. 

Sorry you seem to be having a bad day. I myself am on the way to pay respects to four officers recently gunned down here, so can understand that. I hope that your day/night improves and your anger subsides.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14

Tez3 said:


> I think SL was referring to the fact that the commandment should read 'murder' as 'kill' is a literal mistranslation of the original, I don't think he was getting into a theological argument.



A theological argument ? There was never one to begin with. 

This should be a common-sense definition of self defense. 

Quite frankly, I don't know who you are but I don't like your attitude. 

I can sense something is wrong with you. I don't know why but I do. 

I detest people who manipulate religion for personal gain like this with arrogant impunity.


----------



## MJS

Folks,

Lets try to stay somewhat civil, ok?


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14

Tez3 said:


> No idea, haven't read it.



The Samaritan at the well ? This is a famous story.

You do not know this story. It comes as no surprise. 

If more jewish people knew what Jesus Christ really taught then there would be peace between the arabs and jews.

The whole world, african nations, christian nations, european nations, latin nations and moslem nations would not have to put up with the shrewd thinking, foul mouthed and intrepid wickedness of the jewish state. Read all about the israeli crimes here from the top to the bottom of the page.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/blackops.html

Everybody knows Hitler was half jewish which is part of the problem.

You really need to read the story of the Samaritan at the well because you are not this so acquainted with the Jewishness of Jesus Christ that you profess to know from your own Jewish O.T. and N.T. Scriptures. _

( people need to notice that jewish people will deny the n.t. and say it is not jewish but like Tez is claiming here, Jesus is Jewish. see the irony. Jews absolutely hate having several things pointed out that is the truth. Keep pointing out the truth to the jews. )_

I bet you $20. that you have this DVD in your home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_%281956_film%29

 I am sure you do not have this DVD in your home. Really it is a shame. The world loved Jesus Christ but the Jews hated Jesus Christ.

Israel officially still does not recognize Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Only for its trinket and tourism dollars but not for the actual moral and spiritual welfare of the jewish state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_of_Nazareth_(miniseries)

Am I right ? hallelujah have a happy hanukkah denying that Jesus Christ is also the savior of Israel _and the whole world_. Merry Christmas !!! 

A horrendous sound to the liberal's ears _( read jewish people & co. )_ and a very beautiful sound to the rest of the world and people wonder why the liberals want to suppress Christmas just as it was in ancient times.

Congratulations Tez for derailing what was supposed to be a good thread. I have read back through your threads and posts in another window. I think I understand why I don't like you, not because you are jewish but because of your arrogant attitude and behaving as if everything you say is right. 

I would not be surprised if people talked behind your back at how much they hate and despise you, before you cry hate crime, look at yourself, your arrogant behavior and Honestly examine the history of Israel. 

I am glad I am an European American and much better behaved and civilized than you are. You need somebody to keep you honest. I will be keeping track of your lies and explain to people step by step your dis-honest and deceptive techniques which you obviously will hate to have pointed out. Have A Merry Christmas.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> Brother John you may take the Bible literally, I don't know, but it's actually my people's history and writings, you're welcome to enjoy it of course but do remember its Jewish origins and the fact your Jesus was Jewish with Jewish thinking, mores and morals, he was also targeting his work towards Jews. The whole message thing got diverted off it's course when the Christians got hold of it not to it's betterment I should add.



Cool. We've got more than just being martial artists in common then.
Not "All", but several of my ancestors (Maternal & Paternal) were Jewish. 
So it's OUR people's history and writings, and believe me...I enjoy it a great deal. Jesus (Yeshua) targeted his work FIRST to the Jews and from there to All peoples of the Earth. 





> *Matthew 28:16-20* (New International Version) *The Great Commission *
> 
> 16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of *all nations*, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.


So it wasn't diverted off course, it was his disciples fulfilling his directions obediently. 

I'm not going to get into a theological debate with you. It does NO good. 
I hope you have a wonderful Hanukkah this year and may God richly Bless you.

Your Brother
John

*PS:* To the original poster... I reread the original post and realized that NONE of the things I offered matched exactly what you're looking for (hope you got something out of them anyway), I'll be looking up what you asked, I've read some good articles on that subject.


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14

If you are a soldier then this verse will be relevant to your duties as a Christian. 

When the soldiers asked Jesus Christ what they should do ?

This is Jesus Christ's response which sums it up beautifully.

Luke 3:14 (King James Version) 

 14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.


----------



## Brian King

MattNinjaZX-14
I will let Tez3 answer for herself, I do not think she is perfect but do think she is capable to answer if she so chooses but your attacks are silly at best and really do not even need to be addressed and this is NOT the study section so hands are tied, but I for one find that Sweetliberty page disgusting and very lowly written. You are welcome to believe that crap, but I have yet to meet anyone who does believe that stuff that doesnt seem to truly have some kind of paranoid mental illnesses. I strongly urge you to really think about where and what sources you are getting your information from as they are leading you down a tough trail that will fill your life with unhappiness and sadness. 

Blaming Hitler on the Jews or his Jewish bloodseriously? I spent a number of years in Germany, spoke to many survivors (Germans, Russians and Poles mostly) and what you wrote is wrong on so many levels it is hard to even begin to address them. It is an insult to the blood given to fight and defeat (God willing someday) those insane ideas. 

Israel is one of Americas strongest allies in our battles around the world and I for one include Israel and her people in my prayers every night and morning. Blaming all that is wrong in the world on Israel and the Jewish people of the world shows a complete ignorance of history and an almost absurd misunderstanding of todays current events.

I strongly suggest that you back up sit down and pray about the hatred and lies that you have fallen prey to, you are way off base in my opinion and have my pity.

Brother John
I enjoy your posts, and hope some day to be even half as well spoken and gracious as you. Please keep it up. It is an example and inspiration to me. 

Mods, 
perhaps this thread can be moved to the study section or my and other posts not dealing with the OP topic can be split off? I should not have bothered to enter the conversation, my apologies. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14

Brian, it is not necessary for you to apologize. Germany is in the grips of zionism. Real Germans are afraid to speak their minds. 

Germany was as much a victim of jewish tyranny. Other countries had kicked out the jewish people for precisely this intolerable behavior that their god had set forth for the jews to follow. 

God saw what the jewish people were doing before WWI, during the interwar years and WWII. God raised the most wicked jewish person in all of Germany not to persecute, but to punish God's people for their wickedness. 

Today Israel continues to blame and extort money from Germany when Israel needs to confront their own national sins. Israel needs to forgive Germany and get on with life and to pay back some of the extorted money back to Germany.

Look at Tel Aviv today. You would not be able to recognize the historical significance of Israel's independence day because the city is so steeped in the lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

So many jewish people were into homosexuality, witchcraft and crimes prohibited by God's ordinances as He specified in the torah before the 1930's began. The jews tried to pull the Germans down with the abominable sins that everybody knew was un-natural or wrong.

The U.N. Security Council has passed several resolutions against Israel. 

The most current UNSC resolutions

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Why do you think this is ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

What did Jesus Christ say ?

Luke 3:14 (King James Version) 

 14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
















There are many American Jews and Israelis speaking out against the Israeli government's illegal actions toward the Palestinians.

This is exactly why I despise their soldierly practices.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3594828,00.html

Jesus Christ would have never treated the Germans, Jews or the Palestinians or ANYBODY like that !!!

Now remember the story of Jesus Christ and the Samaritan at the well. What does that say ?

Tez, there is no need to answer as I am not going to speak to a jewish person who is dis-obedient to G-d. 

Honest jewish people will set you straight with the truth. Many Israelis are speaking out against the israeli government and their illegal practices.

The U.S.A. is a Christian nation and has every right to protect American interests from Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/p...=1137819600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

This should have been about Christian self defense. I apologize but I must defend and present my case so that Tez can not manipulate herself as the israeli motto is 'By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War'[SIZE=+1]

Read this book at the library. This book will open your eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Making-Unmaking-Officer/dp/0971759502
 [/SIZE]


----------



## Jade Tigress

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our policy on religious tolerance in section 6 of the rules. 

Pamela Piszczek
MT Asst Admin*


----------



## morph4me

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> Brian, it is not necessary for you to apologize. Germany is in the grips of zionism. Real Germans are afraid to speak their minds.
> 
> Germany was as much a victim of jewish tyranny. Other countries had kicked out the jewish people for precisely this intolerable behavior that their god had set forth for the jews to follow.
> 
> God saw what the jewish people were doing before WWI, during the interwar years and WWII. God raised the most wicked jewish person in all of Germany not to persecute, but to punish God's people for their wickedness.
> 
> Today Israel continues to blame and extort money from Germany when Israel needs to confront their own national sins. Israel needs to forgive Germany and get on with life and to pay back some of the extorted money back to Germany.
> 
> Look at Tel Aviv today. You would not be able to recognize the historical significance of Israel's independence day because the city is so steeped in the lifestyle of Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> So many jewish people were into homosexuality, witchcraft and crimes prohibited by God's ordinances as He specified in the torah before the 1930's began. The jews tried to pull the Germans down with the abominable sins that everybody knew was un-natural or wrong.
> 
> The U.N. Security Council has passed several resolutions against Israel.
> 
> The most current UNSC resolutions
> 
> http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
> 
> http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp
> 
> Why do you think this is ?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
> 
> What did Jesus Christ say ?
> 
> Luke 3:14 (King James Version)
> 
> 14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many American Jews and Israelis speaking out against the Israeli government's illegal actions toward the Palestinians.
> 
> This is exactly why I despise their soldierly practices.
> 
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3594828,00.html
> 
> Jesus Christ would have never treated the Germans, Jews or the Palestinians or ANYBODY like that !!!
> 
> Now remember the story of Jesus Christ and the Samaritan at the well. What does that say ?
> 
> Tez, there is no need to answer as I am not going to speak to a jewish person who is dis-obedient to G-d.
> 
> Honest jewish people will set you straight with the truth. Many Israelis are speaking out against the israeli government and their illegal practices.
> 
> The U.S.A. is a Christian nation and has every right to protect American interests from Israel.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/p...=1137819600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
> 
> This should have been about Christian self defense. I apologize but I must defend and present my case so that Tez can not manipulate herself as the israeli motto is 'By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War'
> 
> [SIZE=+1]Read this book at the library. This book will open your eyes.
> 
> [SIZE=+1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=+1]http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Making-Unmaking-Officer/dp/0971759502[/SIZE]
> [/SIZE]


 

Blaming the victims? Really? This has to be one of the most ignorant, misguided, pile of **** for rationalizing for anti semitism I've read on this site.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Admin Note*

*Posts split from here.*Christianity and Self-Defense article
*Keep the discussion civil.*


----------



## CanuckMA

MattNinja,

Take your antisemitic crap somewhere else.

You are nothing but a small minded bigot at best. You are a dangerous idiot at worse.

I lost my entire family in the Shoah. You utterly disgust me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

MattNinja appears to be a troll who's only purpose is to cause trouble, and has been banned. When he signs back up again (this isn't his first round through) he'll be banned again.


----------



## geezer

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> If more jewish people knew what Jesus Christ really taught then there would be peace between the arabs and jews.
> 
> The whole world, african nations, christian nations, european nations, latin nations and moslem nations would not have to put up with the shrewd thinking, foul mouthed and intrepid wickedness of the jewish state...


 

Whoa. 

I mean _Whoa..._

I'm speachless. Utterly speachless. Not to defend Israel or anything, but your statements are so extreme that it would be even more absurd to waste my time and try and refute them. Shalom, bro.


----------



## Tez3

Did I say something to upset him?

Actually as Canuck will confirm this is actually quite a common occurance for us, it comes in different forms, in letters to the house, graffiti, leaflets to the synagogues and Jewish schools. Pigs heads are left on Jewish doorsteps, There's an organisation here called Jews for Jesus that preaches outside school gates to parents and children. We also have threats here from the BNP and Combat 18 the neo Nazi groups. A local Christian centre to me targets us regularly, with much more polite language but with the same sentiment, that we are to blame for our families deaths in the camps, that we are evil and should all be converted, at least they don't say killed, all this is backed up by Biblical quotes. Always the Bible is quoted in such a way that the original meaning in Jewish terms is twisted to mean something else they want it to. If we are foolish enough to try to explain our beliefs it's met with more Biblicial texts to prove what bad people we are, I wouldn't have minded if they said we were misguided or even mistaken but no, we are always evil, devils spawn even. Yeah we sacrifice children too, it says so in the Protocols of Zion so it must be true.

Yes I was being sarcastic when I said about remembering the Bible was orignally Jewish and putting your own context on it would change what was originally meant, this coming from another comment by someone that the Bible was divinely written, I don't believe it was, to me it's a history of my people along with the Laws given to us but as always with this subject conclusions were drawn, erroneously as it happens and judgements made, again wrongly but hey I don't expect much else on this subject but sorry I'm not going to stop expessing my *opinion* just because a couple of you has misunderstood what I said and don't like it.
Perhaps after reading the posts you may have an inkling of what certain people think is fun to subject us to and why I get really really fed up when people forget where they got the Bible from. Yet again people are quick to judge us as having evil motives. Et tu Brute.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6539415.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8166173.stm


----------



## CanuckMA

I grew up with it. My parents were the sole survivors of their families. Like so many others, they entered the Shoah religious and emerged not so.

I grew up fairly secular in Montreal in the 60s. That meant I went to public French language school. That meant Catholic school. I had to hide my Jewishness. Easter was not a happy time for me. 

Ironicaly, it made me who I am today. By my early teens, I immersed myself in learning my heritage and religion. If I was going to be persecuted for something, I needed to know why.


----------



## Tez3

"The traditional highway to G-d in Judaism is argument - but you have to trust to use it and not many are that secure. It is easier to suppress and be rude to those opponents who give voice to your own doubts" Rabbi Lionel Blue.

"Do not approach your fellow for a blemish that is in you." Rashi


----------



## girlbug2

Tez, as a christian I do not wish to offend you and indeed it is my hope that you see that christians by and large revere what we refer to as the Old Testament. However, since it is a part of our faith too, we have just as much right to interpret it as do you.


----------



## CanuckMA

Interpret it any way you want. But don't try to then come and tell us what you want it to mean. Too many Xtians read selected quotes of the text, in English, and try to tell us, who can read it in the original Hebrew, what the entire text means.


----------



## blindsage

Christians and Jews both intepret the text to their own ends, but as Canuck said, at least Jews can actually read the original text.


----------



## dbell

CanuckMA said:


> Interpret it any way you want. But don't try to then come and tell us what you want it to mean. Too many Xtians read selected quotes of the text, in English, and try to tell us, who can read it in the original Hebrew, what the entire text means.



Yet Jews (I was going to write a slang term similar to Xtians, which is also improper, but couldn't do it) are able to tell Christians what the Old and New Testaments mean?  Many great Hebrew translators say murder, not kill as well.  So, being someone that can read the original Hebrew, and who understands the culture and language aspects of that time, what does the text in question mean?


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> I think SL was referring to the fact that the commandment should read 'murder' as 'kill' is a literal mistranslation of the original, I don't think he was getting into a theological argument.
> 
> Brother John you may take the Bible literally, I don't know, but it's actually my people's history and writings, you're welcome to enjoy it of course but do remember its Jewish origins and the fact your Jesus was Jewish with Jewish thinking, mores and morals, he was also targeting his work towards Jews. The whole message thing got diverted off it's course when the Christians got hold of it not to it's betterment I should add.



Tez,

You seem to be very much anti Christian, and to me appear to be doing some of the same things you complain about coming from Christians.  It is also "Christian peoples" history and writings, not just "your" people's history.  As you said Jesus was "your people" as well.  So he is, in essence your Jesus as well.

As you read it, what is your translation of the message, before getting diverted as you put it?


----------



## Tez3

girlbug2 said:


> Tez, as a christian I do not wish to offend you and indeed it is my hope that you see that christians by and large revere what we refer to as the Old Testament. However, since it is a part of our faith too, we have just as much right to interpret it as do you.


 
Canuck is right, interpreting it is one thing, I'm sure it can mean anything to you that you wish it too but as Canuck says you are telling us in English that it means one thing and we know that it actually means something else. It's not a religious thing as such more of a language problem that if you knew about would change how you thought about it.

Take this sentence " I was walking down the road having a fag" what would you think? or how about this one "Have you got a rubber I can borrow" I bet to you both those sentences sound rude, disrepectful even yet all the first one is about is smoking a cigarette, the other about an eraser for use with a pencil. Pencils often have rubbers on top of them. Do you see what language can do? It can change meanings and if you don't know a country or a cultures traditions its hard to intrepret correctly so how can you interpret the Bible when it has been through so many languages. the example I gave was English to English, now try Aramaic and Hebrew to Latin to French and German to English The King James Bible was translated with a political slant, the language might be poetic but a lot of the meanings have been changed. This has happened more than a few times. I don't know what version you read but I really would urge you to read it in Hebrew if you possibly can.

I've never said btw that you shouldn't interpret it, I said you should bear in mind it's Jewish origins. the original statement I was answering said it was given to man by G-d, I disagreed and said it was the history of my people and it was geared towards Jewish understanding which you can't deny it was. I said that often it was interpretated to our detriment and harm. Others chose to interpret what I said as meaning something else which just goes to show how sometimes the meanings of sentences come from the readers minds not the writer at all. We have had the Bible used against us to fuel pograms, massacres and varies other things so you must understand that often Christian interpretations aren't always welcome. Perhaps that the fundamental Muslims terrorists are using many of the selfsame texts to justify killing Christians would give you an understanding of the feeling we have about having texts quoted at us?


----------



## Carol

I think one of the elements of confusion is that many Christians believe the Old Testament of the Christian Bible encompasses Jewish law, which is not necessarily so.   

To Christians, it doesn't matter as much that Torah in its entirety is included in the Old Testament, because the most important teachings of Christianity were the teachings of the Jesus.   However, time had the effect of taking additional details, laws, and supporting context out of the writings of the Old Testament.

However, when (for example) Jewish folks see their 300-something Mitzvahs of the Torah condensed down to "10 Commandments".  In the first century BC, Hillel described the first Mitzvah in the Talmud as "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the entire law; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.", However, the first Commandment in the Christian bible speaks about not having any other gods other the Almighty and not making an idol or any other image to be worshiped.  The First Mitzvah gets mentioned, but doesn't make the list of the 10 commandments.

Isn't it understandable for Jewish folks to be a bit miffed when Christians say that "its all the same"?  Its really not.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3

dbell said:


> Tez,
> 
> You seem to be very much anti Christian, and to me appear to be doing some of the same things you complain about coming from Christians. It is also "Christian peoples" history and writings, not just "your" people's history. As you said Jesus was "your people" as well. So he is, in essence your Jesus as well.
> 
> As you read it, what is your translation of the message, before getting diverted as you put it?


 
For goodness sake, I'm not in the least anti Christian, thats your interpetation of what I'm saying. 
The Old Testament as you call it is the history of the Jewish people, there's many who would say thats all it is, not a religious book at all. It has more importantly to us, the Covenant we have with G-d. I've never read your New Testament so have no opinions on it.
The diversion is where it's been translated over and over again. If you have Google, type a short sentence in the translation part, put it to French, then German then Spanish and then Russian. Then get it to translate it back into English then see if it bears any resemblance to what you originally wrote. do this and you will see what I mean, you could add in some translations to make it more politically correct and you have what I was talking about.

Just wanted to add thank you to Carol and ....do you think it's that easy keeping so many commandments, be thankful you only have 10! I'm not even allowed to ask for money back I lent someone in case I make them feel bad.


----------



## dbell

Carol Kaur said:


> To Christians, it doesn't matter as much that Torah in its entirety is included in the Old Testament, because the most important teachinds of Christianity were the teachings of the Jesus.:asian:



In my Christian studies, as a Catholic Friar, the whole Bible, including the Torah as written in the Old Testament, AND the Torah as kept in the Synagogues (as there are some minor differences between the two), were shown to be the most important teachings.  Not just the New Testament...

Now, some of the Christian "systems" may have diverted from that, but to state that only the New Testament matters to Christians globally is wrong.


----------



## Carol

dbell said:


> In my Christian studies, as a Catholic Friar, the whole Bible, including the Torah as written in the Old Testament, AND the Torah as kept in the Synagogues , were shown to be the most important teachings.  Not just the New Testament...
> 
> Now, some of the Christian "systems" may have diverted from that, but to state that only the New Testament matters to Christians globally is wrong.



In fairness Mr. Bell, please note that I did not say that only the New Testament matters to Christians, nor did I pose that as a global statement.  Its a difference in emphasis, at least among the laity.

I think what you are touching on is a big difference in the emphasis of study between Roman Catholics and Protestants, at least in the US.  I think that in general, Catholics spend more time learning the laws and the lessons from the Old Testament than Protestants do.  That's not a swipe at Protestants -- its just an observation.    There's a reason why kids think their CCDs take forever, and adults need a year for RCIA.  A lot of information, structure and history is being passed along.


----------



## Tez3

We've had enough Catholic v Protestant wars in this country in which hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, to know that there are very fundamental differences between the two faiths over _interpretations_ of the Bible and religious doctrine.


----------



## dbell

Carol Kaur said:


> In fairness Mr. Bell, please note that I did not say that only the New Testament matters to Christians, nor did I pose that as a global statement.  Its a difference in emphasis, at least among the laity.
> 
> I think what you are touching on is a big difference in the emphasis of study between Roman Catholics and Protestants, at least in the US.  I think that in general, Catholics spend more time learning the laws and the lessons from the Old Testament than Protestants do.  That's not a swipe at Protestants -- its just an observation.    There's a reason why kids think their CCDs take forever, and adults need a year for RCIA.  A lot of information, structure and history is being passed along.



Don is fine. 

My apologies, the way I read what you said, I gathered you meant the New Testament..  I stand corrected. 

Yes, I would probably have to agree with the differences in the Roman Catholics and the Protestant systems being somewhat disparate at times!  This being one of them...


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> We've had enough Catholic v Protestant wars in this country in which hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, to know that there are very fundamental differences between the two faiths over _interpretations_ of the Bible and religious doctrine.



We have had WAY TOO MANY religious wars as far as I'm concerned, and IF these "religious people" would actually follow their faiths, there would be no war....  At least the the faith systems I've looked at in any detail if followed as "written" would not be fighting...


----------



## Tez3

dbell said:


> We have had WAY TOO MANY religious wars as far as I'm concerned, and IF these "religious people" would actually follow their faiths, there would be no war.... At least the the faith systems I've looked at in any detail if followed as "written" would not be fighting...


 
The problem though is that politics and faith are sometimes too bound up together, add to that those who think only their way is correct and you've got wars. The problem we've had is that this is people from the _same_ _religion_ fighting, not different religions fighting each other. they were fighting because they read from the same book, the same words but see it meaning different things. They worship the same god and celebrate the same festivals but would kill each other because they each think the other is wrong about what the words mean when actually they aren't even reading a correct translation of the original.

I'm interested though as to why you think the Old Testament is also a history of Christians too? Not a snarky question btw, just wondering why you think that. The battles, wars, kings etc are definitely part of Jewish history, now whether they are of religious significance is a different argument but it's definitly the history of Israel.


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> The problem though is that politics and faith are sometimes too bound up together, add to that those who think only their way is correct and you've got wars.



BINGO.  Its not about religion at all.  Its about power.


----------



## Brother John

Carol Kaur said:


> I think one of the elements of confusion is that many Christians believe the Old Testament of the Christian Bible encompasses Jewish law, which is not necessarily so.
> 
> To Christians, it doesn't matter as much that Torah in its entirety is included in the Old Testament, because the most important teachings of Christianity were the teachings of the Jesus.   However, time had the effect of taking additional details, laws, and supporting context out of the writings of the Old Testament.
> 
> However, when (for example) Jewish folks see their 300-something Mitzvahs of the Torah condensed down to "10 Commandments".  In the first century BC, Hillel described the first Mitzvah in the Talmud as "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the entire law; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.", However, the first Commandment in the Christian bible speaks about not having any other gods other the Almighty and not making an idol or any other image to be worshiped.  The First Mitzvah gets mentioned, but doesn't make the list of the 10 commandments.
> 
> Isn't it understandable for Jewish folks to be a bit miffed when Christians say that "its all the same"?  Its really not.  :asian:



VERY interesting points Carol. 

I'm not understanding your illustration about Hillel's instruction on Mitzvah. 
You seem to be comparing the six hundred and thirteen Mitzvah to the Ethical Decalogue. The 316 Mitzvah are written in the Mishnah in the Talmud, which is essentially a commentary on Rabinical law. Hillel and his commentary on that commentary came about much later. The Ethical Decalogue came about by the very hand of God on Mount Sinai to Moses.  
That Mitzvah of Hillel's doesn't equate to the ones given by God thousands of years before Hillel's birth. So....I'm not seeing how Hillel's most famous Mitzvah (which I like a LOT) COULD have made it into the "10 Commandments".  Could you help me understand?
Thanks

Also: Are you saying that Christian's (some/many/all...etc.?) say or imply that the Christian new testament is "All the Same"...as the Talmud?? Or the scholarly works of Hillel?? OR....the "10 Commandments"? Just wondering.  I personally think that the latter IS closer to the mark, that Christ claimed to come to fulfill "the law". His thinking on the importance of the law and the prophets is very clear. 





> *Matthew 5:17-19*
> 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
> 18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> 19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



but to say that Judaism and Christianity is "all the same" would be ludicrous, I agree. 

BTW: Happy Hanukkah to you and yours too!

Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

Brother John said:


> I'm not understanding your illustration about Hillel's instruction on Mitzvah.  So....I'm not seeing how Hillel's most famous Mitzvah (which I like a LOT) COULD have made it into the "10 Commandments". Could you help me understand?
> Thanks


 

It's a misunderstanding. Hillel never stated that as a Mitzvah. The story goes:

A man came to Shamai and asked him to recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Shamai replied that it was impossible.

The man then went to Hillel and asked the same question. Hillel replied: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary. Now go and study it.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> The diversion is where it's been translated over and over again. If you have Google, type a short sentence in the translation part, put it to French, then German then Spanish and then Russian. Then get it to translate it back into English then see if it bears any resemblance to what you originally wrote. do this and you will see what I mean, you could add in some translations to make it more politically correct and you have what I was talking about..


That's not anything at all like the process through which we have obtained the Christian scriptures. _Not at all_. That 'filter, re-filter.....re-re-filter' process would be ridiculous to the extreme. Thank God it's not even close to that. You should research the subject, it's very interesting to say the least. I'm glad I did, and it Really reaffirmed my faith!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John

CanuckMA said:


> It's a misunderstanding. Hillel never stated that as a Mitzvah. The story goes:
> 
> A man came to Shamai and asked him to recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Shamai replied that it was impossible.
> 
> The man then went to Hillel and asked the same question. Hillel replied: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary. Now go and study it.



That's the way I'd always heard it too. Thanks.

By the way, interesting "New Testament" parallel...



> Matthew 22:34-40
> But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.
> 
> One of them, a lawyer, asked Him {a question,} testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
> 
> And He said to him, " '*YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND*.' This is the great and foremost commandment.
> 
> The second is like it, 'Y*OU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.*'
> On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."


I always thought that THAT and the story of Hilell on one foot were an awesome pair worth pondering!
Hope you don't mind me sharing some Christian scriptures with you.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Tez3

Brother John said:


> That's not anything at all like the process through which we have obtained the Christian scriptures. _Not at all_. That 'filter, re-filter.....re-re-filter' process would be ridiculous to the extreme. Thank God it's not even close to that. You should research the subject, it's very interesting to say the least. I'm glad I did, and it Really reaffirmed my faith!
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 

Really? So there weren't many versions of the Bible written in different languages? King James didn't command a new translation into English because of all these different versions and he didn't want want he called a Popish version? 
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

and it's still not being translated into what the translator wants it to say?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZyBIAPhMelK-xjJBRw_gw6nq_qQD9CBP6JG2


Dear old Wiki's view on the translations of the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

If you are reading the Bible in English how do you know it says what the original does?


----------



## CanuckMA

John,

That first from Matthew is almost verbatim from Exodus 6:5. It's not 'mind', it's 'might'.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler

celtic_crippler said:


> There's multiple occurances in the bible as evidence that "God" endoreses violence for a wide range of reasons. I wouldn't worry too much about one's soul being in jeopardy for defending oneself.



From my experience, Preacher's kid, I can say that the real issue is the heart.  Are you defending yourself, hating the fact that you have to do this to survive?  Or, are you defending yourself enjoying the fact that you may get to kill someone?

God sees the heart, He knows if you are surviving or thriving in this situation.

celtic, you are right, there are many examples in the Bible of God using violence through others to glorify Him.  But to support my previous statements any time someone did things on their own they lost, big.  If they waited for God's instructions they were protected and were the victor.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> Really? So there weren't many versions of the Bible written in different languages? King James didn't command a new translation into English because of all these different versions and he didn't want want he called a Popish version?
> http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
> 
> and it's still not being translated into what the translator wants it to say?
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZyBIAPhMelK-xjJBRw_gw6nq_qQD9CBP6JG2
> 
> 
> Dear old Wiki's view on the translations of the Bible
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
> 
> If you are reading the Bible in English how do you know it says what the original does?


 Yes, Really.  

Here's the issue, when you talked about the New Testament going through multiple permutations.....from one language, to the next, to the next...finally ending up in English...... that's not accurate at all. It's not as though it was first written in Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated from there to French and from there to German and from German to English. No. It did not go from language A to langauge B, to C, to D.....and we're reading it now in Language H. It was written predominantly in Greek. We have many very early greek manuscripts that cooborate that, something over 2000 manuscripts. And they agree as to what was said. So....we HAVE it in language A. BUT....what's more.... in the very early days of the Christian Church, as it's numbers grew exponentially, these thousands of agreeing Greek manuscripts were translated:
From Greek to Latin
From Greek to Syriac
and
From Greek to Coptic

A little while later it was translated 
From Greek to Armenian
From Greek to Gothic
From Greek to  Georgian
and
From Greek to Ethopic

All of these weren't kept in ONE place, but were thousands of miles apart. EVEN IF we didn't have the text in the original language Before translation (Which we do, as I said.....2000+ times over).... we have all of these other languages that were 2nd generation translation......and they all agree. We KNOW what the original said because we have it in the original tongue AND a cooborating direct translation in Multiple other tongues....and they all agree. 

The bible that I study from the Most, the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct/Literal translation from the Greek. It is not taken from it's original language into others....and yet others....and finally into English. 

My own favorite Bible is an "Inter-linear" Bible in which every sentence has 3 lines:
*1st:* The original Hebrew & Greek IN their original characters.
*2nd:* The transliteration of the original language (the phonetic characterization in Romanized lettering)
*3rd:* The word for word Literal translation of each word.

So for ME, personally...How can I know that what I'm reading is identical to the "Original"?? Because it's right there on my shelf, IN the original. 

Now: The next part of your questions. 
King James Version, 1611. 
YES, King James had different motives for wanting a different translation than the Latin Vulgate. 
From the link that you provided on the KJV it says in the 4th paragraph:


> "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."


See, it was translated by scholars from the "original Hebrew and Greek". 

as for their being different wordings: That's true. There are different wordings and I don't agree with all of them. Some of them, I think, are too far from the truth. But this has happened to every holy book of the world... paraphrased versions crop up. That still does not invalidate those that are a literal translation. Also: Those paraphrased ones that I do not disagree with, though they didn't go for a literal translation, their intent by and large was to be a faithful transmision of the message, the meaning. Again, not my favorite, but several have gotten it down right...so I personally don't have a problem with them. 

I hope some of this is helping you understand why Christians CAN be fully assured that what they have is what Christ and the Apostles themselves gave.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brian King

Other than being libeled an anti-Semitic this thread has turned about rather nicely with some decent information in it. Bob, if you are still monitoring this thread good job on splitting of the thread and putting this part of the discussion into the proper area of the forum. Thank you.

I think it is a mistake, either out of assumption, ignorance, arrogance or bigotry, thinking that because we are English speaking Christians that we are ignorant. I cannot speak for Christians in Britain and from what Tez3 wrote above it sounds like an awful place to be and I have read studies about the spiritual decline in Western Europe in general so perhaps the characterizations might have more merit for Christians over in Britain I dunno, but, thank God it has not been my experiences over here.

I hardly think that I am unique in my Christian studies. I am often lazy, too busy, or otherwise occupied and in my opinion I am not yet particularly well read or educated. Yet even I have Greek references that I try to work my way through. I have multiple Bibles that I read from including study Bibles that include both Greek and Hebrew verses and studies.(As an aside with the internet now it is easier than ever and there are many online study aids that allow you to read side by side English Greek and Hebrew and also compare different versions of the bible also side by side). I have an Orthodox Rabbi that gives me casual Hebrew lessons and applications from those lessons for my daily life health and prosperity that has been to my benefit. I have attended different local Christian churches when they have had Israeli and Arab and African speakers of other faiths also to my benefit. I have attended studies that have had many immigrants (most notably Greeks, Russians/Slavs and Africans) who freely shared their understandings and experiences. I meet and discuss with so many Christians from many denominations that have even deeper studied theological and scriptural understandings than I. I agree with Tez3 that language understanding can make a huge difference, writtten Hebrew for instance is very interesting and to my mind complicated with each letter or omission or recurrences making a difference and I was surprised at how often numbers have very deep meanings. All the various studies and exposures have deepened my still limited understanding of the Bible and my Christian faith but I hardly think that I am unique in the above and in fact consider myself a rather poor example of a Christian...but am working on it.


Warmest regards
Brian King

Brother John. A great post sir and well written.


----------



## Tez3

Brother John said:


> Yes, Really.
> 
> Here's the issue, when you talked about the New Testament going through multiple permutations.....from one language, to the next, to the next...finally ending up in English...... that's not accurate at all. It's not as though it was first written in Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated from there to French and from there to German and from German to English. No. It did not go from language A to langauge B, to C, to D.....and we're reading it now in Language H. It was written predominantly in Greek. We have many very early greek manuscripts that cooborate that, something over 2000 manuscripts. And they agree as to what was said. So....we HAVE it in language A. BUT....what's more.... in the very early days of the Christian Church, as it's numbers grew exponentially, these thousands of agreeing Greek manuscripts were translated:
> From Greek to Latin
> From Greek to Syriac
> and
> From Greek to Coptic
> 
> A little while later it was translated
> From Greek to Armenian
> From Greek to Gothic
> From Greek to Georgian
> and
> From Greek to Ethopic
> 
> All of these weren't kept in ONE place, but were thousands of miles apart. EVEN IF we didn't have the text in the original language Before translation (Which we do, as I said.....2000+ times over).... we have all of these other languages that were 2nd generation translation......and they all agree. We KNOW what the original said because we have it in the original tongue AND a cooborating direct translation in Multiple other tongues....and they all agree.
> 
> The bible that I study from the Most, the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct/Literal translation from the Greek. It is not taken from it's original language into others....and yet others....and finally into English.
> 
> My own favorite Bible is an "Inter-linear" Bible in which every sentence has 3 lines:
> *1st:* The original Hebrew & Greek IN their original characters.
> *2nd:* The transliteration of the original language (the phonetic characterization in Romanized lettering)
> *3rd:* The word for word Literal translation of each word.
> 
> So for ME, personally...How can I know that what I'm reading is identical to the "Original"?? Because it's right there on my shelf, IN the original.
> 
> Now: The next part of your questions.
> King James Version, 1611.
> YES, King James had different motives for wanting a different translation than the Latin Vulgate.
> From the link that you provided on the KJV it says in the 4th paragraph:
> 
> See, it was translated by scholars from the "original Hebrew and Greek".
> 
> as for their being different wordings: That's true. There are different wordings and I don't agree with all of them. Some of them, I think, are too far from the truth. But this has happened to every holy book of the world... paraphrased versions crop up. That still does not invalidate those that are a literal translation. Also: Those paraphrased ones that I do not disagree with, though they didn't go for a literal translation, their intent by and large was to be a faithful transmision of the message, the meaning. Again, not my favorite, but several have gotten it down right...so I personally don't have a problem with them.
> 
> I hope some of this is helping you understand why Christians CAN be fully assured that what they have is what Christ and the Apostles themselves gave.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
Well not really because as Canuck posted there was a basic error changing the meaning of a sentence, there's a world of difference between 'mind and might' but to me the New Testament is your concern and what you make of it or how you use it is none of my business. I was never concerned with the New Testament and I've never said it was any concern of mine. I think people assume that when I talk about the Bible I mean both parts of the Christian one, they then take offence where none was given. It's the use of the old Testament that worries me.

I've been told on here that the Old Testament is also part of everyone's history and everyone has a right to it. I can't see how that can be tbh. Take America, there are obviously a great many descendants of immigrants, each with their own original countries history behind them. The Scots have things like the Glencoe Massacre, the Highland Clearances, the Irish the Potato Famine, the Huguenots have persecution, each nation has it's own history. The Greeks and Italians both have had great empires. Other may look on or read with sympathy and understanding but it's not their history so why is it that things like the Fall of Jericho, the Exodus etc belong to everyone? Isn't that the history of Israel and belongs to the Jews, the race of and from Israel? The history is written down in the Bible along with much more I admit but why does the _history_ not just belong to us the way the Civil War and the War of Independance belongs to America?
Yes world civilisations are interesting and we should learn about them for many reasons but the Egyptian empire still belongs to the Egyptians, the Roman empire is still that and the civilisations of Athens, Sparta etc are still Greek.
When people discuss the Old Testament and mull over it's meanings, whys and wherefores they forget this is a history of a people, a still living people. They give out pronouncements based on what they think and read (and despite what you say there are still enough translations there and miscopyings to not be sure of the words) and forget that the people of the book, the living descendants of those people in the book are still around and living according to the Laws and ways in that book. The Levis and the Cohens are still here, the ways are the same. I've heard it said that if Jesus were to come back today he would walk straight into a synagogue, pick up a prayer book and follow the service. Yet so many times we are told that what our ancestors wrote, what we believe is wrong, that we are misguided and well, you've read the other stuff directed at me.

I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti those who think they are so right and everyone else is so wrong. My favourite Christians as I've said before and who I'm always glad to worship with are the Quakers, they are the best example of the best type of religious believers I know.


----------



## Brian King

> The history is written down in the Bible along with much more I admit but why does the history not just belong to us 


 
I dont honestly know Tez3. A little mental rambling thoughts before I go outside and do the chores and thanks for making me think about it.

Perhaps it is because the Jews are the chosen of God and not allowed to be selfish? You call it Jewish history and it truly is but it is also Gods lessons to man (His history so to speak) and everything happens according to Gods plan and all things are His. I am not wise enough to question His plans and say I know better. Asking God why did You allow their/my Book to be shared? is perhaps a legitimate question for you to ask in your prayers, for me I just know that I am SO grateful that He did and then did so much more. I sometimes get to share the stories and the lessons with others (as commanded to me) and it benefits both in the sharing. I dont think history belongs to anyone but is a shared experience. I may not be a Cohen but both the old and new testament speak to me and my experiences, I may not have been to Egypt physically as the Jews were but I have been to Egypt spiritually and with His guidance found the way out. Sorry bout the rambling but literally have one foot in the shoe and must run. Must say I am looking forward to this part of the discussion. Thanks again.

Off to do the chores
Good luck to you
Regards
Brian King


----------



## CanuckMA

Not to harp on it, but it is also well to remember that there are no vowels in Hebrew. There are vowel indicators used in some texts, but that is a rather recent invention. This is where context and serious knowledge of the language.

Take Tez's example earlier of the confusion in just English: I'm walking down the street with a fag.

That is confusing enough depending on where you live. Now try this:
'm wlkng dwn strt wth fg

That can be interpreted in so many ways. Assume you can accuratly fill in everything but the last word. now, is it fag, fig or fog? 

I'll make it even more confusing for you. Have a look at a Torah scroll, there are no spaces between the words. 

It gets confusing.

It's getting better, at least for places where it would not cause a shift in doctrine. Last time I looked at a Gideon bible, it had accurately translated the Commandment as No Murder.

I doubt that 'alma' will ever be translated accurately, to maiden, though.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> I've been told on here that the Old Testament is also part of everyone's history and everyone has a right to it. I can't see how that can be tbh. Take America, there are obviously a great many descendants of immigrants, each with their own original countries history behind them. The Scots have things like the Glencoe Massacre, the Highland Clearances, the Irish the Potato Famine, the Huguenots have persecution, each nation has it's own history. The Greeks and Italians both have had great empires. Other may look on or read with sympathy and understanding but it's not their history so why is it that things like the Fall of Jericho, the Exodus etc belong to everyone? Isn't that the history of Israel and belongs to the Jews, the race of and from Israel? The history is written down in the Bible along with much more I admit but why does the _history_ not just belong to us the way the Civil War and the War of Independance belongs to America?
> 
> When people discuss the Old Testament and mull over it's meanings, whys and wherefores they forget this is a history of a people, a still living people. They give out pronouncements based on what they think and read (and despite what you say there are still enough translations there and miscopyings to not be sure of the words) and forget that the people of the book, the living descendants of those people in the book are still around and living according to the Laws and ways in that book. The Levis and the Cohens are still here, the ways are the same. I've heard it said that if Jesus were to come back today he would walk straight into a synagogue, pick up a prayer book and follow the service. Yet so many times we are told that what our ancestors wrote, what we believe is wrong, that we are misguided and well, you've read the other stuff directed at me.
> 
> I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti those who think they are so right and everyone else is so wrong. My favourite Christians as I've said before and who I'm always glad to worship with are the Quakers, they are the best example of the best type of religious believers I know.



Sorry I haven't answered this part earlier, got side tracked with life, and work...

I should have said that at least Genesis is all of humanities book.  From Exodus on (as labeled in the Christian Bible) it is more the history of the Jewish, but it is also the foundation of the Rules of Life for the Christians of Jesus' time and on.  The Old Testament books also foretell the coming of the Messiah, which the Christians believe to be Jesus, and list what one should do to be saved and a servant of God.

For what it is worth, I can trace my ancestry back to two Jewish relatives one 18 and one 14 generations ago....  So, it is part of my history as well, if it wasn't before in your eyes...


----------



## Makalakumu

Look, the Bible is a historical document.  All of this arguing is pointless.  All of these translations done by powerful individuals with political agendas have completely erased any meaning this scrabbling of seemingly random documents may have had at one time.  

I understand that a lot of folks have bent their entire worldview around the text.  This was what it was designed for.  Your imaginary friend Jesus (and other various people) says whatever is politically convenient at the time.  

Maybe I should write a new version of the Bible that espouses eugenics, murder of children, total obedience to the banks.  Whoops!  That's already been done!


----------



## Makalakumu

maunakumu said:


> Look, the Bible is a historical document.  All of this arguing is pointless.  All of these translations done by powerful individuals with political agendas have completely erased any meaning this scrabbling of seemingly random documents may have had at one time.
> 
> I understand that a lot of folks have bent their entire worldview around the text.  This was what it was designed for.  Your imaginary friend Jesus (and other various people) says whatever is politically convenient at the time.
> 
> Maybe I should write a new version of the Bible that espouses eugenics, murder of children, total obedience to the banks.  Whoops!  That's already been done!



Whoops, I meant to say isn't.  Dang edit function.


----------



## Makalakumu

Wow, I read this whole thread and I wonder if the believers here know that the Bible was put together by the Romans in order to create a state religion.  That's why Jesus Christ resembles so many of their gods.  That's why when one studies these ancient religions, one can see so many parallels.  Christianity was a product that was created to unify an empire.  As we attempt to discuss which version was best and what was written and translated, you've got to take into account the minds of the men who were doing the writing.  There's no way original writings, if they ever existed, survived the test of time.  The Bible is a political document and rulers have always taken liberty with it's text.  That's why we see so many versions.  That's why the book exists in the first place.


----------



## Ken Morgan

maunakumu said:


> Wow, I read this whole thread and I wonder if the believers here know that the Bible was put together by the Romans in order to create a state religion. That's why Jesus Christ resembles so many of their gods. That's why when one studies these ancient religions, one can see so many parallels. Christianity was a product that was created to unify an empire. As we attempt to discuss which version was best and what was written and translated, you've got to take into account the minds of the men who were doing the writing. There's no way original writings, if they ever existed, survived the test of time. The Bible is a political document and rulers have always taken liberty with it's text. That's why we see so many versions. That's why the book exists in the first place.


 
Say what??

Dude, I&#8217;m an atheist and I don&#8217;t believe that. Evidence please? Sources? I may not believe in God or religion but I do find the historical relevance of all this stuff fascinating.

Christianity parallels and was influenced by the gods and beliefs of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Jews, the Egyptians, the various Celtic groups, the Greeks, the Minions, and yes the Romans.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

maunakumu said:


> Wow, I read this whole thread and I wonder if the believers here know that the Bible was put together by the Romans in order to create a state religion. That's why Jesus Christ resembles so many of their gods. That's why when one studies these ancient religions, one can see so many parallels. Christianity was a product that was created to unify an empire. As we attempt to discuss which version was best and what was written and translated, you've got to take into account the minds of the men who were doing the writing. There's no way original writings, if they ever existed, survived the test of time. The Bible is a political document and rulers have always taken liberty with it's text. That's why we see so many versions. That's why the book exists in the first place.


 
As somsone who has studied Roman mythology, (which in many ways is just studying Greek mythology with a different name) Im gonna have to ask what the hell you're talking about. The background, actions and teachings of Christ as presented in the Bible bear no resemblance to those of the Roman deities, who were essentially capricious jerks. Do you have any specfic similarities to refer to?

And if the Romans were intending to create Christianity as a state religion, why was their such a long period of persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities? Emperor Nero even blamed them as being responsible for the Great Fire in Rome, and used them as scapegoats.


----------



## CanuckMA

The Romans embraced Xtianity as a State relogion when it became clear that it was growing and could not be suppresed any more.

The closest thing to the Romans 'inventing' Xtianity that I can find is the Council of Nicea in 325 CE coming up with a unified doctrine.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha

CanuckMA said:


> The Romans embraced Xtianity as a State relogion when it became clear that it was growing and could not be suppresed any more.
> 
> The closest thing to the Romans 'inventing' Xtianity that I can find is the Council of Nicea in 325 CE coming up with a unified doctrine.


 
Alot of this stemming from the fact that Emperor Constantine trying to make up for the persecution of Christians under his predecessor Diocletian as well. Who was more than just a little opposed to it.


----------



## Makalakumu

Ken Morgan said:


> Evidence please? Sources?



I shall resurrect the Historical Jesus for your perusal.

This old thread is locked, so we can't comment on any of the presented material.  However, I can say that I learned more about Jesus by reading this thread and suggested material then I ever have learned before.  

This is mind blowing stuff.


----------



## Ken Morgan

maunakumu said:


> I shall resurrect the Historical Jesus for your perusal.
> 
> This old thread is locked, so we can't comment on any of the presented material. However, I can say that I learned more about Jesus by reading this thread and suggested material then I ever have learned before.
> 
> This is mind blowing stuff.


 
A better link for you
http://www.atheists.org/religion


----------



## Tez3

maunakumu said:


> I shall resurrect the Historical Jesus for your perusal.
> 
> This old thread is locked, so we can't comment on any of the presented material. However, I can say that I learned more about Jesus by reading this thread and suggested material then I ever have learned before.
> 
> This is mind blowing stuff.


 

For various reasons there are many of us who aren't actually interested in or even believe in Jesus lol. I, for one don't know enough about him to have a conversation let alone a debate on him. I do know that the Romans wiped the Druids out and blackened their faith though. 

I do know though that "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" and that one should always look on the bright side of life. :ultracool


----------



## Makalakumu

More interesting stuff about Jesus.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf10.htm


----------



## Stuey

I dont really have any faith. I have however made observations. The new testament in my opinion is tosh, (rubbish) IMHO. Of course that is one mans opinion. Disagree all you like.
The old testament though, I read a book giving scientific grounds to explain the evidence around us which tells us that the events probably did happen. The parting of the sea. The locusts. Eqyptian history and what was possibly Moses within that history. Cant remember the name the book. Convinced me though. I will admit that I can be gullible at the best of times. When faced with scientific evidence that these events happened it seems difficult to refute them. I also am not of the opinion that science and religion go against each other. If there is scientific evidence and reasons for these events, that to me proves how science provided these miracles and in no way detract from the value of them. They were afterall perfectly timed. The Jews at the time wouldnt have known what was causing the strange happenings. If anyone is interested I will attempt to dig out some more details of the causes of these events. If memory serves me the book claims it was due to a massive volcanic eruption that the sea first parted, then fell back, the sent locusts, etc. Didnt the sun blot out or something? Cant remember all the details. Anyway, such an eruption was found to be probable when examining cores of ice in the arctic, which forms layer upon layer quite reliably, sort of like the layers of a tree. The book even gave a rough time line due to the evidence.


----------



## Brother John

When it comes to 'belief' about what the New Testament is or isn't, where it came from or HOW it came about.... what it means or what those who compiled it 'intended'... there are TONS of Opinions. 

those who oppose it or resist it's claims to be an actual message from God to mankind; or even resist the claims that the content it purports to record actually happened....will never be convinced through persuasive argument. Period. 

Bear in mind that those who state that "The New Testament is.....", have their own agenda.... myself included.  I'd love to be able to come here and demonstrate in some ultra-convincing way the veracity of all that it contains... but in the end it's a personal investigation that anyone needs to make (or avoid) on their own. 

That's why I'd rather not go on working to convince anyone, UNLESS you'd like me too. In which case, please E-mail or PM me. I'd be glad to help anyone gain a better understanding if that's what they'd really like. BUT: as with ANY subject, those who claim they already "KNOW"... can't be "told". It's not that the argument Cannot be made, it most certainly can; but those who dig their heels in and refuse to open their hearts and minds to a truth....cannot be "MADE" to accept it. Nor should they be. 

Have a Great Holiday Season, no matter what it is.
Merry Christmas

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ken Morgan

Brother John said:


> When
> It's not that the argument Cannot be made, it most certainly can; but those who dig their heels in and refuse to open their hearts and minds to a truth....cannot be "MADE" to accept it. Nor should they be.


 
You had a great post going until I read this part. Perhaps I'm being a wee bit sensitive tonight, but I put forward an alternate hypothesis, that those who refuse to open their minds to the truth cannot be made to accept it. Nor should they be.

Have a great christmas...


----------



## Tez3

If we had 'proof' it wouldn't be called faith would it? If everything was provable how easy it would be, bit like being given your black belt on your first day in the dojo instead of having to work for it.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> I'm very fed up of people who think the Bible is only what they say it is, it isn't.


Isn't saying that you know what something ISN'T    comparable to saying what something IS? 



Tez3 said:


> I'm actually quite upset about others arrogance in deciding what a book written by my ancestors says and how we should behave according to their interpretation of it.


*1.* Do you think that your "ancestry" has much to do with it? Knowledge and understanding of scripture, history or anything else isn't hereditary. 

*2.* I'm not sure that anyone here has told you how you must behave or that you need to get in line with Their interpretation. In my opinion people have simply offered up their 'take' on the issue that was asked about. That doesn't seem arrogant. It's conversation. 



Tez3 said:


> besides it has nothing to do with martial arts.


I don't think it's unusual at all for people to take the bible, new and/or old testament, as a book for guiding our conduct and behavior. In fact, I'd dare to say that that's one of it's most common applications for Christians and Jews alike. So if that's true, then a conscientious christian who feels the Bible is meant for this purpose would be right in using it to determine if something, anything is right to do. I think that's pretty logical. 



Tez3 said:


> Interprete it how you want but don't claim yours is the correct version.


So if one cares deeply about what the Bible says and studies it deeply and comes to a strong conviction about what they fully believe it says... can they not posit their position and share their conviction without offending others? It's a very very tricky and sticky situation to be sure. But I think that if you're going to participate in a discussion where the subject is God or the Bible we've got to have a bit thicker skin and be ready to be both forthright and humble when paricipating. 

Hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> If we had 'proof' it wouldn't be called faith would it? If everything was provable how easy it would be, bit like being given your black belt on your first day in the dojo instead of having to work for it.


 That is actually an excellent point, and a good analogy to illustrate it. There's a lot that archaeology or other things can give proofs for, but in the end, the core issues are a matter of faith. What a crucial distinction. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Chris Parker

Wow, this is a fun one. Without going into the technical level a number of other posters have (incredibly interesting, by the way), let's see if we can agree on a few basic timeline details.

The Torah (making up the majority of the Old Testament in the cannonical Bible in all modern Christian forms) is the Holy Book and writings of the Jewish peoples and their faith, containing within it the history and teachings that guide them to this day. It was originally written (and continues to be in Jewish faiths, synagogues, and houses) in Hebrew, and was later translated into Greek, as that was the official "language of learning" common to the Ancient World. This brought us to the time of Jesus.

Jesus was a teacher and leader of Jewish religious followers. He spent his time teaching according to the traditions and knowledge of his time, with his emphasis being different to the orthodoxy of the Pharisees etc. However, he was known and refered to as "rabbi", meaning "teacher'. The term does not specifically mean religious (the same way that "sensei" does not necessarily refer to a martial art teacher), however at the time religious teachings guided all other teachings, so you can read into that quite easily. 

So my big issue here is when people are talking about "Christians of Jesus' time". There weren't any. They were Jews who followed Jesus, as there were Jews who followed many other Messianic Prophets at the time. Christians came later.

In terms of contemporary writings (I think maunakumu was saying that there are none for us to check...), there are quite a variety of writings from the time of Jesus, most famously the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a number of books that have been preserved in texts such as the Ethiopian Bible, and the Koran, and a number of other known "apocryphal" texts. So we can check them if we want to.

The translation issue, of Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English, or straight to English without going to Latin to begin with, well, the issues with translating from the original Hebrew has been covered very well. But I would add one more point, I beileve it was Brother John who said that his copy has three lines in various transliterations? Well, that's all well and good, but the job of a translation is far more than just "this word equals this other word". Context must be taken into account, as must personal idioms, particular (unique) phrases, cultural beliefs and practices which may or may not still be known or practiced, and more. And this is doubly important when dealing with a document such as this.

If there are there lines, with the first being the original Hebrew/Greek in the original lettering, and the second being the phonetic sounding of the text, that's all good. If you can understand it and read it. The third line is where we get a bit of trouble. If it is a direct word-for-word translation, then you are probably missing a great deal of information (as indicated above). A better (and more reliable) translation method is to translate in the context of the original, with it's spirit and heart. Every foreword I have ever read by a translator stresses that fact whether it is Homer, or Hatsumi.

By the time Constantine turned the Roman Empire Christian (and employed the Council of Nicea to address the issue of an official cannonical Bible), there had been a variety of texts moving throughout Christian circles for a few Centuries. Some of these stayed, others were taken out of the equation, and others survived in other sources (as earlier stated). Those that were kept were kept for a variety of reasons, including established authenticity, and congruence, as well as supporting a certain agenda of the new regime (for example, the anti-Roman sentiment which was a big selling point in the time of Jesus and directly following such was downplayed, and the new scapegoats used were the Jewish peoples themselves... I always found that rather ironic, the Jewish people gave the Romans their new religion [in a manner of speaking], although it was the Roman's who were directly responsible for the excecution of Jesus, and in return, the Jewish people get blamed and distanced from the new religious movement, in order to bring it more palatability to the Roman people. Go figure). Those that were removed were taken out for much the same reasons, although there were a few taken out because of simple story-telling rules (a lot of the stories about Mary, Jesus' mother are removed, including the fact that she is in fact the Immaculate Conception, rather than Jesus), as it takes the focus of Jesus. They have survived in the Koran, though, where Mary is mentioned far more than in the Christian Bible. Others were denied placement due to not going with desired ethics and values (in an extended version of the story of Genesis, for example, the question of Cain's wife is answered... the original [and I'm paraphrasing here] has Cain and Abel being the sons of Adam and Eve, and after Cain slays Abel, he goes off into the wild. Later he "knows" his wife, and she bears him a son. At this point, most astute and aware readers say "Hang on, Cain and Abel are the only children of Adam and Eve, where did the wife come from?". Well, this longer version has Cain and Abel simply being the two eldest of many children... and Cain's wife was therefore his sister. Although many other sins are demonstrated and allowed throughout the Bible in various forms, incest is a definate no-no. So the book couldn't be included).

Now, if we are to look at the Bible as being written by God Himself, then we may have an issue. Which books did He write? The ones we kept, or the ones we put aside? And did He write them Himself, or through people? Personally, I am not religious, but I believe that for a religious writer, the feeling is that God is writing through them, not that God is writing (the only case I can think of off the top of my head for God actually physically writing is on Mount Sinai when He incribed two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments for Moses to carry down to the People of Israel).

For those of faith, I have nothing but respect for you. If you believe the Bible is the literal Word Of God, that is your right and prerogative. However, if you are seriously researching the histories of these writings, you have no alternative but to acknowledge the role of human beings in the composition of the texts. And really, people, The Old Testament (the Torah) is the history and teachings of the Jewish People. End of story. It is a proud history of a proud people, the fact that it is downplayed in Christianity in lieu of the New Testament in no way diminishes or denies this very simple fact. It is theirs. We can study it, interpret it for lessons we can take with us, but unless you are Jewish, it is not your history. Okay?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Far be it from me to wade into a religious discussion.

Analogy. 

I am Canadian, I was born here. My Dad came from N. Ireland and my Mom from Scotland 50 years ago. I can go back to the UK to work or live as I choose. 95% of my family is in the UK, it is like a second home when I visit. But I am Canadian.

 Am I Canadian? Most of the history we studied, the politics, the institutions were created all before my family came here, do I have a right to claim all that stuff as mine? My family never contributed to the historic growth and development of this country, but I proudly say I am a Canadian. 

Am I a Canadian? Do I have a right to be proud of the history of this country?


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Ken, good to see you. Yeah, I thought the same about entering into another religious thread, but here we are again, I guess. And so long as we're here...

I would say you have a personal history of the various ethnic histories that make up your family tree, in this case form the UK primarily. You do also, however, have an inherent interest in the history of your country and culture, which is Canadian.

In the context of this thread, the Jewish history for Christians is like your Canadian citizenship. It is part of the history of your identity, and shapes you from a cultural standpoint, even though the actual history precedes your involvelment (or your families). Make sense?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Ken, good to see you. Yeah, I thought the same about entering into another religious thread, but here we are again, I guess. And so long as we're here...
> 
> In the context of this thread, the Jewish history for Christians is like your Canadian citizenship. It is part of the history of your identity, and shapes you from a cultural standpoint, even though the actual history precedes your involvelment (or your families). Make sense?


 
Hey Chris, I actually love the historical part to religion. I would love to travel to that part  of teh world and see all it has to offer. Just don't expect me to pray or believe...

Correct, that was my purpose in the analogy. I don't see why folks get hung up on these little things. Its like a koryu argument about who is teaching the "real" line. Who cares? as long as it gets you to where you need to be!


----------



## Tez3

Brother John, I think you may have missed some posts on here when someone was telling me exactly what to do and where I was going wrong etc, it certainly wasn't conversation it was actually abusive, nasty and insulting which is why I assume the poster was banned and you missed mine telling how there's always people telling me how I should behave ie convert to Christianity. 
You are assume I'm talking about the Bible I'm not, I'm talking about what you call the Old Testament and the parts referring to Jewish history. That bit is straightforward and plain, it's history. I'm not talking about the law or commandments, I'm talking about history. What I obviously can't seem to make people understand is that you keep calling it the bible, it's not that to me, I don't know this bible, it's alien to me, I can't judge it not having read it. What I have is the Torah and the Talmud. We are talking about almost very different things from my perspective. I can say nothing about your New Testament, I haven't read it, I can't discuss it as I have no knowledge of it. It would be like me discussing knowledgably CMA, it has some similiarities I can recognise to my karate but is a very different thing in practice. 

I don't know if people can understand the wish for our history to be ours and not shared as a world wide asset, I am in the Diaspora, I hope to go up to Eretz Israel one day but the longing is always there and has been for our people for centuries. I don't think I can make you understand how it feels, I'm at a loss to explain. I can't explain how we constantly feel insecure even in countries that appear to be 'safe' Perhaps you have heard Jerry Springer talk about his father? He was called by his mother to go and speak to his father about him giving up his car as he was getting on and was finding it hard to see and therefore drive. His father listened and then told him that he could never give the car up as they may need it one day to escape again. My mother kept a small bag of diamonds and her passport always handy, I have the diamonds now and yes my passports with it because who knows? Jerry Springer did a programme here where he went back to Germany and found out what happened to his family, he managed to trace both his grandmothers, elderly ladies at the time of the war, the both died in the camps. Stripped of their clothes, their dignity and then their lives. Perhaps it can only be understood when one has nothing and comes from nowhere yet what was uniquely ours what you call the Old Testament, a history of our people is claimed by all as belonging to all and can be translated as one wishes. If as people say it speaks to all and is G-ds word to all why then is so much ignored? why no celebrating Pesach, eating clean foods, circumcising boys etc etc. some things people want others they don't, it's turned into a pick and mix for people.

_"I have lost everything... I have lost my native land; do you know what that means for a poet? .. I have lost the cities where I have worked and where I made an impression for a whole life-span... I have had to become my own world, my own mental space, the cradle of words."_
_ Karl Wolfskel ( from a letter to a friend after 14 years in exile from Germany)_






On the subject of translations and different versions look at this and how many different 'Bibles' translate something. I think losing the skill to play a harp is hardly the momentous loss the original phrase was trying to portray and the horrendous notion of forgetting Jerusalem is downplayed in many of these. I have also had the word 'cunning' used against me to prove that Jews are in fact sly and cunning, well it says so in the Bible, must be true.






New International Version (©1984)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill]. 
New Living Translation (©2007)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget how to play the harp. 
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, May my right hand forget her skill. 
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [how to play the lyre]. 
King James Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 
American King James Version
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 
American Standard Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her skill . 
Bible in Basic English
If I keep not your memory, O Jerusalem, let not my right hand keep the memory of its art. 
Douay-Rheims Bible
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. 
Darby Bible Translation
If I forget thee, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill; 
English Revised Version
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 
Webster's Bible Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill. World English Bible
If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill. Young's Literal Translation
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, my right hand forgetteth!


Thank you Chris, elegantly and eloquently put. My emotional attachment makes me unable to post in such a scholarly way. You have my gratitude.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> Brother John, I think you may have missed some posts on here when someone was telling me exactly what to do and where I was going wrong etc, it certainly wasn't conversation it was actually abusive, nasty and insulting which is why I assume the poster was banned and you missed mine telling how there's always people telling me how I should behave ie convert to Christianity..


 
You are RIGHT. 
I did forget that that jerk had been.... well....... a Jerk, I tend to shut things like that out. Sorry that I wasn't paying better attention.

I understand what you're saying about being in the diaspora and the yearning you feel to return to the promised land of God's covenant with his people; though....like you said, I can't possibly FULLY understand it. Several of the brothers in my masonic lodge have talked to me about this yearning and the passion in them was Very moving. I hope you get the chance some day and that you get to fully enjoy the experience w/out the interuption of violence that tends to plague that region. Israel and God's people remain in my prayers.

Happy Hanukkah!

Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

Brother John, Tez said it well. But it is also more than that. The reason that we ar so sensitive on the subject is more than Xtians appropriating our history. It's Xtians misreading our Holy books, and then teling us that we are wrong. That we should 'see the way' and convert. That we should abandon a 4,000 year old culture, history and faith and just become one more extinct civilazation.

Not going to happen.

It's pehaps fitting that this onversation is spanning Chanukkah.


----------



## Carol

Brother John said:


> VERY interesting points Carol.
> 
> I'm not understanding your illustration about Hillel's instruction on Mitzvah.
> You seem to be comparing the six hundred and thirteen Mitzvah to the Ethical Decalogue. The 316 Mitzvah are written in the Mishnah in the Talmud, which is essentially a commentary on Rabinical law. Hillel and his commentary on that commentary came about much later. The Ethical Decalogue came about by the very hand of God on Mount Sinai to Moses.
> That Mitzvah of Hillel's doesn't equate to the ones given by God thousands of years before Hillel's birth. So....I'm not seeing how Hillel's most famous Mitzvah (which I like a LOT) COULD have made it into the "10 Commandments".  Could you help me understand?
> Thanks
> 
> Also: Are you saying that Christian's (some/many/all...etc.?) say or imply that the Christian new testament is "All the Same"...as the Talmud?? Or the scholarly works of Hillel?? OR....the "10 Commandments"? Just wondering.  I personally think that the latter IS closer to the mark, that Christ claimed to come to fulfill "the law". His thinking on the importance of the law and the prophets is very clear.
> 
> but to say that Judaism and Christianity is "all the same" would be ludicrous, I agree.
> 
> BTW: Happy Hanukkah to you and yours too!
> 
> Your Brother
> John




What I'm trying to say (and probally not saying it very well) is that in Christianity and Judaism, there are many common topics that are important, and held in high esteem.  

But the emphasis and interpretation behind the topics are not always the same, and there is a lot more to being Jewish than just understanding what is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and I think this dynamic is aggravated demographics (Christians are an overwhelming majority compared to Jews in the western world), and this creates misunderstandings and tensions.   

Another example, amongst the fewer-numbered Sikhs and the greater-numbered Hindus, and having once been an orthodox Sikh, I can attest firsthand that it is very aggravating when someone from another religion tells you what you should believe, or what you are.  I think a very similar dynamic exists in the west between Christians and Jews....and even perhaps even Protestants and Catholics.  I do have to admit that my blood pressure goes up a bit whenever I hear the phrase "Catholics and Christians".

I don't know if I'm being more clear, or more confusing.  But I hope you have a a very Merry Christmas good brother.


----------



## Xinglu

I have always found Christians telling Jews that they don't understand the Old Testament to be incredibly arrogant.  It is akin to a first year music student telling Bob Dylan that he doesn't understand the meaning of his own music.

They (as a people) wrote it.  They have taught it fairly consistently for the past four thousand years.... I think they know what it means and how it applies.

I want all the Christians to sit back and consider how they would feel if another religion started using the New Testament, began interpreting it in an fashion to suit their doctrines, and then began telling Christians that they are ignorant of the meaning of their own scriptures.  It's like a Russian telling and American that they have no idea what it means to be American, or an American telling a Japanese that they have no clue what it means to be Japanese.  After all the old testament is more than just spiritual books, it is a historical account of a group of people.  of the Jews themselves.

Jesus (if he actually existed [I don't care to debate that, nor do I have an opinion as to weather or not he did]) lived and died a practicing Jew and Rabbi.  Looking at what words are actually attributed to him (not spoken/written by Paul and the likes) he never contradicted Judaism.  He contradicted the contemporary interpretations of the laws from the leading sects. 

In fact, I assert that until Christians can get their first rule right (to treat others with pure love and compassion that Christ professes) that they abstain from telling others how wrong their religion is.  Something about removing the "beam" from one's own eye before pointing out the "rod" in another's...

Almost every Jew (with few exceptions) I have ever met has embraced me and treated me with more kindness and tolerance than I probably deserve.  I cannot say the same for Christians.  In fact, in my experience tolerance and friendship of those outside "the faith" is most uncommon.  Sooner or later I'm expected to convert or cut off from friendship or attacked for not believing what they do.  And what boggles my mind, is that Christianity is a fractured religion filled with infighting.  They can't even agree on the littlest of things from one denomination to the next, and proclaim each-other to be heretics!  Yet demand to be considered the religion of tolerance and love... 

It seems like the Jews (the mother of all Abrahamic religions) have been betrayed and set upon by her children (Christians and Muslims) and it just baffles me.

- In peace


----------



## Tez3

Brother John said:


> You are RIGHT.
> I did forget that that jerk had been.... well....... a Jerk, I tend to shut things like that out. Sorry that I wasn't paying better attention.
> 
> I understand what you're saying about being in the diaspora and the yearning you feel to return to the promised land of God's covenant with his people; though....like you said, I can't possibly FULLY understand it. Several of the brothers in my masonic lodge have talked to me about this yearning and the passion in them was Very moving. I hope you get the chance some day and that you get to fully enjoy the experience w/out the interuption of violence that tends to plague that region. Israel and God's people remain in my prayers.
> 
> Happy Hanukkah!
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
I can understand why you forgot it, it was a rant of Lilliputian proportions made by a person with a tiny male appendage.


----------



## Stuey

I visited Abrahams house and the Ziggarrat of Urr. No relation to anything, but it was very cool!


----------



## Brother John

Xinglu said:


> They (as a people) wrote it.


Well......actually their prophets and religious leaders wrote it. 





Xinglu said:


> I have always found Christians telling Jews that they don't understand the Old Testament to be incredibly arrogant. It is akin to a first year music student telling Bob Dylan that he doesn't understand the meaning of his own music.


I find it arrogant anytime people, no matter their denomination or religious persausion, tell others how they MUST or must Not interpret their own religious texts. But I will say that Christians also have a claim to the books we call the "Old Testament". Despite what some on here have stated, a well informed follower of Jesus Christ aught to look at them as equally important. The 'old' is the backdrop for the new, and without it the new would make very little sense. So I'm not going to tell anyone that they don't understand their own scriptures. But what I will tell people is that I have a right to read, interpret and judge for myself concerning the books that are cannonical to my faith. IF my interpretation doesn't coincide with a Jews, or a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon or Catholic's or Muslim's interpretation.... it doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong for sticking to my convictions. 
Just something to think about.



Xinglu said:


> I want all the Christians to sit back and consider how they would feel if another religion started using the New Testament, began interpreting it in an fashion to suit their doctrines, and then began telling Christians that they are ignorant of the meaning of their own scriptures.


Sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists.... take the New Testament and make it say things to fit their theological slant, tell 'mainstream' Christians that they're wrong or apostate? 
It's been happening for a Very long time already. 
We already know how we feel about it.



Xinglu said:


> Jesus... {Edit} ...lived and died a practicing Jew and Rabbi. Looking at what words are actually attributed to him (not spoken/written by Paul and the likes) he never contradicted Judaism. He contradicted the contemporary interpretations of the laws from the leading sects.


I disagree. I'm pretty sure that most practicing Jews, conservative, liberal or what have you... wouldn't agree with Jesus saying that he was the ONLY way to get to God the Father, that he and God were "One", or even when he attributed the title "I AM" to himself.  There's a LOT more than just that from the words of Christ himself, but those are just a few highlights that Jews would almost certainly disagree with I'd think. 



Xinglu said:


> In fact, I assert that until Christians can get their first rule right (to treat others with pure love and compassion that Christ professes) that they abstain from telling others how wrong their religion is. Something about removing the "beam" from one's own eye before pointing out the "rod" in another's...


 Who IS capable of always getting that "First rule" right? Only Christ was able to. We may try, but we are still only humans. 

Think about it like this: IF the things posited in the Christian New Testament IS true..... for the sake of argument.....IF it IS, then if we are to LOVE God First and foremost...we MUST follow Christ's commandment to share this with the rest of the world, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics.....etc. Also: IF we fully believe that what we are taught in "Christianity" is the literal Truth... then we'd be very very UN-loving to NOT share this truth liberally with any and all that we can.  Just something to ponder.



Xinglu said:


> Almost every Jew (with few exceptions) I have ever met has embraced me and treated me with more kindness and tolerance than I probably deserve. I cannot say the same for Christians. In fact, in my experience tolerance and friendship of those outside "the faith" is most uncommon. Sooner or later I'm expected to convert or cut off from friendship or attacked for not believing what they do. And what boggles my mind, is that Christianity is a fractured religion filled with infighting. They can't even agree on the littlest of things from one denomination to the next, and proclaim each-other to be heretics! Yet demand to be considered the religion of tolerance and love...
> 
> It seems like the Jews (the mother of all Abrahamic religions) have been betrayed and set upon by her children (Christians and Muslims) and it just baffles me.
> 
> - In peace


 
It sounds like you've had a horrible experience of what Christianity is. I'm very sorry to hear that. 

Fractured? Yes. So are Jews, Muslims, Hindu.....etc. Seems to me that almost every religion on the Earth fractures and divides on issues of doctrine and practice. 


Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

Brother John said:


> I find it arrogant anytime people, no matter their denomination or religious persausion, tell others how they MUST or must Not interpret their own religious texts. But I will say that Christians also have a claim to the books we call the "Old Testament". Despite what some on here have stated, a well informed follower of Jesus Christ aught to look at them as equally important. The 'old' is the backdrop for the new, and without it the new would make very little sense. So I'm not going to tell anyone that they don't understand their own scriptures. But what I will tell people is that I have a right to read, interpret and judge for myself concerning the books that are cannonical to my faith. IF my interpretation doesn't coincide with a Jews, or a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon or Catholic's or Muslim's interpretation.... it doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong for sticking to my convictions.
> Just something to think about.


 
But when you tell me that YOUR interpretation of MY Holy Books is the only correct one, you have seriously overstepped the line. Especially when the interpretation is all too often based on mistranlations and grossly out of context quotes.


----------



## Brother John

CanuckMA said:


> But when you tell me that YOUR interpretation of MY Holy Books is the only correct one, you have seriously overstepped the line. Especially when the interpretation is all too often based on mistranlations and grossly out of context quotes.


I've not told you that. 

Nor have I mistranslated.



Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

Generalized YOU


----------



## Xinglu

Brother John said:


> Who IS capable of always getting that "First rule" right? Only Christ was able to. We may try, but we are still only humans.
> 
> Think about it like this: IF the things posited in the Christian New Testament IS true..... for the sake of argument.....IF it IS, then if we are to LOVE God First and foremost...we MUST follow Christ's commandment to share this with the rest of the world, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics.....etc. Also: IF we fully believe that what we are taught in "Christianity" is the literal Truth... then we'd be very very UN-loving to NOT share this truth liberally with any and all that we can.  Just something to ponder.
> 
> It sounds like you've had a horrible experience of what Christianity is. I'm very sorry to hear that.



I have had nothing but the worst experience with Christianity.  As with all religions, people "interpret" the scriptures to suit their own selfish agenda.  Perhaps it is because I'm in a Christian dominated society, but I have experienced, seen, and been on the receiving end of those "interpretations" from more Christians per capita than non-Christians. 

Who is capable? We all are.  Otherwise "we" wouldn't have been commanded to do the impossible.  I find it a complete copout to say only Yeshua could do it, after all, if only he could do it, then what is the point of even trying? 

One of my favorite passages from the New testament is as follows, "if any one may say -- 'I love God,' and his brother he may hate, a liar he is; for he who is not loving his brother whom he hath seen, God -- whom he hath not seen -- how is he able to love?" (1 John 4:20 [Young's Literal Translation]) It is the actions and how Christianity "shares their truth" that show how they do not love their "brethren."  I have even been told that this scripture refers only to "fellow believers" and not "unbelievers."  That just sounds like yet another copout. 

Religionists are very off-putting to me.


----------



## Tez3

I think Christianity is probably the only religion that makes it a point to try to convert others, often forcibly or on pain of death. No other religion is so in your face and so determined to push their beliefs on others. Judaism positively discourages people from converting and doesn't go looking for people to preach to. I haven't come across any other religion including Islam that does this.
As for anyone interpreting the Old Testament the way they want to this has led to Christians using our dietary laws to forbid the use of blood transfusions and put lives at risk, that worries me. No one can tell me that I have the interpretation wrong and they have it right in this case. 
I think you will find the Jews a lot less 'fractured' than you think, many people mistake our ways where argument is the basis for study as being wrong and that we are are serious odds with each other.
I find it odd that many many learned and wise rabbis well versed in Torah over the ages who have make it their life's study are discarded by Christians when it comes to reading and understanding the 'Old Testament'. I don't understand how people can read it through and make judgements about what it means without understanding all the laws not just the 10 commandments, the traditions and the very way of life of the people it is about. For example do you know when a boy is considered a man, exactly? About how to conduct business, marriages, deal with servants etc? All this has already been interpreted before the time of Jesus and if the wish is to understand what went before why isn't it done properly?
Our prophets and religious leaders are of us and are us. They aren't separate.


----------



## Brother John

Xinglu said:


> I have had nothing but the worst experience with Christianity.  As with all religions, people "interpret" the scriptures to suit their own selfish agenda.  Perhaps it is because I'm in a Christian dominated society, but I have experienced, seen, and been on the receiving end of those "interpretations" from more Christians per capita than non-Christians.


again, I'm _*sorry*_ you've had _nothing_ but bad experiences with Christians. That's extremely *sad*. I understand where you're coming from. Even BEING a Christian, I've sure had my share of negative experiences from other fellow believers. That too, however, isn't unique to Christianity. The Biggest problem with any of the religions on Earth is that they are represented and made up by fallible humans, with all of the problems and baggage that come with our human frailty. Don't see how any of us can get around that. I pray that someday you have a very positive experience with Christians, and that you're open to know it as such. 



Xinglu said:


> Who is capable? We all are. Otherwise "we" wouldn't have been commanded to do the impossible. I find it a complete copout to say only Yeshua could do it, after all, if only he could do it, then what is the point of even trying?


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The ability to ALWAYS Love purely and perfectly is a gift from God IF it's ever achieved. I don't think that any person could fully and continually accomplish this outside of a miracle.  But there are instances in which we are given a goal or pointed by God toward an ideal standard that's beyond our ability to accomplish fully or always. For instance, lets look at the place where Jesus Christ is telling us, as you pointed out, to Love always.


> *Mat 5:44 - 48*    but I -- I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you, that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous. For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same? and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so? ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who [is] in the heavens is perfect.


 ((BTW: As you preferred Young's Literal Translation, I used it here. For those not used to it, might try looking up these same verses in a different language. I suggest the New American Standard Bible; still a direct translation, but must more readable.))
There've been people in history and maybe even alive today who can do VERY well with this, but not always, not perfectly. AND: Being "Perfect"?? Only by the Grace of God can that be accomplished. So sometimes we are instructed to do what cannot be fully accomplished, perfectly all of the time by flesh-bound humans. Only by the supernatural help of God can we even come close. 
Just my point of view.

For an old Testament comparison, compare the beautiful verses where God establishes the covenant with Abraham: 





> *Gen 17:1*     And Abram is a son of ninety and nine years, and Jehovah appeareth unto Abram, and saith unto him, `I [am] God Almighty, walk habitually before Me, and be thou perfect;
> &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1462;&#1503;&#1470;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1514;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1506; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1461;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500;&#1470;&#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1458;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;&#1470;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500; &#1513;&#1473;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497; &#1492;&#1460;&#1514;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1500;&#1468;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1500;&#1456;&#1508;&#1464;&#1504;&#1463;&#1497; &#1493;&#1462;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1461;&#1492; &#1514;&#1464;&#1502;&#1460;&#1469;&#1497;&#1501;&#1475;


  Yet even Abraham didn't fully and continually be "perfect". 
Just for consideration. 


Xinglu said:


> It is the actions and how Christianity "shares their truth" that show how they do not love their "brethren." I have even been told that this scripture refers only to "fellow believers" and not "unbelievers." That just sounds like yet another copout.


YES! That would be a copout, in no uncertain terms! 
But also, might consider this: Nobody likes being shown their errors, being disillusioned about what they "Though" life was really all about, OR..... and I'll use a strong word here.......being made to see their own "SIN". That can really rankle anyone. It's never comfortable, even for those of us who already 'believe'. But, *it's a necessary step.* Often, VERY VERY often, that step is the biggest stumbling block to anyone investigating Christianity. It's an offense to them and they view it as intrusive or "judgmental"....things like that. So....if they go no further than this early stumbling block and resist the 'truth' because of it, they often come away with very negative impressions of Christianity and simply remember the uncomfortable, anger evoking, "offense". 

Also: Christian's DO try to convert others. I'm not at all apologetic about that fact. It's simply the truth. BUT......we're often woefully inept at being ABLE to do it well. That's a horribly sad truth. Being able to share the truths about Jesus Christ with others SHOULD be one of the biggest things on our mind, but really.....it's frightening. Remember that "First Stumbling Block" I talked about above? It's very frightening to a well meaning Christian who really feels moved to share the Gospel with others!! Nobody *wants *to offend!!! In fact, it's the direct opposite of what we'd really like to do. Yet, it's a hurdle that we've got to approach and jump over. It's never easy. But like I said, it's a necessary step! Sadly, many of us either bungle that step OR....the person digs in their heels at the idea that they are a sinner (very common) and the believer doesn't know how to handle THAT with good tact. Not easy. Then...we come off as being pushy and demanding. Sad.  The people I've met who are Gifted in being able to effectively share their faith with others are my HEROES! But they're rarer than I'd like. 



> Religionists are very off-putting to me.


Me too. Had to look up the term "Religionist", but when I read that it says: _Excessive or affected religious zeal._
I agree. IF one's religious zeal isn't real but 'affected'.....in other words, forced or fake, it has horrible results for them, the people they effect and even the 'religion' they think they're serving. 

Hope ya'll are having a GOOD day!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ken Morgan

Brother John said:


> again, I'm _*sorry*_ you've had _nothing_ but bad experiences with Christians. That's extremely *sad*. I understand where you're coming from. Even BEING a Christian, I've sure had my share of negative experiences from other fellow believers. That too, however, isn't unique to Christianity. The Biggest problem with any of the religions on Earth is that they are represented and made up by fallible humans, with all of the problems and baggage that come with our human frailty. Don't see how any of us can get around that. I pray that someday you have a very positive experience with Christians, and that you're open to know it as such.
> 
> 
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The ability to ALWAYS Love purely and perfectly is a gift from God IF it's ever achieved. I don't think that any person could fully and continually accomplish this outside of a miracle. But there are instances in which we are given a goal or pointed by God toward an ideal standard that's beyond our ability to accomplish fully or always. For instance, lets look at the place where Jesus Christ is telling us, as you pointed out, to Love always.
> ((BTW: As you preferred Young's Literal Translation, I used it here. For those not used to it, might try looking up these same verses in a different language. I suggest the New American Standard Bible; still a direct translation, but must more readable.))
> There've been people in history and maybe even alive today who can do VERY well with this, but not always, not perfectly. AND: Being "Perfect"?? Only by the Grace of God can that be accomplished. So sometimes we are instructed to do what cannot be fully accomplished, perfectly all of the time by flesh-bound humans. Only by the supernatural help of God can we even come close.
> Just my point of view.
> 
> For an old Testament comparison, compare the beautiful verses where God establishes the covenant with Abraham: Yet even Abraham didn't fully and continually be "perfect".
> Just for consideration.
> 
> YES! That would be a copout, in no uncertain terms!
> But also, might consider this: Nobody likes being shown their errors, being disillusioned about what they "Though" life was really all about, OR..... and I'll use a strong word here.......being made to see their own "SIN". That can really rankle anyone. It's never comfortable, even for those of us who already 'believe'. But, *it's a necessary step.* Often, VERY VERY often, that step is the biggest stumbling block to anyone investigating Christianity. It's an offense to them and they view it as intrusive or "judgmental"....things like that. So....if they go no further than this early stumbling block and resist the 'truth' because of it, they often come away with very negative impressions of Christianity and simply remember the uncomfortable, anger evoking, "offense".
> 
> Also: Christian's DO try to convert others. I'm not at all apologetic about that fact. It's simply the truth. BUT......we're often woefully inept at being ABLE to do it well. That's a horribly sad truth. Being able to share the truths about Jesus Christ with others SHOULD be one of the biggest things on our mind, but really.....it's frightening. Remember that "First Stumbling Block" I talked about above? It's very frightening to a well meaning Christian who really feels moved to share the Gospel with others!! Nobody *wants *to offend!!! In fact, it's the direct opposite of what we'd really like to do. Yet, it's a hurdle that we've got to approach and jump over. It's never easy. But like I said, it's a necessary step! Sadly, many of us either bungle that step OR....the person digs in their heels at the idea that they are a sinner (very common) and the believer doesn't know how to handle THAT with good tact. Not easy. Then...we come off as being pushy and demanding. Sad. The people I've met who are Gifted in being able to effectively share their faith with others are my HEROES! But they're rarer than I'd like.
> 
> 
> Me too. Had to look up the term "Religionist", but when I read that it says: _Excessive or affected religious zeal._
> I agree. IF one's religious zeal isn't real but 'affected'.....in other words, forced or fake, it has horrible results for them, the people they effect and even the 'religion' they think they're serving.
> 
> Hope ya'll are having a GOOD day!
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 

  Actually you should apologize for trying to convert others.

  Attempting a conversion on someone comes from a condescending position of you having the correct faith/belief and the rest of us are being naïve little children who just need to be shown the proper way. We are not children, we are adults who have made our choices in life, based on our beliefs and our experiences we are where we need to be right now. We do not want or need someone to save us.

  I personally believe if you and many others would personally believe what I believe, you would become better human beings for it, but it is up to you to come to that conclusion. I have no right to interfere in your life in order to help you see the truth.


----------



## Brother John

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually you should apologize for trying to convert others.


I follow Jesus Christ. He told us to do this. There's really nothing to apologize for. Sometimes the approach IS wrong and that may need to be apologized for. But if you felt that I was headed toward certain doom, but you knew a way not only off of that path but onto one that lead to certain HOPE and reward, you'd be right to try to convince me, to persuade me to change the path I was on. You'd be showing me love. There's nothing in that that needs apologized for. 



Ken Morgan said:


> Attempting a conversion on someone comes from a condescending position of you having the &#8220;correct&#8221; faith/belief and the rest of us are being naïve little children who just need to be shown the proper way. We are not children, we are adults who have made our choices in life, based on our beliefs and our experiences we are where we need to be right now. We do not want or need someone to &#8220;save&#8221; us.


I couldn't disagree more. Attempting to persuade someone of something doesn't mean that you're a child. Attempting to inform someone of something that they simply don't know doesn't mean that they are naive. 



Ken Morgan said:


> *#1*: I personally believe if you and many others would personally believe what I believe, you would become better human beings for it, but it is up to you to come to that conclusion.
> *#2*: I have no right to interfere in your life in order to help you see the truth.



*#1*: Then _please_ share of it on a level that accords with the level of importance that your beliefs imply. Being a Christian means infinitely more than just becoming a 'better human being'. If that's all it was it would be extremely trivial. But being a Christian has eternal consequences. 

*#2*: Have You been '_interfered with_' in your life by a Christian? What is your idea/definition of being 'interfered with'??

Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

See John, that is exactly what Tez and I are talking about. The you-don't-what-your-text-means-let-me-explain-it-to-you, in your face stuff.

It's OUR book, writen in OUR language, for US. We have been studying it for 3,000 years. With the advantage of having lived the events and spoken the language. Do what you want with it within your group, but don't you dare try to tell us you know what it says better than we do.

To answer your last question to Ken, take a walk on university campuses. Have a look at what the Baptist organization Jews for Jesus is doing. Trying to entice young people who are away from home for the first time, many impressionable and convince them that their way is still Judaism.

Or the setting up of 'Hebrew-Xtian synagogues' in areas where a lot Russian Jews are living, preying on a population that did not have lot of Jewish education and trying to rob them of their Heritage.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> I think Christianity is probably the only religion that makes it a point to try to convert others, often forcibly or on pain of death. No other religion is so in your face and so determined to push their beliefs on others. Judaism positively discourages people from converting and doesn't go looking for people to preach to. I haven't come across any other religion including Islam that does this.



I see it happening from Islam and Muslims all the time.  What do you think is going on in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan these past hundred years or so?
I have seen it come Judaism as well over the years as well.  It is even talked about in the Torah/Old Testament of bringing people (servants/etc) into the faith.



Tez3 said:


> As for anyone interpreting the Old Testament the way they want to this has led to Christians using our dietary laws to forbid the use of blood transfusions and put lives at risk, that worries me. No one can tell me that I have the interpretation wrong and they have it right in this case.



You lost me on this.  Who has done this in the Christian faith?



Tez3 said:


> I think you will find the Jews a lot less 'fractured' than you think, many people mistake our ways where argument is the basis for study as being wrong and that we are are serious odds with each other.



There are several "factions" in the Jewish faith, each translating the Torah or living to the Torah in different ways.  It is not as fractured as the Christian based faiths have become over the last few hundred years, but there are fractures there as well.



Tez3 said:


> I find it odd that many many learned and wise rabbis well versed in Torah over the ages who have make it their life's study are discarded by Christians when it comes to reading and understanding the 'Old Testament'. I don't understand how people can read it through and make judgements about what it means without understanding all the laws not just the 10 commandments, the traditions and the very way of life of the people it is about. For example do you know when a boy is considered a man, exactly? About how to conduct business, marriages, deal with servants etc? All this has already been interpreted before the time of Jesus and if the wish is to understand what went before why isn't it done properly?
> Our prophets and religious leaders are of us and are us. They aren't separate.



I'm not sure what you mean by the last two sentences here?

Yet, you discredit those learned Priest/Ministers/Theologians who make it their life studies well versed in the New and Old Testament?  If you mean the lay person, I know many Jewish people that do not know the Torah well, who only live by part of the rules of life outlined in the Torah, just as I know many Christians that do not live by the rules of life outlined by the Bible of their faith.  I know many Jewish people that, while they go to Synagogue weekly, outside of the Synagogue they barely follow their faith as well.  It is a joint problem.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> I can understand why you forgot it, it was a rant of Lilliputian proportions made by a person with a tiny male appendage.



And we needed to go to personal attacks now?  (And I know I wasn't the person this attack is addressed to, but how does this fit within your faith?)


----------



## Brother John

CanuckMA said:


> See John, that is exactly what Tez and I are talking about. The you-don't-what-your-text-means-let-me-explain-it-to-you, in your face stuff.


Have I told you that you don't know what your scriptures mean? What have I done that's been "in your face"?
IF you're talking about the post directly preceding this one, I didn't say anything about anyone else's religion. Ken gave his opinion that Christian's should apologize for evangelizing, I simply disagreed and gave my reasons.



CanuckMA said:


> It's OUR book, writen in OUR language, for US. We have been studying it for 3,000 years. With the advantage of having lived the events and spoken the language. Do what you want with it within your group, but don't you dare try to tell us you know what it says better than we do.


I've not done that too you sir. Not in the least. The fact that your ancestors lived the history recorded in the Tanakh (as many of my own did as well) and studied it from the day it was penned to now doesn't mean that you've got THE exclusively right interpretation. That's my belief. It doesn't mean that it's not ALSO a part of my heritage as a Christian, because it is. 
Please understand, from the viewpoint of a well educated Christian, the New Testament is not separate from the Old Testament; it is the confirmation and fulfillment of it. It is the continuation of God dealing with man, bringing salvation to ALL of mankind, first through the Jews...as that is where the messiah came from. To the Christian point of view, Jesus is the messiah. I'm not telling you what you must believe in your Tanakh. I'm telling you what I do. I've got an equal right to the scriptures as you do. 


CanuckMA said:


> To answer your last question to Ken, take a walk on university campuses. Have a look at what the Baptist organization Jews for Jesus is doing. Trying to entice young people who are away from home for the first time, many impressionable and convince them that their way is still Judaism.
> 
> Or the setting up of 'Hebrew-Xtian synagogues' in areas where a lot Russian Jews are living, preying on a population that did not have lot of Jewish education and trying to rob them of their Heritage.


I'm not very familiar with "Jews for Jesus", I do know that there are such things a "Messianic Jews", where they accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah. I've met some and they were VERY impressive in their knowledge and I'm fond of them for their kindness toward me at a difficult time in my life. 

You know, you seem to me to imply that the Christian's who attempt to evangelize others are evil or bad, that they "Prey" on others or "entice". IF they believe that the Messiah has come, that he was Jesus of Nazareth and that it's crucial to know this..... then their intentions aren't so dastardly. You disagree with them? Obviously, right? OK. 
That still doesn't:
a: Make them wrong or bad.
b: Make their intentions wrong or bad. 


I'm not trying to be rude or "in your face". But I am trying to present a Christian's side of all of this, and all I can give is the Christian side that I know.... mine. I can't answer for Baptist's, Methodists, Catholics....or anyone else, like Jews for Jesus. 

I think it would be so much better if Jews and Christians had a better understanding of one another! 

Your Brother
John


----------



## CanuckMA

dbell said:


> I see it happening from Islam and Muslims all the time. What do you think is going on in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan these past hundred years or so?


 
When is the last time you saw a Muslim standing on a street downtown, trying to convert people?



> I have seen it come Judaism as well over the years as well. It is even talked about in the Torah/Old Testament of bringing people (servants/etc) into the faith.


 
No, it is not. Judaism is not a prosylitazing religion. We do not go forth and try to convert the world. When somebody approaches us, we actively try to discourage them. We have to flt out say no to a prospective convert before we seriously talk to them.





> You lost me on this. Who has done this in the Christian faith?


Jehova's Witnesses.




> There are several "factions" in the Jewish faith, each translating the Torah or living to the Torah in different ways. It is not as fractured as the Christian based faiths have become over the last few hundred years, but there are fractures there as well.


Yes, there are 'factions' but by and large, the interpretation of Torah is the same. You also have to keep in mind that questioning is part of our religion. Torah study in my synagogue can get quite animated discussing the meaning of some verse.




> Yet, you discredit those learned Priest/Ministers/Theologians who make it their life studies well versed in the New and Old Testament?


 
Yes we largely do because Xtian study of Torah is done with the sole purpose to justify Jesus and the New Testament.


----------



## CanuckMA

Brother John said:


> Have I told you that you don't know what your scriptures mean? What have I done that's been "in your face"?
> IF you're talking about the post directly preceding this one, I didn't say anything about anyone else's religion. Ken gave his opinion that Christian's should apologize for evangelizing, I simply disagreed and gave my reasons.


 
I'll say it again, it's the general 'you', Xtians, not you, John, in particular.



> I've not done that too you sir. Not in the least. The fact that your ancestors lived the history recorded in the Tanakh (as many of my own did as well) and studied it from the day it was penned to now doesn't mean that you've got THE exclusively right interpretation. That's my belief. It doesn't mean that it's not ALSO a part of my heritage as a Christian, because it is.
> Please understand, from the viewpoint of a well educated Christian, the New Testament is not separate from the Old Testament; it is the confirmation and fulfillment of it. It is the continuation of God dealing with man, bringing salvation to ALL of mankind, first through the Jews...as that is where the messiah came from. To the Christian point of view, Jesus is the messiah. I'm not telling you what you must believe in your Tanakh. I'm telling you what I do. I've got an equal right to the scriptures as you do.


 
And that's what we've been saying. Go nuts with your interpretation, just don't try to tell us we're wrong.



> I'm not very familiar with "Jews for Jesus", I do know that there are such things a "Messianic Jews", where they accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah. I've met some and they were VERY impressive in their knowledge and I'm fond of them for their kindness toward me at a difficult time in my life.


 
That's where semantics are getting important. Judaism by definition is messianic. I pray 3 times a day for Moshiach to come.

But, and it's a big but, as soon as you start believing that Jesus is the messiah, you are no longer practicng Judaism, in any form, you are a Xtian.



> You know, you seem to me to imply that the Christian's who attempt to evangelize others are evil or bad, that they "Prey" on others or "entice". IF they believe that the Messiah has come, that he was Jesus of Nazareth and that it's crucial to know this..... then their intentions aren't so dastardly. You disagree with them? Obviously, right? OK.
> That still doesn't:
> a: Make them wrong or bad.
> b: Make their intentions wrong or bad.


 
They are. they are trying to obliterate my People. 



> I'm not trying to be rude or "in your face". But I am trying to present a Christian's side of all of this, and all I can give is the Christian side that I know.... mine. I can't answer for Baptist's, Methodists, Catholics....or anyone else, like Jews for Jesus.
> 
> I think it would be so much better if Jews and Christians had a better understanding of one another!
> 
> Your Brother
> John


----------



## Brother John

CanuckMA said:


> Yes we largely do because Xtian study of Torah is done with the sole purpose to justify Jesus and the New Testament.


I don't think that you can authoritatively say that you know the intent of Christian scholars. 

I don't even read the Old Testament in order to 'justify' the New. I read it to try to understand IT. Do I find corroboration between them? Yes. Do I read one in order to better understand the other? Absolutely. Do I 'twist' anything in order to MAKE the other seem more valid? no. That would be self defeating in my attempt to comprehend truth. 

Seems to me that you make some pretty damning generalizations about the inner intentions of people (ie; scholars) of another faith, yet you really dislike it when that same thing comes your way. Not very conducive to trying to understand one another.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Tez3

dbell said:


> And we needed to go to personal attacks now? (And I know I wasn't the person this attack is addressed to, but how does this fit within your faith?)


 

Er you didn't read those nasty attacks on me either? You know the really nasty ones where I was threatened, abused and if he could have he would have spat on my dead body? You missed them? You missed where he was banned for it?
Oh my slight personal attack was nothing, believe me.

We have Jewish organisations that will go among other Jews to help bring Torah knowledge to them but they don't go out looking for non Jews to convert. Personally I find converts a pain, I did know one many years ago, she tried to be more Jewish than we were. I talked to a Catholic priest friend of mine who agreed that converts were the most fervent and were always on your case.


Religion and faith is a very personal thing. The relationship *is between G-d* *and you* with no one else inbetween so to me whether you have that relationship or not is none of my business. Whether you believe or not, whether you have a faith or not is none of my business. There is no need (other than curiosity) for me to understand Christians or any other religion for that matter, I am commanded to treat people as fairly and as well as I can as well as keep the Law. It is not a problem to me how other people live whether they are Jewish or not, everyone has responsiblity for themselves. Free will, you see. *We have free will always.*


----------



## dbell

CanuckMA said:


> When is the last time you saw a Muslim standing on a street downtown, trying to convert people?


 
In my face?  About 6 months ago in Miami.  Daily?  In the wars, conflicts in Asia...



CanuckMA said:


> No, it is not. Judaism is not a prosylitazing religion. We do not go forth and try to convert the world. When somebody approaches us, we actively try to discourage them. We have to flt out say no to a prospective convert before we seriously talk to them.


 
 But then, after they continue to talk with you about conversion, begin prosylitazing and converting them to the faith.  I know, well, three Rabbi, one in Miami, one in Denver, and one in San Francisco that actively talk to people about conversion.



CanuckMA said:


> Jehova's Witnesses.


 
First off, the Jehova's Witness are not Christian based.  They do not feel that Jesus is the Messiah as Christians do, they feel "Christ is G_d's Son and is inferior to Him". (Quoted from their web site.)  



CanuckMA said:


> Yes, there are 'factions' but by and large, the interpretation of Torah is the same. You also have to keep in mind that questioning is part of our religion. Torah study in my synagogue can get quite animated discussing the meaning of some verse.


 
 Which tells me that the interpretation of the Torah is not the same between people in one Synagogue much less another faction...



CanuckMA said:


> Yes we largely do because Xtian study of Torah is done with the sole purpose to justify Jesus and the New Testament.



No, I beg to differ here, CHRISTion (not Xtian, I don't down grade Jewish to some other insensible name, please don't Christian...) study of the Torah is not done with the sole purpose to justify Jesus and the New Testament.  It is done to understand the rules as set by G_d (to respect your faith in not saying the word outright) in early history, which is part and foundation of our faith history.  True Christian following requires that we understand it and follow it, were not changed in our "new covenant" with G_d, through Jesus.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> Er you didn't read those nasty attacks on me either? You know the really nasty ones where I was threatened, abused and if he could have he would have spat on my dead body? You missed them? You missed where he was banned for it?
> Oh my slight personal attack was nothing, believe me.



Is any personal attack slight or nothing?  Especially one of faith such as you?

Yes, I read and saw those attacks, and had he not been banned before I could reply to him I would have asked him about them as well.



Tez3 said:


> We have Jewish organisations that will go among other Jews to help bring Torah knowledge to them but they don't go out looking for non Jews to convert. Personally I find converts a pain, I did know one many years ago, she tried to be more Jewish than we were. I talked to a Catholic priest friend of mine who agreed that converts were the most fervent and were always on your case.


 
Yet, I have had Jewish people postulate more than once of the years to me as a Christian...  It doesn't upset me, but leads to me asking many questions about the faith, Torah, etc...  It has often helped me grow stronger in G_d these talks...



Tez3 said:


> Religion and faith is a very personal thing. The relationship *is between G-d* *and you* with no one else inbetween so to me whether you have that relationship or not is none of my business. Whether you believe or not, whether you have a faith or not is none of my business. There is no need (other than curiosity) for me to understand Christians or any other religion for that matter, I am commanded to treat people as fairly and as well as I can as well as keep the Law. It is not a problem to me how other people live whether they are Jewish or not, everyone has responsiblity for themselves. Free will, you see. *We have free will always.*



This part I am in agreement with fully....


----------



## CanuckMA

dbell said:


> But then, after they continue to talk with you about conversion, begin prosylitazing and converting them to the faith. I know, well, three Rabbi, one in Miami, one in Denver, and one in San Francisco that actively talk to people about conversion.


 
Once a person is determined to convert, it is not prosylitazing. 

So 3 Rabbis actively seek random people to convert to Judaism? Or that encourage the non-Jewish spouse of an interfaith marriage to convert? 



> First off, the Jehova's Witness are not Christian based. They do not feel that Jesus is the Messiah as Christians do, they feel "Christ is G_d's Son and is inferior to Him". (Quoted from their web site.)


 
Next you'll say that Catholics are not Xtians either?



> Which tells me that the interpretation of the Torah is not the same between people in one Synagogue much less another faction...


 
Which tells me you don't understand the nature of our debates.



> No, I beg to differ here, CHRISTion (not Xtian, I don't down grade Jewish to some other insensible name, please don't Christian...) study of the Torah is not done with the sole purpose to justify Jesus and the New Testament. It is done to understand the rules as set by G_d (to respect your faith in not saying the word outright) in early history, which is part and foundation of our faith history. True Christian following requires that we understand it and follow it, were not changed in our "new covenant" with G_d, through Jesus.


 
You can spell G-d whichever way you want. There is a specific reason we write it that way, which BTW does not apply to computers, but we do it out of habit.

And how much of Halacha do you still follow?


----------



## Tez3

Ah, you see I'm being reprimanded already for making a little personal attack lo.l As a peron of faith no less I shouldn't make attacks. Who says not? You attack me sunshine I'll attack back usually better. You mistake me for a Christian sir, I turn no other cheek.
Faith, I don't have faith, I don't believe in G-d, I know theres a G-d so whether others do or not doesn't bother me. I like people for who they are not what religion, if any, they follow.

Jehovahs Witnesses are as Christian as any other Christian religion. The use of the word Xtian has been discussed on here before, I'm off on nights but will try to find the link. It was pointed out by Christians that in fact this is correct and isn't an insult or demeaning but goes back to the Greek/Latin ( sorry can't remember which) I believe. Have quickly googled and found this so it's not insulting.
http://xtians.org/

You can write G-d however you like, we write it that way for a reason as Canuck says which is nothing to do with computers, your writing it any way you want isn't disrespectful to us. Write it how you usually do.  

Post up the names please of these rabbis who are trying to convert non Jews, we should be able to ask them the whys and wherefores.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Man I go to the gym for an hour and I have a dozen posts to go through when I get back.

Yes you should apologize for trying to convert people. Honestly? I believe you are wasting your life with your religion; you are putting in hours and hours of effort into a superstitious cult that in the end means nothing. BUT, unlike you and yours, I believe you have every right to participate in that cult unmolested by me. I will defend your right to practice your religion as you see fit, you are denying me the right to be unmolested in my non belief.

Yes you are coming from a condescending position. You have just convinced yourself otherwise. If you were coming at it from an equal footing, if you believed all positions equally had merit, you would not be trying to convert people to begin with. You see others as lacking something, and for reasons that you justify to yourself, you are trying to fix that person. Its condescending.

There are no eternal consequences John. None. The people in this discussion know my beliefs, this is the 100th thread weve had these discussions, but they also know I value them, and as such, (except for a bit of teasing), I accept them for who they are, and that includes their beliefs. Though I know many do not agree with me, I do trust they feel the same way.

Downtown Toronto the other week, Yonge and Dundas, there were theists from three different sects approaching people, handing out pamphlets. I attend many lunch and dinner meetings where someone always decides we cant eat until someone says grace. People knocking on my door. My tax dollars going to religious schools. Religious people trying to dumb down science by wanting creationism taught. Do you want me to go on?  

I had a religious person tell me that I was going to hell because I was a non believer. BUT I gave more $ to charity, I volunteered more then she did, I treated people kinder then she did, I was more forgiving then she has ever been, I did not hold grudges and she did. If a god does exist, and she gets to go to a heaven and I dont simply because I do not believe? There is something seriously wrong with that god.


----------



## dbell

CanuckMA said:


> Once a person is determined to convert, it is not prosylitazing.


 
Ok, I give you this one too.... 



CanuckMA said:


> So 3 Rabbis actively seek random people to convert to Judaism? Or that encourage the non-Jewish spouse of an interfaith marriage to convert?


 
 Yep...  On both cases.



CanuckMA said:


> Next you'll say that Catholics are not Xtians either?


 
 No, the Catholic faith is very much a Christian faith, and is what most of the other Christian faiths split from for various reasons, often within the last 500 years...



CanuckMA said:


> Which tells me you don't understand the nature of our debates.


 
 Probably not, as you didn't clarify it here, but from what I have seen in the various factions of the Jewish faith, there is great differences at times.



CanuckMA said:


> You can spell G-d whichever way you want. There is a specific reason we write it that way, which BTW does not apply to computers, but we do it out of habit.





CanuckMA said:


> And how much of Halacha do you still follow?



Of those not changed or removed by the teachings of Jesus, I TRY to follow all that I am able to read in the Old Testament.


----------



## jks9199

CanuckMA said:


> See John, that is exactly what Tez and I are talking about. The you-don't-what-your-text-means-let-me-explain-it-to-you, in your face stuff.
> 
> It's OUR book, writen in OUR language, for US. We have been studying it for 3,000 years. With the advantage of having lived the events and spoken the language. Do what you want with it within your group, but don't you dare try to tell us you know what it says better than we do.



But, to Christians, it is also OUR book, written to describe the relationship of G_d and the Chosen People, and to provide the foundation for the coming of Jesus Christ.  Reading only the New Testament would be kind of like reading only the last chapter of a mystery novel.

I read a very interesting book a few years ago; *The Bible and Us: A priest and rabbi read scripture together* by Fr. Andrew Greeley and Rabbi Jacob Neusner.  In a series of dialogues, they read parts of the Old Testament and discuss what they mean within their respective religions -- and how they read scripture in the first place.  I found it very enlightening, and it gave me a lot of insight into how Catholic teaching on scripture developed.  I strongly recommend it (and it seems they've done a second book; I'll have to find it).


----------



## Tez3

Ken, you wanna be Jewish? I have a nice sharp knife and the foods good....lol!

i've never understood why other peoples religions cause some people so much worrying and soul searching. Ken doesn't believe, so what? It's his life, his free will and as he's obviously not hurting anyone else why the grief over what he believes in? I don't feel the need to steer him towards religion or faith, whatever he does is his choice.
 "Everything is foretold but free will is given" Sayings of the Fathers.


----------



## CanuckMA

dbell said:


> Ok, I give you this one too....
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... On both cases.


 
As Tez asked, names? 



> Probably not, as you didn't clarify it here, but from what I have seen in the various factions of the Jewish faith, there is great differences at times.


 
The differences are much less than you may think.


----------



## jarrod

one thing that might be helpful for both jews & christians to remember is that portions of the 2nd testament, particularly the gospels, were written by jews both for other jews as well as gentiles, with the express purpose of bringing them into primitive christianity.  which at the time was not branded as a seperate religion at the time.  so in a way, this whole misunderstanding comes from some jews a few thousand years ago trying to convert gentiles to christianity  

jf


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> Ken, you wanna be Jewish? I have a nice sharp knife


 
LOL! 

Thanks TEZ, it's going to be some hours before I can make myself pee now!!

Evil woman....


----------



## CanuckMA

jks9199 said:


> But, to Christians, it is also OUR book, written to describe the relationship of G_d and the Chosen People, and to provide the foundation for the coming of Jesus Christ.


 
And that is the crux of the argument. Torah is the history of my People, and of our Laws and our relationship with G-d. It does not foretell the comong of anybody, and great care is taken in translating and cherry picking out of context quotes to try to prove the foretelling. That is what we object to. Especially when it then used to tell us that we are wrong. 

Moshiach has not come. Jesus did not meet any of the criterion. He was at best one of a long line of Jews claiming to be Moshiach.

You want to believe otherwise, go ahead but leave us in peace.


----------



## CanuckMA

Ken Morgan said:


> LOL!
> 
> Thanks TEZ, it's going to be some hours before I can make myself pee now!!
> 
> Evil woman....


 

Yes, but the food man, think of the food. And all the extra holidays. :ultracool


----------



## Ken Morgan

CanuckMA said:


> Yes, but the food man, think of the food. And all the extra holidays. :ultracool


 
LOL! Nah, I'll pass, I like being "whole" thank you...

I don't know what school you went to, but York U was great 20 years ago, we had the Christian amd Jewish holidays off!!


----------



## CanuckMA

Ken Morgan said:


> LOL! Nah, I'll pass, I like being "whole" thank you...
> 
> I don't what school you went to, but York U was great 20 years ago, we had the Christian amd Jewish holidays off!!


 
Much has changed at York U. My eldest son is there and he has taken to wearing various types of hats because walking around on campus wearing a kippa is not always the safest thing to do.


----------



## Ken Morgan

CanuckMA said:


> Much has changed at York U. My eldest son is there and he has taken to wearing various types of hats because walking around on campus wearing a kippa is not always the safest thing to do.


 

Really? That's B.S. If it were me? I&#8217;m wearing whatever I wanted to, and F*** the world. But I have attitude. If it were my son? I&#8217;d be telling him to do whatever he has to for his safety and not do anything stupid. 

It's funny, (and not in a good way) that terrorists can lob mortars into Israel with impunity, and when Israel fights back, they&#8217;re the terrorists.

Can you imagine if we lobbed a few mortars into Detroit or Buffalo, (they might not notice in some neighborhoods&#8230, I&#8217;m pretty sure the Americans would hit back ten times as hard and no one would say anything.


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> When is the last time you saw a Muslim standing on a street downtown, trying to convert people?



Ohhhhhhhhhh this happens far more than you might think.  In North America though, such Muslims are most often people of South Asian backgrounds that focus more on converting people of other south Asian backgrounds so Sikhs and Hindus are generally targeted more often than western Christians and Jews.  This is often because cultural commonalities are used as a bridge.

In terms of western Muslims converting other westerners to Islam, there are several movements that do so, including groups within our prison system that target incarcerated men of color.

Here is a page by a Canadian Islamic group that discusses the idea of convertering or "bringing others in to Islam"

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1248187881326&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout

There are also the Islamic states where, you may not necessarily have to be a Muslim, bu you must follow Shari'a Law.  Whether you are Muslim or not is irrelevant.  Even if Shari'a Law violates your own beliefs or imposes rules that your beliefs feel are not necessary, you still must follow them.

Even as a business traveler, if I am traveling in a Muslim area during the month of Ramadan, I either should not eat or drink anything in public (not even water) during daylight hours.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Carol Kaur said:


> There are also the Islamic states where, you may not necessarily have to be a Muslim, bu you must follow Shari'a Law. Whether you are Muslim or not is irrelevant. Even if Shari'a Law violates your own beliefs or imposes rules that your beliefs feel are not necessary, you still must follow them.
> 
> Even as a business traveler, if I am traveling in a Muslim area during the month of Ramadan, I either should not eat or drink anything in public (not even water) during daylight hours.


 
Yeah.
You follow the laws, of whatever country you are visiting. Regardless of what you think of them. It's their country, it's their laws, you are the visitor. The same applies when people come to the west we do not recognise honour killings as just, if it offends you to see me eat a BLT, look the other way. etc, etc


----------



## CanuckMA

Carol Kaur said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhh this happens far more than you might think. In North America though, such Muslims are most often people of South Asian backgrounds that focus more on converting people of other south Asian backgrounds so Sikhs and Hindus are generally targeted more often than western Christians and Jews. This is often because cultural commonalities are used as a bridge.


 
Honestly never saw it. J4J are everywhere, so are JW.


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> Honestly never saw it. J4J are everywhere, so are JW.



I believe you.  While I'm not an expert on JW, from what I have seen they are people that speak the local language.   I suspect that their success rate is in converting people that also speak the local language well, as opposed to converting the (say) Pakistani family down the street that speaks in a thick, unfamiliar accent.

Usually for an organized conversion effort to be successful, it must utilize common imagery and ancestery.   

A Sikh or a Muslim probably has not had much interaction with Jews for Jesus.  Instead, they may have come across the RSS, an organization that tries to aggressively convert many to Hinduism.  For political reasons that are outside of scope of this discussion their most common target is Sikhs, although many Muslims are targeted as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh


Here is an About.com article writtin in 2000 entitled "Are Sikhs Hindus?".   The content may not make much sense as it discusses concepts that are foreign to most folks that practice a western faith.  However, you may be able to relate to some of the controversy, and perhaps see how attempts to convert a person using common imagery can happen many places in the world, not just with Christians and Jews.  

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061000a.htm


I think it is very important to separate the *behaviour *from the *faith*.  Christianity in its entirety is not to blame, neither is Hinduism, etc. There may be sticking points that are systemic to one pattern of conversion, but the root cause of the issue is the behaviour of certain people.


----------



## jks9199

CanuckMA said:


> And that is the crux of the argument. Torah is the history of my People, and of our Laws and our relationship with G-d. It does not foretell the comong of anybody, and great care is taken in translating and cherry picking out of context quotes to try to prove the foretelling. That is what we object to. Especially when it then used to tell us that we are wrong.
> 
> Moshiach has not come. Jesus did not meet any of the criterion. He was at best one of a long line of Jews claiming to be Moshiach.
> 
> You want to believe otherwise, go ahead but leave us in peace.


Are you suggesting that it can't be both; one thing to Jews and another to Christians?

Do you dispute that Christians see Christ as the realization and fulfillment of the promises and prophecies made in the various books that make up the Old Testament?  At that point, can they not read it and see their meaning in it?  After all, a noteworthy number of Jews in the first century AD apparently came to that conclusion as well.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> When is the last time you saw a Muslim standing on a street downtown, trying to convert people?


 
Nation of Islam, downtown Los Angeles, uh, everyday.


----------



## Xinglu

Carol Kaur said:


> I think it is very important to separate the *behaviour *from the *faith*.  Christianity in its entirety is not to blame, neither is Hinduism, etc. There may be sticking points that are systemic to one pattern of conversion, but the root cause of the issue is the behaviour of certain people.



If an institution consistently produces people who behave in a certain manner, then that institution must share the accountability with those people.

A church/temple/religion does not exist without it's parishioners/faithful.  That means that if the people act in a certain way because of teachings/scriptures/dogma the religion *is not* separate and does not stand blameless.


----------



## CanuckMA

jks9199 said:


> Are you suggesting that it can't be both; one thing to Jews and another to Christians?
> 
> Do you dispute that Christians see Christ as the realization and fulfillment of the promises and prophecies made in the various books that make up the Old Testament? At that point, can they not read it and see their meaning in it? After all, a noteworthy number of Jews in the first century AD apparently came to that conclusion as well.


 
Never suggested that. I've said it often, you want to interpret it your way, go nuts.

What I find deeply offensive is when you then come to me and tel me that I'm wrong. That my people have been wrong for 3,000 years and that, really we should convert, see the light, be a 'completed Jew' as most messianic organizations phrase it.

It amounts to an attempt to relegate Judaism to an historical footnote, I can tell you it's not going to work.

So do what you want, but leave us alone.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else.  Occasionally religious discussions come up.  We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.

It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.  

What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions.  To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?

1.  Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus?  That is essentially what most Christians are doing.  Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.

Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

2.  Why the angst?  Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person.  Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

3.  How are Christians trying to destroy Jews?  Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?  

4.  If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong? 

5.  Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean.  How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may.  And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.

If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods?  Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists?  Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture?  Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?

Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?

Out of anticipated frustration with what I believe what some of the responses to my questions may entail, I am not anti-semitic.  The questions I pose are for either greater understanding among two apparently diametrically opposed factions, or personal clarification.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Xinglu

Brother John said:


> again, I'm _*sorry*_ you've had _nothing_ but bad experiences with Christians. That's extremely *sad*. I understand where you're coming from. Even BEING a Christian, I've sure had my share of negative experiences from other fellow believers. That too, however, isn't unique to Christianity. The Biggest problem with any of the religions on Earth is that they are represented and made up by fallible humans, with all of the problems and baggage that come with our human frailty. Don't see how any of us can get around that. I pray that someday you have a very positive experience with Christians, and that you're open to know it as such.
> 
> 
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The ability to ALWAYS Love purely and perfectly is a gift from God IF it's ever achieved. I don't think that any person could fully and continually accomplish this outside of a miracle.  But there are instances in which we are given a goal or pointed by God toward an ideal standard that's beyond our ability to accomplish fully or always. For instance, lets look at the place where Jesus Christ is telling us, as you pointed out, to Love always.
> 
> There've been people in history and maybe even alive today who can do VERY well with this, but not always, not perfectly. AND: Being "Perfect"?? Only by the Grace of God can that be accomplished. So sometimes we are instructed to do what cannot be fully accomplished, perfectly all of the time by flesh-bound humans. Only by the supernatural help of God can we even come close.
> Just my point of view.



Perfection?!  Who said anything about that? None of Yeshua's teaching demand or expect perfection.  They are about LOVE and treating others with love and compassion.  Being loving and compassionate does not a perfect person make.  It seems that you have introduced a straw-man argument here.  Weather or not it was intentional I don't know. It seems simple to me:  One cannot love God if they do not also love their fellow man.  Therefore, to love God is to also love others and treat others with compassion and charity.  Nothing I have ever seen or experienced tells me that the Christians even attempt that.  

Your argument seems to imply that only by a miracle can you actually follow the teachings of Yeshua.  Quite the loophole to say "I'm not accountable" when you (generalized you) don't live up to his teachings. Excuse me while I have a general rant (not directed at any one person):

[rant]I have seen to many people even use that same argument to justify not even trying!  And it amazes me how convient so many people's religion is.  They toss it out when they don't want it around, and yet hide behind it when it suits them.  I call that veiling in false piety or lazy spirituality. If people can't give their 100% to what the proclaim to believe then what is the point in their belief?  Yes, everyone is a hypocrite from time to time, but when one's entire religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others and their beliefs that hypocrisy is magnified ten-fold.[/rant]





Brother John said:


> YES! That would be a copout, in no uncertain terms!
> But also, might consider this: Nobody likes being shown their errors, being disillusioned about what they "Though" life was really all about, OR..... and I'll use a strong word here.......being made to see their own "SIN". That can really rankle anyone. It's never comfortable, even for those of us who already 'believe'. But, *it's a necessary step.* Often, VERY VERY often, that step is the biggest stumbling block to anyone investigating Christianity. It's an offense to them and they view it as intrusive or "judgmental"....things like that. So....if they go no further than this early stumbling block and resist the 'truth' because of it, they often come away with very negative impressions of Christianity and simply remember the uncomfortable, anger evoking, "offense".
> 
> Also: Christian's DO try to convert others. I'm not at all apologetic about that fact. It's simply the truth. BUT......we're often woefully inept at being ABLE to do it well. That's a horribly sad truth. Being able to share the truths about Jesus Christ with others SHOULD be one of the biggest things on our mind, but really.....it's frightening. Remember that "First Stumbling Block" I talked about above? It's very frightening to a well meaning Christian who really feels moved to share the Gospel with others!! Nobody *wants *to offend!!! In fact, it's the direct opposite of what we'd really like to do. Yet, it's a hurdle that we've got to approach and jump over. It's never easy. But like I said, it's a necessary step! Sadly, many of us either bungle that step OR....the person digs in their heels at the idea that they are a sinner (very common) and the believer doesn't know how to handle THAT with good tact. Not easy. Then...we come off as being pushy and demanding. Sad.  The people I've met who are Gifted in being able to effectively share their faith with others are my HEROES! But they're rarer than I'd like.



It seems their nature (or teachings of the churches) to judge others righteousness or standing with god, point it out, and then tell them how they think they should live their lives.  One cannot proselytize without first deeming the other person in "need" of conversion.  To deem them in "need" is quite a judgement IMHO.  

Furthermore, it is an extremely bleak outlook to think that to be alive is to be in a state of sin. In fact, it is an assertion that I reject on it's head. We are accountable for our actions, not the actions of those who lived many thousands of years ago.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> If an institution consistently produces people who behave in a certain manner, then that institution must share the accountability with those people.
> 
> A church/temple/religion does not exist without it's parishioners/faithful. That means that if the people act in a certain way because of teachings/scriptures/dogma the religion *is not* separate and does not stand blameless.


 
I would be careful with line of reasoning.  What you have experienced, and what the larger group of people within the religion do may be completely different.  This is the type of thought that leads a lot of people to believe that Islam is a violent religion, which most here would decry, or because you were assaulted by a person of a particular race, that all members of the race are similarly inclined.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> [rant]I have seen to many people even use that same argument to justify not even trying! And it amazes me how convient so many people's religion is. They toss it out when they don't want it around, and yet hide behind it when it suits them. I call that veiling in false piety or lazy spirituality. If people can't give their 100% to what the proclaim to believe then what is the point in their belief? Yes, *everyone is a hypocrite from time to time, but when one's entire religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others and their beliefs that hypocrisy is magnified ten-fold*.[/rant]
> 
> From my point of view, to be imperfect with what one wishes to be, or believes oneself to be, is not hypocracy.  It is imperfection.  We all make mistakes.  I would argue, based on the definition of hypocrite, that being one would require consistently and knowingly contradicting your stated beliefs, not something that is a one time act.
> 
> Anyway....
> 
> I don't see where you believe that the entire Christian religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others.  Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 6: 41-42
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]41. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 42. Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. [/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7: 3-5
> 3. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4. Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? 5. You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I'm not saying that individuals don't do this.  But to classify an entire religion based on the actions of individuals is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems their nature (or teachings of the churches) to judge others righteousness or standing with god, point it out, and then tell them how they think they should live their lives. One cannot proselytize without first deeming the other person in "need" of conversion. To deem them in "need" is quite a judgement IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans do this all the time.  It is consistent with our nature.  Do you decry such behavior in all aspects of life, the telling people of what they "need".
> 
> I will tell you that, mostly, Christians tell people that they need Jesus.  That's pretty much it.  However, to live in accordance with Jesus' will, you "need" to abide by certain principles and behaviors.  But that's if you choose to believe in Jesus, because remember, it is by faith, not works that you are saved.
Click to expand...


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions.  To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?
> 
> 1.  Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus?  That is essentially what most Christians are doing.  Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.
> 
> Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.
> 
> 2.  Why the angst?  Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person.  Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?
> 
> 3.  How are Christians trying to destroy Jews?  Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?
> 
> 4.  If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?
> 
> 5.  Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean.  How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?


1. It depend on the context.  Is the teacher qualified to teach in the subject they are teaching?  If not then yes it is quite arrogant of them.  Who are they attempting to teach?  Experts?  Then yes it could be condescending.

2. In my experience there is no acceptance on their end that I am not interested.  They become disrespectful and ultimately it causes a termination in the friendship due to an antagonistic relationship.

3. I cannot speak to this, I believe it was Canuck that said that.

4. How?  That is like saying that because some Americans support the actions of Al Queada that there is some credibility or credence to their beliefs and actions.  Just because some ethnic Jews are Christians does not give any any more or less credibility to either faiths.  Furthermore, just because a bunch of people believe something does not make it true.  The appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy that just doesn't get old.

5. They're not.  They are merely saying "don't tell us how to read the book we wrote." It is one thing for debate inside the faith, because ultimately they are worshiping the same God.  Christians are worshiping Yeshua, whom the Jews do not acknowledge as God. IF Christians worshiped the same God and observed the same rites and rituals that Jews did, then there would probably be far less issues with the debate, but they don't.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may.  And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.
> 
> If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods?  Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists?  Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture?  Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?


 This is the problem with monotheism being asserted.  However, one could argue that the other religions are worshiping the same god, just differently.  



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?


 I believe that this is to test how much the perspective convert actually want's to become a Jew and take on the responsibilities of conversion and has nothing to do with race.  For example many who are denied a couple of times will simply walk away.  Clearly they didn't believe in the hebrew God or else being turned away would not stop them from pursuing conversion.


----------



## jks9199

CanuckMA said:


> Never suggested that. I've said it often, you want to interpret it your way, go nuts.
> 
> What I find deeply offensive is when you then come to me and tel me that I'm wrong. That my people have been wrong for 3,000 years and that, really we should convert, see the light, be a 'completed Jew' as most messianic organizations phrase it.
> 
> It amounts to an attempt to relegate Judaism to an historical footnote, I can tell you it's not going to work.
> 
> So do what you want, but leave us alone.


The thing is that, if I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the truth is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who died on the cross to redeem us all -- then how can I not share that truth if asked?

To me -- the most powerful way I can share my faith is to live it, and to show it by my actions.  Words are cheap.  If I'm living my faith properly -- and know it as well as the reasons underlying it -- it should show in my life, and I should be able to answer questions about it if asked.  And it should cause someone to ask those sorts of questions...  There's a vast difference between sharing information, and being insulting or rude about it.  

I don't have any patience for the people who feel that not only must they offer information, they must all but pound it into your head until you agree with them.  I recently had a lengthy conversation with someone who'd had a very powerful conversion experience; it remained a conversation, and we actually managed to respect each other's view.  I've dealt with plenty of others who can't do that...


----------



## Carol

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 1.  Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus?  That is essentially what most Christians are doing.  Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.
> 
> 
> Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.



Because in general this comes across as selfish, not altruistic.  People try to convert others to make their scorecard look better on Judgment Day.

When atheists try to promote their ideals to Christians, it is not seen as trying to keep Christians from being hit by a bus, nor is it dismissed as someone only trying to help.  

Isn't it logical to understand that when Christians do this to other faiths it is also not seen in a positive light?



> 2.  Why the angst?  Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person.  Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?



If someone doesn't accept you for simply who you are, and instead wants to change you to be more like them, that a natural reason for angst, yes?


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not that I'm not saying that individuals don't do this.  But to classify an entire religion based on the actions of individuals is unfair.


In my direct experience it has been EVERY Christian I have met with the exception of one (and he is fairly fringe in his beliefs as I understand it), not just select individuals.

Their actions and words speak clearly about their religion.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would be careful with line of reasoning.  What you have experienced, and what the larger group of people within the religion do may be completely different.  This is the type of thought that leads a lot of people to believe that Islam is a violent religion, which most here would decry, or because you were assaulted by a person of a particular race, that all members of the race are similarly inclined.



While this may be true, I have no reason to base my opinions on anything other than my observations and experience.  I would be remiss if I based my opinions upon what people would like me to believe.  It's not like I haven't been to a Christian Church before, I've sat through many lessons and services from many different denominations. What I have heard come from the pulpet never ceases to amaze me.  And then it is repeated and exaggerated by the congregation.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> 1. It depend on the context. Is the teacher qualified to teach in the subject they are teaching? If not then yes it is quite arrogant of them. Who are they attempting to teach? Experts? Then yes it could be condescending.


 
Agreed.  But that's kinda my point.  I don't see too many lay Christians going around telling Jewish scholars that they are going to hell.  What I do tend to see is Christians giving non-Christians some measure of information, and then saying come to my church where a person who has studied more then I have can teach you.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.



> 2. In my experience there is no acceptance on their end that I am not interested. They become disrespectful and ultimately it causes a termination in the friendship due to an antagonistic relationship.


 
And I get that.  All I'm saying is to maybe keep an open mind and understand that, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are not that way.



> 4. How? That is like saying that because some Americans support the actions of Al Queada that there is some credibility or credence to their beliefs and actions. Just because some ethnic Jews are Christians does not give any any more or less credibility to either faiths.


 
I don't think you example is synonymous with mine.  You are talking about actions versus my position of beliefs.  And as you say later, this, unlike your example, is an internal debate, ostensibly between people who know what they are talking about, or have a similar level of understanding.  Jewish "Christians" are still Jews, not outsiders looking in, so to speak.   



> 5. They're not. They are merely saying "don't tell us how to read the book we wrote." It is one thing for debate inside the faith, because ultimately they are worshiping the same God. Christians are worshiping Yeshua, whom the Jews do not acknowledge as God. IF Christians worshiped the same God and observed the same rites and rituals that Jews did, then there would probably be far less issues with the debate, but they don't.


 
I get that they may not want to be told how to interpret those texts.  But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar, if not exactly the same thing, how is their interpretation any less valid, which was my question.



> This is the problem with monotheism being asserted. However, one could argue that the other religions are worshiping the same god, just differently.


 
I agree, which is why I posed the question.  I don't know what Jews think, and would like to be further informed.



> I believe that this is to test how much the perspective convert actually want's to become a Jew and take on the responsibilities of conversion and has nothing to do with race. For example many who are denied a couple of times will simply walk away. Clearly they didn't believe in the hebrew God or else being turned away would not stop them from pursuing conversion.


 
If that is the case, then so be it.  I can accept that.  They may not want people who only follow the rules on the Sabbath, and leave the other days to their whim.  But from what has been said here, it is as though Jews actively do not want non-ethnic Jews converting to their religion, and will only accept them grudgingly.  If I'm wrong, I want them to let me know.


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, I'll try this one...



5-0 Kenpo said:


> You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else. Occasionally religious discussions come up. We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.
> 
> It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.
> 
> What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?
> 
> 1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.
> 
> Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.
> 
> I think the issue is not that Christians are "saving people from an oncoming bus" (to use your metaphor), as the bus isn't really there. It is not a tangible physical rescue here, undeniable in it's reality, it is a belief that anothers beliefs (as they contradict your own) are therefore wrong, and need correcting. As was covered in other threads, this is a matter of faith, and as such there is no actual "teaching" involved. Teaching involves education, this is the convincing of beliefs.
> 
> Now, this is where the claims of arrogance have come in. There is no "proof" where faith is concerned, so to attempt to convert someone to your beliefs is a matter of believing that your faith is correct, and by extension anothers is wrong, or incorrect. Really, there is just as much likelihood that you are completely wrong, barking up the wrong tree, and are just going to be left out when it comes down to it at the end.
> 
> So if Christians are trying to stop non-Christians from being "hit by a bus", first off they should be absolutely positive that the bus is really there... and that they are not the ones in it's path. And for issues of faith, that is not possible, other than for one individual themselves (for example, if you were to try to convert me, you would suddenly find that your faith would be challenged pretty quickly. And effectively, I must say).
> 
> 2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?
> 
> Kempo is the wrong martial art. It doesn't work, and if you spend your time training it (believing that it works, making it a part of your life, continuing to believe that it actually will protect you), you are going to be hurt, or killed. You should be training in Irish Dancing instead. That's the true martial art. It gives you spring in your step, and makes you very fleet of foot. You're completely wrong for training in Kempo. Stop being so wrong, you're just going to end up dead for it. In fact, Kempo is evil. If you study Kempo, you are going to get into trouble, and you will get others around you into trouble. Kempo is just stupid. Studying Kempo is just wrong. Stop studying Kempo, study Irish Dancing.
> 
> Okay, it's a bit of an odd metaphor, you can prove the effectiveness of Kempo over Irish Dancing, but you see the point? And yes, I chose Kempo deliberately for your emotional attachment to it.
> 
> 3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?
> 
> Okay, the praciticing Jewish members here will be able to explain this from a far better position than I, but here you go.
> 
> Christian belief and doctrine has been altered over time to move it away from a Jewish origin to a more "generic", or gentile, appeal, beginning with the adoption of the Faith for the Roman Empire under Constantine. Prior to that, the political focus for much of the early Christian writings had been focused on the idea that the Romans were the oppressive force that salvation would be delivered from (this is the basis of most of the ideas andsymbology for the Book of Revelations, which are appocalyptic letters from John, probably never intended as public fodder).
> 
> I mentioned briefly earlier why certain books were included in the cannonical Bible, and others left out. Revelations was one of probably 10 or more books on the same type of topic, so why was it included when other (possibly less anti-Roman ones) were excluded? There are a few theories, amongst which are the fact that it is very potent imagery, and being written in highly symbolic language, it could be included without risk. In other words, it was a highly maleable text. But other texts being included are of more importance here...
> 
> The Gospels. These texts were included over other Gospels (The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and more... all the way up to The Gospel of Judas, fun reading there!) for again a variety of reasons. Some of the main ones are the issue of validity of certain texts, in other words they were known to have been written within 100 years of Jesus' time. But it is important to realise that they are not contemporary writtings the way the writings of historians such as Josephus were. They were stories that had been passed down, in various forms, and were eventually written down. But that was not the end of their alterations. They continued to be passed around, and in that movement, change was inevitable. By the time of the Council of Nicea, there were many versions, and some versions would be put in over others due to the political messages. These included the shifting of the blame for Jesus' death from the Roman authorities to the Jewish populace. The order the Gospels are in shows an escalation of such ideas, making the concept first almost innocuous, but later becoming more and more overt.
> 
> As for how is a Jewish person who believes that Jesus was the Messiah any less Jewish, well, a basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah, sent to deliver the People's of the World from the grip and hold of Satan (who again is rather misinterpretted by most people, particularly Christians it seems...), whereas Judaism is a Messianic belief system. It is just that they are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive. So if Jesus was the Messiah, and that is your belief, then you are Christian. We have moved away from a true Judaism here. And as for Jews for Jesus, really guys, commit to one faith, playing both sides is just pitiful. To my mind, these people have no real faith, as they are trying to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time, leaving them neither in reality.
> 
> 4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?
> 
> Nope. Faith. Personal, not based on proof, reality, evidence, or any such thing. I have personal beliefs that go against the beliefs of many. Am I wrong? No. Are they wrong? No. We just have different belief systems. But this is one situation where majorities do not make truth. If everyone believed that, oh, let's say the Earth was the centre of the Universe, or it was flat, did that make it correct? By bringing in terms such as "stand to reason" in a faith based argument is to completely misunderstand the most basic concept of the argument in the first place. There is no place for reason, proof, evidence, right or wrong. It is faith. And faith can be completely wrong, even in the majority.
> 
> 5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?
> 
> Well, the "animated debate" over the Torah (as seen in the Talmud and other places) are an attempt to engage members of the community in a deeper sense of understanding of the rich history that the members are a part of. It is not a case of "You're wrong, I'm right". It is more like poetry interpretation, read into the poems at surface level, and you get one understanding. Go deeper, and you get more. And there is no-one saying that the Christian interpretation is wrong, more that Christians will have a different take on the texts, as they are removed from the history itself, whereas for Jews, it is a living embodiment of their people.
> 
> But importantly, we are here talking about the Old Testament/Torah. This all predates Jesus' time, so any interpretation of Jesus as Messiah are bringing into it aspects that simply do not exist in the text. Most of the prophesies that are used to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah are stretched, created, misinterpreted, or more. There are quite a few examples of stories of Jesus being created after His death to fit pre-existing prophesies. These include such details as His birth. And bear in mind that Jesus was only one of many potential Messiahs, John the Baptist was actually far more popular at the time, and had more followers. In fact, it is believed that Jesus was a follower of John, but this has been "reframed" within the Gospels, as you couldn't have Jesus, the Son of God being a follower of a mere mortal human, no matter how great a leader John was. That lead to the addition of John refusing to baptise Jesus initially on their first meeting (that was a political addition to the story there, for those who don't know).
> 
> Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.
> 
> If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?
> 
> From my discussions with peoples of various faith (I am very intrigued by faiths, rather than religions, so I take any opportunity to speak and learn from anyone I can), I don't think it is really too much of an issue. Of course, if I am wrong here I am sure that Tez or another will let me know... To take it into a martial arts metaphor, we'll go back to your Kempo.
> 
> If you know that your Kempo is effective, powerful, and will save you if/or when you need it, are you concerned when someone else trains in another martial art, or do you just say "okay, that works for them". Going back to the conversion debate, the Christian/Kempo guy would want the other martial artist to realise that their art was ineffective, had no power, and wouldn't help them. So they should study Kempo, and by telling them that, I am helping them! Doesn't matter if they have no interest in Kempo, if they are happy with their art, and if their art is the perfect one for them, they must study Kempo and avoid that bus!
> 
> Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?
> 
> Judaism, along with Christianity and Islam, is a monothieistic belief system. So yes, the belief is that Yahweh, The Master of the Universe, is the one true and only God. As to the discouragement of conversion, I personally find that extremely comforting. It ensures that people are not converting for insincere reasons, as only sincere persons will continue to seek acceptance after being turned away. Insincere ones will give up.
> 
> As to a view on other races, not really sure what that has to do with this. Jewish people are Jews. Non-Jews are not. You are what you are, and that's all there is to it, really. That said, to be officially recognised as Jewish (in terms of blood), you have to be able to demonstrate your lineage on your maternal side. Because if your mother was Jewish, even if your father was not, you certainly had Jewish blood. If your father was Jewish, and your mother was not, well, there was no guarantee that your father really was your father...
> 
> Out of anticipated frustration with what I believe what some of the responses to my questions may entail, I am not anti-semitic. The questions I pose are for either greater understanding among two apparently diametrically opposed factions, or personal clarification. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> If it helps, I didn't glean any anti-semitism there. Just maybe a little Christian-centric in your views, and that is narrowing your understanding a bit. But hopefully this will give you a little more pause for thought!


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Agreed.  But that's kinda my point.  I don't see too many lay Christians going around telling Jewish scholars that they are going to hell.  What I do tend to see is Christians giving non-Christians some measure of information, and then saying come to my church where a person who has studied more then I have can teach you.


 You should meet my next door neighbors, they like to tell anyone and everyone how and why they are wrong for not being Christian.  I also had a co-worker who felt he was "commissioned of Jesus Christ" to preach the "word of God" to everyone.  He was a lay person, with no real education to speak of.  My list goes on... but hey, I'm trying to change your opinion of your faith.  I'm giving my opinion based on my experiences.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> And I get that.  All I'm saying is to maybe keep an open mind and understand that, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are not that way.


 I do have an open mind, and when/if I ever experience a group of Christians who do not proselytize and evangelize in a condescending and judgmental manner, I will be pleasantly surprised. Until then, don't expect to see me attending any services .




5-0 Kenpo said:


> I get that they may not want to be told how to interpret those texts.  But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar, if not exactly the same thing, how is their interpretation any less valid, which was my question.


 Because, as I said, they don't assert the same God.  One assert "Jesus" the other does not.  One Worships and considers "Jesus" God, the other does not.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Chris,

I appreciate your explanations.  Though, as I said before, I'm not a Christian, though having gone to Christian schools allows me to relate to them a bit better then other religions.  In fact, it has been argued by me in real life that logically, Judaism makes more sense to me then Christianity.

I get what you are saying about reason versus faith.  My whole point though with this thread though is not about the religion itself, but about trying to be understanding about where a person who is trying to convert you is coming from.  More often then not in my opinion is that it is one of being sincerly concerned about another's well-being, not about showing you how right they are.  I just don't understand the viseral reaction, especially if one is secure in one's own faith. 

For me, you can talk about Kenpo (not Ke*m*po, dang it  

 ) all you want.  I will take your arguments for what they are worth.  I know the strengths and weaknesses of my art, and if others can provide clarification, then good for me.  I have faith that Kenpo will be their if I need it.  The same thing, I would think, could be said of one's religious faith.  Be secure in your faith, and yourself, and such reactions would not only be unnecessary, but counter-productive.

As for Jews for Jesus, what I believe that they are doing is remaining culturally Jewish, while expressing their understanding of Jewish texts to mean that Jesus was the Messiah.  Certainly disagree with them if you want.  I get that.  But as for the assertion that Christians are trying to "obliterate" Jews, that's non-sensical rhetoric.  

As for people being "right" or "wrong" based on faith, I am admittedly making the assumption that there is, in fact, a God, and that he revealed Himself to mankind.  So, bearing those assumptions in mind, it stands to reason that someone is wrong, and someone is right (or everyone is wrong).  But when discussing the *interpretation* of what is believed to be God's revelation to man, to maintain that Christians are wrong, when Jews who, as you would potentially say, are not removed from the history itself, and understand culturally that it is the living embodiment of their people, then they can be as "right" as any non-Jesus believing Jew. 

As far as bring into the Old Testament meaning that wasn't there, you are making a faith based argument, which you can neither prove nor disprove.  Not to try to delve this into a debate over dogmatic minutiae, but to a certain extent, it hits to the heart of the matter, interpretation.  Christians would argue that it was there, Jews would not.  But of one thing they agree (I think), it is Messianic.  It only matters as to who the Messiah is, not whether one will come about or not.

My question about what are Jewish interpretations of Non-Jews has to do with the fact that, if there God is the one and only true God, and non-Jews shouldn't be included in the faith, what does that mean as to their relationship, philosophically speaking, towards them. Are we mere mongrels deserving of nothing more then what they choose to give us?  Are we here as a testament / challenge to their faith?  What happens to a non-Jew's soul after death?  I have no idea and am interested in finding out.  

As to your last statement, I am no more Christian then the computer I'm typing on, though it is the religion with which I am most familiar.  At one time in my life, I was quite anti-Christian, though my views have moderated quite a bit.  For clarification, I wouldn't say that it is a Christian-centric view that I have as opposed to ignorance of other faiths, if that makes any sense.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> You should meet my next door neighbors, they like to tell anyone and everyone how and why they are wrong for not being Christian. I also had a co-worker who felt he was "commissioned of Jesus Christ" to preach the "word of God" to everyone. He was a lay person, with no real education to speak of. My list goes on... but hey, I'm trying to change your opinion of your faith. I'm giving my opinion based on my experiences.


 
Believe me, I have met my share of Christian prostelitizing a**holes.  I don't know where you're from, or where your travels have taken you, but as counterpoint to your experience, most Christians that I have met have nothing but a sincere desire for the saving of souls, and do so in a non-obnoxious manner.

And, as I have said before, Christianity is not my faith.




> I do have an open mind, and when/if I ever experience a group of Christians who do not proselytize and evangelize in a condescending and judgmental manner, I will be pleasantly surprised. Until then, don't expect to see me attending any services .


 
I hope that you do.  Not in order to change your mind about the belief system itself, but so that you generalization about an entire group of people will be crushed, and you will judge each individual on their own merits or vices.



> Because, as I said, they don't assert the same God. One assert "Jesus" the other does not. One Worships and considers "Jesus" God, the other does not.


 
But I am not arguing that they believe the same thing.  Obviously they don't.  But I am calling both of them scholars in the subject.  Ultimately, as with all religions, it will come down to a matter of faith.  This is even true of the atheist.  And I don't know if eating kosher versus non-kosher foods gives anyone more insight into the historical understanding of the texts.  For instance, I may not be a communist, but the doesn't necessarily mean that I don't understand its under history / underpinnings / effects any less then a person who is communist, or even lives in a communist country.  

I want to get into the concept of not being able to understand a system within itself here, but that's a whole other subject.


----------



## Tez3

The reason I think we don't encourage converts is that while we may be the Chosen people it is a very hard road to take and many break along the way, it would be unfair to take people who would be hurt and destroyed by taking our path. We weren't chosen to be special in that we have a better life or more possessions, we were chose to be the vanguard of the human race and that means taking casualities. We can't in good faith encourage other to share our fate. You've seen a small example on here of the hatred we can attract. 

The crossing the road analogy isn't a good one if all you are trying to save people from is imaginery buses Remember too the free choice that is given to us by G-d, that means if I *chose* to cross the road when traffic is coming and don't *chose* to look you have no right to stop me or advise me on how to cross the road. It's simply none of your business.

I think too that that you may want to consider the fact that being Jewish is also a racial thing. I belong to the Jewish race and I also am a practising member of that faith. You are still Jewish however much you may deny it if you convert to whatever religion you want or indeed have none at all. 

I'm curious too too know if anyone cares to tell me what laws Jesus chucked out? I understood that he kept all the laws himself. Also as has been pointed out, theres been many messiahs before during and after Jesus' time. It is believed by some there is a potential messiah in every generation. I know that there were some sects (and still is one sec) who venerated John the Baptist as the messiah. It simply doesn't have the meaning ascribed to it by Christians for us. I think many people don't understand the almost onion like qualities of Judaism, it's something you could quite easily lose yourself in it is so deep. 

It is not a concern of mine what others believe, it would be intrusive of me to probe and question others beliefs in such a way as to disturb them. We are commended that when talking to an atheiest we are to talk as if there is no G-d, we are not to say 'take your troubles to G-d', we are to act as if there is no G-d and help him ourselves. Forgiveness has always been there from G-d for those that asked, it was never needed that someone had to die for us to get this from our Father so for that reason alone we find Christians pursuing us odd. If you believe differently thats fine but please don't try to make others believe too, that goes for atheiest, agnostics as well as other faiths. A rabbi once told me religion is like petrol (gas to the Americans, another word open to misinterpretation) there's many different brands but all do the same job. G-d doesn't need religion, prayers hymns or sermons, we do.   

To understand us better you must read Jewish interpretations of the Bible as well as the Commentaries. Try collections like Ginzbergs _Legends of the Jews,_ the Monteifiore and Loewe _A Rabbinic Anthology_ and Bubers _Tales of the_ _Hasidim_. Isreal Abrahams _Jewish Life in the Middle Ages_. Read too _The Sayings of the Fathers._

Now I'm off to bed it's been a long night shift_._


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey 5-0 Kenpo,

(spelled it right that time? Cool. Off topic, but kenpo is my prefered, I just misread your handle, kempo seems to be a mistranslation, similar to jiu-jitsu, that one really bugs me... okay, on with it!)

As to why people want to convert others, well I always go back to the cultural underpinnings of any group, so let's look at those here. Christianity, in it's origins, was a popularity contest. There were various factions stemming from Jesus, including those who followed James (Jesus' half brother in most accounts), in which there were no miracles, no resurrection, and Jesus was simply a teacher of Judaism, and followers of others who had no direct contact with Jesus, but added in things such as the resurrection in order to give credence to the Son of God aspect that was being promoted. This lead to aggressive "campaigning" which became the model for Christian groups going forth. This continued as the Catholic Church had splinter groups such as Martin Luthors Reformation, with sides constantly seeking to convert others, as well as swell their numbers with new converts. This included promises of salvation (spiritual and material) with conversions as well.

An inherrant aspect of Christian doctrine since those early days has been to grow the religion. This is mainly due to the early persecutions, where if aggressive conversions were not made, the fledgling religion simply would not survive. However, it later became a far more fervent aspect, culminating in the infamous Inquisition (most commonly refered to as the Spanish Inquisition, but that was just one arm of the Vatican's reach). The Inquisition was infamous for it's conversion methods, utilising torture, terror, death and more in order to convert the masses, particularly Jews and Muslims in Europe. Now, if your history involves such persecution, it can certainly be reasonable to understand why you would have such a reaction to fervent conversion attempts.

As to obliterating an ethnic group, well that has been attempted with the Jewish peoples before, in various forms, some far more overt, and others more insidious. But it is not just the Jewish people that that has happened with. For example, when Christianity was being introduced to the Norse peoples, they deliberately created new mythology to "kill off" the Norse religions, and replace it with the new Christian one. That is one form of religious obliteration (so you know, the old stories of Norse Gods end with an apocolyptic scenario known as Ragnarok, in which the evil presence, a giant serpent symbolising evil, and Thor, symbolising good and order, both fight to the death, with both dying. This destroys the world, leaving only the Tree of the World, and a single man and woman hiding in it. So they used the Norse mythology as a "prequel" to the Old Testament, giving it validity, and at the same time killing off the old religion).

Hmm, with Jews believing in Jesus, bear in mind that Jews do certainly beileve in Jesus... He just wasn't the Messiah. And if you believe He was, then you are a Christian. Whether or not you are practicing or not is rather irrelevant, if you beileve in God, and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, you are Christian. You may follow Jewish Law as much as you want, but you are a Christian. At least that's how I see it. Tez?

I'm not trying to bring into a reading of the Old Testament meaning that wasn't there, I am more saying that the entire Nativity story is designed to match prophesy, despite the fact that it has been quite clearly proven that the circumstances contrived to create the story in the Gospels could not have possibly happened (the timing of the Census, why Joseph and Mary would have been travelling, and more). That's more what I was getting at. Oh, and you may tell I'm not Christian either...

When it comes to the Jewish God being the one true God, and that excluding other races, that is hardly unique. The Japanese have a phrase which translates to "We Japanese", inferring a belief that they are unique from all other races, going from their courage and Japanese spirit, through to beliefs that they have longer intestines than other races. But one of the major aspects of the Torah to the Jewish people is that it is a sign and document of the convenant between the Peoples of Israel and God, they are the chosen People, the true followers of God, and the ones whom God loves most. That is their belief system, Christians have a different take on things.

As to what happens to a Jewish persons soul after they die, well, that is a little different to Christian belief. For example, there isn't really a Heaven and Hell situation. Instead, there is kind of a "limbo", refered to as She'ol. This is a waiting place, awaiting the resurrection of the dead. However, there are concepts of a Heaven and Hell-like ideal, known as Gan Eden and Gehinnom respectively. I'll let others expand on this.


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else. Occasionally religious discussions come up. We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.
> 
> What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?




Ok, before I get started, Ill attempt to answer two important questions, because those definitions will be germane to my answers.

Who is a Jew:  Halacha (Jewish Law) defines a Jew as on born of a Jewish mother or one who is converted in accordance to Halacha. And that is the only definition that matters.

What are the Jews: That one is a bit trickier. We are not a religious group. Although one must be a Jew to practice Judaism, and one converts through a religious process, you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism. We are not an ethnic group. You can covert to Judaism. I can eat Chow Mein 3 times a day for the rest of my life, Ill never be Chinese.
Best description available is that we are a people with shared experiences and a religion.



> 1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.
> 
> Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.




For a teacher to teach, no. That assumes that a) there is something to teach, and that you have a student. Your example posits the Xtian view that anybody who does not believe as you do is in mortal danger. That is arrogant and condescending. 



> 2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?




We dont need the help. Again, assumption that what Im doing is wrong and I need help.



> 3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?




J4J and their ilk are *not* Jewish organizations. They are Xtians who surround themselves with Jewish trappings to deceive Jews that their way is acceptable.

As I said in my intro, part of who we are is our religion. By wanting to convert us to Xtianity, you want to annihilate Judaism. That will destroy Jews as a people. Whether a Jew practices or not, who we are and what we do is intrinsically linked to Judaism. Destroy Judaism and youve destroyed the Jews. 



> 4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?




That some Halachic Jews are practicing Xtians does not lead any more credence to Xtianity than anything else. 

And I find your last comment reveling, and deeply offensive. There is that arrogance again. You are right, and Jews are wrong. 



> 5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?




We debate the language, we debate why a particular word was used. We dont shift the entire meaning.

Your interpretation may be right for you, but all too often it is based on mistranslation and/or horribly out of context quotes. Or just plain not wanting to see the original intentions. 

For example, both Isaiahs are often used as proof of the prophesy of Jesus. However, when you read the entire text, it is clear that the parent-child language refers to the G-d/Israel relationship. It is meant to be poetic, comforting language.



> Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.
> 
> If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?




First Commandment, I am the Lord your G-d, you shall have no other god before Me.

Adonai is our G-dHe is the One G-d. But it does not preclude that others may worship other gods. And quite frankly, we dont care.



> Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?




It doesnt say anything. G-d gave us His Torah. It is our Joy and our Burden. We discourage conversion because it is hard to be a Jew. Both in the observance of Halacha and in secular everyday life. Folks have been trying to destroy us since we went into Egypt.


----------



## CanuckMA

jks9199 said:


> The thing is that, if I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the truth is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who died on the cross to redeem us all -- then how can I not share that truth if asked?


 
I believe the operative phrase here is _if asked_

Xtians will all too often try to convince everybody that they are right, unsolicited.


----------



## dbell

What is a valid English translation of the Torah that one can acquire?  Is this valid:

http://www.amazon.com/Torah-Rabbi-R...TF8&coliid=I1OAWA8JP86D2Z&colid=1AKFCA6W040N5


----------



## CanuckMA

dbell said:


> What is a valid English translation of the Torah that one can acquire? Is this valid:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Torah-Rabbi-R...TF8&coliid=I1OAWA8JP86D2Z&colid=1AKFCA6W040N5


 

I'm not familiar with this Rabbi or his organization.

From an Orthodox perspective, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/Tanach-Twenty-Four-Translated-Annotated-ArtScroll/dp/0899062695

The JPS Tanach is also fairly neutral
http://www.amazon.com/Tanakh-Script...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260891734&sr=1-2

Although the language is a bit dated, a very good, faithfull online translation can be found here http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm


----------



## girlbug2

Tez3 said:


> The crossing the road analogy isn't a good one if all you are trying to save people from is imaginery buses Remember too the free choice that is given to us by G-d, that means if I *chose* to cross the road when traffic is coming and don't *chose* to look you have no right to stop me or advise me on how to cross the road. It's simply none of your business.





Tez3 said:


> Okay, in another universe maybe people can be so cold and heartless that they are completely detatched from what happens to others. I don't think either of us exists in that universe. I don't believe for a minute you would really react that way.
> 
> Spiritually, our religions have the same roots. I look at it as like sibling relationships. Our Dad (God) told me to watch out for my brothers (Israel, as well as others in the world) and to help them like a sister should. So of course I would warn them of the bus coming their way. It's not about being arrogant or showing that I'm right, it's about caring.
> 
> Some of the comments from your other posts paint a picture of the world as a very stressful and unsettling place for the Jewish. Historically, the world has not been kind to your people to say the least. There are a lot of well known examples of people who want to see you destroyed, yes even people who claim to be Christians. None of this is possible for anyone to deny.
> 
> But please know that these are not the people I know either in my church or elsewhere. I wish you could meet and talk to some of my friends in church, so that you could see their heart is for you and not against you. We are not just isolated examples, either. Lots of churches across the world stand with Israel. You have friends.


----------



## CanuckMA

But your 'watching out' is destroying our soul. That is the problem. And we are able to stand on our own. After all, your brother is at least 1,000 years older than you.

[paranoid mode]
How many of those churches that support Israel do so for political gain? Or do so because with Israel standing, and helping Jews move there, they can get all the Jews into Israel and therefore fulfill the End Times prophesy, where we either convert or die?
[/paranoid mode]


----------



## Ken Morgan

...and some wonder why I'm an atheist......


----------



## dbell

CanuckMA said:


> I'm not familiar with this Rabbi or his organization.
> 
> From an Orthodox perspective, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/Tanach-Twenty-Four-Translated-Annotated-ArtScroll/dp/0899062695
> 
> The JPS Tanach is also fairly neutral
> http://www.amazon.com/Tanakh-Script...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260891734&sr=1-2
> 
> Although the language is a bit dated, a very good, faithfull online translation can be found here http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm



By neutral you mean?


----------



## CanuckMA

I mean it is an accurate translation, in modern English that does not go over the top with genderless language.


----------



## dbell

CanuckMA said:


> I mean it is an accurate translation, in modern English that does not go over the top with genderless language.



Cool, thanks.


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Agreed. But that's kinda my point. I don't see too many lay Christians going around telling Jewish scholars that they are going to hell. What I do tend to see is Christians giving non-Christians some measure of information, and then saying come to my church where a person who has studied more then I have can teach you.


 
And we are saying, we don't care. Leave us alone. You have nothing to teach us. 



> And I get that. All I'm saying is to maybe keep an open mind and understand that, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are not that way.


 
How about you keep an open mind if I tell you you're wrong?



> I don't think you example is synonymous with mine. You are talking about actions versus my position of beliefs. And as you say later, this, unlike your example, is an internal debate, ostensibly between people who know what they are talking about, or have a similar level of understanding. Jewish "Christians" are still Jews, not outsiders looking in, so to speak.


 
No such thing. They maybe Jewish according to Halacha, but they are Xtian in practice. Religiously, you can one or the other.



> I get that they may not want to be told how to interpret those texts. But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar, if not exactly the same thing, how is their interpretation any less valid, which was my question.


 
Because we don't believe in the same thing. You believe that Jesus is the Messiah. We don't. He may have claimed to be, but he failed the 3 basic tests.

Because your interpretation is geared into fitting the coming of Jesus as Messiah into text that does not imply it at all. The Prophets, the 2 Isaiahs in particular, commonly used parent/child language to talk about the G-d/Israel relationship. To speak to Jews in their time, either during time of crisis whithin Israel or during exiles, to tell them that G-d had not abandonned them.



> If that is the case, then so be it. I can accept that. They may not want people who only follow the rules on the Sabbath, and leave the other days to their whim. But from what has been said here, it is as though Jews actively do not want non-ethnic Jews converting to their religion, and will only accept them grudgingly. If I'm wrong, I want them to let me know.


 
There is no such thing as an ethnic Jew. We come in all colours and nationality. Yes, you an be born Jewish, but the fact that anybody can convert destroys the notion of ethnicity.

We just want to make sure they really want to do this. To live as an observant Jew is difficult. Coming from outside the community, it will mean restricting ties with your family. We don't demand it, it's a by-product. You won't be able to eat at your parent's place for example. You also open yourself for persecution.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I hope that you do.  Not in order to change your mind about the belief system itself, but so that you generalization about an entire group of people will be crushed, and you will judge each individual on their own merits or vices.


  Excuse me?  I am not prejudice against Christians nor will I tolerate the implication that I am.  I have simply noted what all but one of my interactions with them has been.  Because of this I have formed an opinion about their organisation/institution not about parishioners/adherents/faithful that I don't personally know or have met.  

I have no use for the Christian faith, I have seen and experienced nothing but arrogance and condescension from it's organizations and people.  If you can't see how arrogant it is to assume you (general you, as you are not a christian) are right about religion and that everyone who does not believe as you do needs to convert, because they are wrong, and then proceed to preach and teach others unsolicited as arrogant, then we must simply agree to disagree.

Teachers do not teach unsolicited. Students sign up for their classes.  Students come to them, they don't go to people and deem them to be a student.  The arrogance involved in doing something like that is huge.  That would be like an english teacher walking up to every hispanic and deeming them in need of their instruction in the english language.  Never mind that this person might already speak it fluently or might not even be interested in the language.  

The same goes for religion - it is deeply personal and should stay that way.  If people are interested and come to you to learn about it, by all means teach and preach.  But, don't come knocking on my door at 8 in the morning, don't preach to me when we happen to be at the mailbox at the same time, don't assume I need or want your religious opinions in my life let alone shoved down my throat (remember the "you" here is generalized).



5-0 Kenpo said:


> But I am not arguing that they believe the same thing.  Obviously they don't.


 Actually you are, unless of course are you retracting the following statement you previously made.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar,*if not exactly the same thing*...


 (emphasis mine)

Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what Christianity really is or who a Christian is.  Protestants call Catholics, LDS, JW non-christians.  Evangelicals call non evangelicals non-christians.  Catholics regard non-catholics as a dead branch.  At least the different sects of Judaism still regard each-other as Jews!


----------



## Xinglu

CanuckMA said:


> You won't be able to eat at your parent's place for example.


 Can you please alleviate my ignorance here?  Why wouldn't a convert be able to eat at the home of their parents?


----------



## CanuckMA

Xinglu said:


> Can you please alleviate my ignorance here? Why wouldn't a convert be able to eat at the home of their parents?


 
Very unlikely that the parents are keeping a kosher home.


----------



## Xinglu

Ah! Makes sense to me.  Thanks!


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what Christianity really is or who a Christian is.  Protestants call Catholics, LDS, JW non-christians.  Evangelicals call non evangelicals non-christians.  Catholics regard non-catholics as a dead branch.  At least the different sects of Judaism still regard each-other as Jews!



It might be a bit harsh to say that Catholics regard non-Catholics as a dead branch.  Perhaps a more accurate description would be that Catholics as Christians, just not Catholics.  The Church does not offer the Holy Sacrements (such as communion) to non-Catholics, and a Catholic is not allowed to go elsewhere to fulfill their obligations.   A Catholic can attend a service at a Protestant church (or a Hindu mandir, etc) but that service doesn't count towards the obligation of attending one consecrated Mass per week.  But if a person coming in to the Roman Catholic Church has been baptized at (say) a Protestant church, the baptism is still valid, and accepted by the Church -- even though it wasn't performed there.


----------



## Xinglu

Carol Kaur said:


> It might be a bit harsh to say that Catholics regard non-Catholics as a dead branch.  Perhaps a more accurate description would be that Catholics as Christians, just not Catholics.  The Church does not offer the Holy Sacrements (such as communion) to non-Catholics, and a Catholic is not allowed to go elsewhere to fulfill their obligations.   A Catholic can attend a service at a Protestant church (or a Hindu mandir, etc) but that service doesn't count towards the obligation of attending one consecrated Mass per week.  But if a person coming in to the Roman Catholic Church has been baptized at (say) a Protestant church, the baptism is still valid, and accepted by the Church -- even though it wasn't performed there.


Harsh, perhaps, but valid.  Last time I checked the RCC views the "holy sacraments" as essential to salvation.  Since only RCC members can receive those sacraments, the implication is that protestants and any offshoot from that branch are ultimately "dead" or spiritually "blocked" unable to progress past a certain point.

While the first sacrament baptism may be recognized by the RCC from other denominations Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony are not.

Confirmation is important because to the RCC it is the validation and sealing of the baptismal covenant.  Something non-catholics cannot have and is taught as essential to salvation.

Eucharist is obligatory at least once a year.  Non-Catholics cannot have this.

Penance and Reconciliation (confession) is to set right the sins one has made since baptism.  Non-Catholics cannot be absolved of their sins in this manner, yet another essential to salvation sacrament.

Anointing of the sick includes last rites... kinda important within the RCC.  Cannot be had by non-Catholics.

Holy Orders, not essential.

Matrimony while the RCC is obligated to recognize all legal marriages they do not consider non-sanctified marriages as holy or blessed by God.  This implies a lot of things.

So - to the RCC those not partaking of the sacraments are up a certain creek with no paddle to speak of.  Might sound harsh, but boiled down to brass tacks, that is their position.


----------



## Xinglu

girlbug2 said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crossing the road analogy isn't a good one if all you are trying to save people from is imaginery buses Remember too the free choice that is given to us by G-d, that means if I *chose* to cross the road when traffic is coming and don't *chose* to look you have no right to stop me or advise me on how to cross the road. It's simply none of your business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, in another universe maybe people can be so cold and heartless that they are completely detatched from what happens to others. I don't think either of us exists in that universe. I don't believe for a minute you would really react that way.
> 
> Spiritually, our religions have the same roots. I look at it as like sibling relationships. Our Dad (God) told me to watch out for my brothers (Israel, as well as others in the world) and to help them like a sister should. So of course I would warn them of the bus coming their way. It's not about being arrogant or showing that I'm right, it's about caring.
> 
> Some of the comments from your other posts paint a picture of the world as a very stressful and unsettling place for the Jewish. Historically, the world has not been kind to your people to say the least. There are a lot of well known examples of people who want to see you destroyed, yes even people who claim to be Christians. None of this is possible for anyone to deny.
> 
> But please know that these are not the people I know either in my church or elsewhere. I wish you could meet and talk to some of my friends in church, so that you could see their heart is for you and not against you. We are not just isolated examples, either. Lots of churches across the world stand with Israel. You have friends.
Click to expand...


Here is a major difference between Judaism and Christianity, and I think your post touches on it.  In Judaism one does not have to be a Jew to be considered righteous in the eyes of God.  Becoming a Jew is like taking on extra responsibilities (out of love mind you) or going from faith to devotional service.

Within Christianity one can only be righteous through Jesus and faith in him being the Christ. 

This is an important distinction here, because it speaks to intention.  You have accused the Jews of being cold and heartless for not pushing their religion on others.  Yet, they do that out of compassion!  To them, you can still be righteous in the eyes of God without being a Jew, and to take up their mantel and walk their devotional path is to make it harder to maintain/achieve righteousness!

Of course if you truly loved God, and were devoted to him, taking on such a mantle would be no big deal.  I look at Judaism as an expression of devotion rather than just having faith in the God of Abraham.


----------



## Xinglu

Question: is there a good copy of the Tanakh with both the hebrew and english side by side?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> Ok, before I get started, Ill attempt to answer two important questions, because those definitions will be germane to my answers.
> 
> Who is a Jew: Halacha (Jewish Law) defines a Jew as on born of a Jewish mother or one who is converted in accordance to Halacha. And that is the only definition that matters.
> 
> What are the Jews: That one is a bit trickier. We are not a religious group. Although one must be a Jew to practice Judaism, and one converts through a religious process, *you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism.* We are not an ethnic group. You can covert to Judaism. I can eat Chow Mein 3 times a day for the rest of my life, Ill never be Chinese.
> Best description available is that we are a people with shared experiences and a religion.


 
So if you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism, does that mean that practicing another religion makes you *not *a Jew?  That is the question that I am asking in relation to the fact that you say that if you are ethnically Jewish and are trying to be converted would destroy Jews.

BTW, the idea of ethnically Jewish is valid by definition: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group *(ethnic group) *sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.





> For a teacher to teach, no. That assumes that a) there is something to teach, and that you have a student. Your example posits the Xtian view that anybody who does not believe as you do is in mortal danger. That is arrogant and condescending.




Again, I go back to the walking across the street without looking.  I understand that people often don't want to be told things that upset their world view (in the broad sense), and get upset when it is done.  What I am trying to illustrate is that rather then get up in arms about it, why the absolute refusal to take it in the spirit with which it is intended.  If a person is being obnoxious when doing so, then treat him as such.  If they are trying to legitimately "help" (as this word for some reason keeps getting taken out of context, I will put it in quotations) and are being kind and considerate , then why not take it in that context?





> We dont need the help. Again, assumption that what Im doing is wrong and I need help.


 
Again, say so and move on.  I just don't get the anger about it. 





> J4J and their ilk are *not* Jewish organizations. They are Xtians who surround themselves with Jewish trappings to deceive Jews that their way is acceptable.


 
Be that as it may, I don't know anything about J4J.  I used them as they were already discussed.  Whether it's a group or individuals, the point is still the same.




> As I said in my intro, part of who we are is our religion. By wanting to convert us to Xtianity, you want to annihilate Judaism. That will destroy Jews as a people. Whether a Jew practices or not, who we are and what we do is intrinsically linked to Judaism. Destroy Judaism and youve destroyed the Jews.


 
That's what I'm not understanding.  You say that you don't need to practice Judaism to be Jewish, but at the same time you say that Judaism is a part of being Jewish.  Your statements are conflicting. 





> That some Halachic Jews are practicing Xtians does not lead any more credence to Xtianity than anything else.
> 
> And I find your last comment reveling, and deeply offensive. There is that arrogance again. You are right, and Jews are wrong.


 
What I am trying to get at here is that in the Jewish world, there are Jews who dispute the orthodox view, whether right or wrong.  This is a question of epistomolgy, not dogma.
 
I would be interested in what you think the statement reveales about me.  I have no bone to pick in this fight other then people getting along, and gathering information for my own understanding of how, generally speaking, Jews view other ethincities and religions.  Again, the questions are one of trying to debate the epistomology of this subject, or how can we *know* who is right or wrong.
 



> We debate the language, we debate why a particular word was used. We dont shift the entire meaning.


 
But apparently some ethinc Jews do.  That was my point.
 



> Your interpretation may be right for you, but all too often it is based on mistranslation and/or horribly out of context quotes. Or just plain not wanting to see the original intentions.




Understand, I am not trying to pick a fight with you. But....

I find it interesting that you have no problem with calling Christians wrong or lack knowledge, but when the same characterization is made of  you, somehow you take umbrage with that.  You don't like to treat others the way that you are treated.  And I'm talking about our discussions here, not with some obnoxious Christian who is badgering you.  Somehow, Brother John (for instance) telling you that your interpretation is wrong and he is attempting to destroy your people, but you telling him that his entire belief system is perfectly justifiable.  Talk about arrogant and condescending.  Kettle, meet pot.







> First Commandment, I am the Lord your G-d, you shall have no other god before Me.
> 
> Adonai is our G-dHe is the One G-d. But it does not preclude that others may worship other gods. And quite frankly, we dont care.


 
Ok. But do Jews acknowledge that other gods actually exist in reality?  I really don't know.  And what happens to people in the afterlife, if Jews believe in such, if they do not believe in the Jewish God?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> Excuse me? I am not prejudice against Christians nor will I tolerate the implication that I am. I have simply noted what all but one of my interactions with them has been. Because of this I have formed an opinion about their organisation/institution not about parishioners/adherents/faithful that I don't personally know or have met.


 
Sorry, but you have stated that Christians are arrogant and condescending.  Maybe you were generalizing, and don't believe that of every Christian.  My statement, if you could at least try to take it for what it's worth, was that I hope you meet Christians who are unlike you past experience so that you would not have, as you statments seem to suggest, an inherent dislike of them as a group, as your own following statment seems to suggest:



> I have no use for the Christian faith, I have seen and experienced nothing but arrogance and condescension from it's organizations and people. *If you can't see how arrogant it is to assume you (general you, as you are not a christian) are right about religion and that everyone who does not believe as you do needs to convert, because they are wrong, and then proceed to preach and teach others unsolicited as arrogant,* then we must simply agree to disagree.


 


> Teachers do not teach unsolicited. Students sign up for their classes. Students come to them, they don't go to people and deem them to be a student. The arrogance involved in doing something like that is huge. That would be like an english teacher walking up to every hispanic and deeming them in need of their instruction in the english language. Never mind that this person might already speak it fluently or might not even be interested in the language.


 
If you are talking about modern methods of "teaching" then you are correct.  But, in times past, teachers often taught unsolisited.  



> The same goes for religion - it is deeply personal and should stay that way. If people are interested and come to you to learn about it, by all means teach and preach. But, don't come knocking on my door at 8 in the morning, don't preach to me when we happen to be at the mailbox at the same time, don't assume I need or want your religious opinions in my life let alone shoved down my throat (remember the "you" here is generalized).


 
I know that if someone saw me doing something "wrong", and had a sincere belief that they were trying to do something beneficial for me, then I would take it in that context.  I would not get up in arms and be angry about it.



> Actually you are, unless of course are you retracting the following statement you previously made.
> 
> (emphasis mine)


 
Ok, I think you misunderstood me.  What I was saying was that even if they don't believe exactly the same thing, they believe similar things.

Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what Christianity really is or who a Christian is. Protestants call Catholics, LDS, JW non-christians. Evangelicals call non evangelicals non-christians. Catholics regard non-catholics as a dead branch. At least the different sects of Judaism still regard each-other as Jews![/quote]

But Jewish in what context? Ethnically, religiously.  I have asked, and received contradictory answers, on what exactly it means to be a Jew.


----------



## Brother John

Xinglu said:


> Perfection?!  Who said anything about that? None of Yeshua's teaching demand or expect perfection.  They are about LOVE and treating others with love and compassion.  Being loving and compassionate does not a perfect person make.  It seems that you have introduced a straw-man argument here.  Weather or not it was intentional I don't know. .


No sir. Not a straw man argument at all. It's contextual. Please allow me to show you the context more explicitly. 

In the fifth Chapter of Matthew we read a very important sermon that Jesus gave commonly called "The Sermon on the Mount". It's the one that starts off with 


> Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


This first section is called the beatitudes. The rest of the chapter go on to entail specific lessons on ethics and behavior. In it Jesus Christ sets forward some of the most explicit instruction on the extent of Love that we are to have (what you were referring too). 


> "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'   	  		  "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,   	  		  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous.   	  		  "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?   	  		  "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing {than others?} Do not even the Gentiles do the same?   	  		  "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


That's the last fifth (approximately) of the chapter: Matthew 5:43-48 to be specific. 
Anyway, you may notice that in it Christ instructs us to Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think that anyone has done it perfectly, ALL of the time without fail. Also: note the last line. "You are to be perfect,..." That's what I was referring too. It's not a straw man argument, it's in the context that Jesus posed it in. 

Please understand: I'm in NO way meaning that anyone is free of the command to LOVE and be Perfect in anyway. We will all be held accountable for that!  I'm simply saying, while on this earth mankind of every stripe will continue to fail.... but we become better by picking ourselves up and trying again, by the Grace of God.

Listen: I really don't care to go on and on and on belaboring this point. I think it's *horrible* that you _feel_ you've never met a Christian who strove to be a loving person. I think it may either entail you being exposed to VERY few Christians ((and horrible ones at that)) OR to be SO very jaded against Christianity and Christians that you'd *not* recognize kindness, mercy or love from one if it stood up and blessed you in your face.   I cannot help you with that. No amount of intelligent and well meaning argument will persuade you to drop something like that. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Carol

5-0 Kenpo said:


> BTW, the idea of ethnically Jewish is valid by definition: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group *(ethnic group) *sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.


 
Is ethnicity being confused with race?  Latinos are an ethnic group but are not a race. Many folks equate the Latino people as_ morenos, _(brown skin, dark hair), but Latinos can be black, brown, white, any color.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Sorry, but you have stated that Christians are arrogant and condescending.  Maybe you were generalizing, and don't believe that of every Christian.  My statement, if you could at least try to take it for what it's worth, was that I hope you meet Christians who are unlike you past experience so that you would not have, as you statments seem to suggest, an inherent dislike of them as a group, as your own following statment seems to suggest:


 Yes, I was generalizing: Would a rephrase such as "The Christians I have met are arrogant and condescending?" be more precise for you?






5-0 Kenpo said:


> If you are talking about modern methods of "teaching" then you are correct.  But, in times past, teachers often taught unsolisited.


 Irrelevant. We live in modern times.  Teaching methods need to be contemporary as we are here and now, not 1500 years ago.  And if you plan to "appeal to tradition," please don't, it's fallacious and I don't care to have that conversation.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> I know that if someone saw me doing something "wrong", and had a sincere belief that they were trying to do something beneficial for me, then I would take it in that context.  I would not get up in arms and be angry about it.


 "Wrong," there it is again.  Please, how can a proselytizer who doesn't know me assume my beliefs are wrong and not come across as insulting?  I make it a point to not discuss religion with others offline unless I am directly asked about it.  I even tell people who start to tell me all about theirs (unsolicited) that I'm simply not interested and ask if we could talk about something else.  Never, in the many times I have said that are my wishes respected.  In fact, I'm usually met with one of two reactions: increased intensity with their efforts, or passive agressive behavior.  It's not like I'm being rude about it either.  I try very hard to be honest AND respectful about my disinterest.




5-0 Kenpo said:


> But Jewish in what context? Ethnically, religiously.  I have asked, and received contradictory answers, on what exactly it means to be a Jew.


 I assert both.  If one is a Jew, yet converts to Christianity, they are a Christian, not a Jew. If they are a Jew by birth or conversion and don't go to temple or participate in the religion: they are still a Jew.  But if you turn your back on the Jewish faith and culture, you forfeit being jewish.  That is my understanding.


----------



## Xinglu

Brother John said:


> No sir. Not a straw man argument at all. It's contextual. Please allow me to show you the context more explicitly.
> 
> In the fifth Chapter of Matthew we read a very important sermon that Jesus gave commonly called "The Sermon on the Mount". It's the one that starts off with
> 
> This first section is called the beatitudes. The rest of the chapter go on to entail specific lessons on ethics and behavior. In it Jesus Christ sets forward some of the most explicit instruction on the extent of Love that we are to have (what you were referring too).
> 
> That's the last fifth (approximately) of the chapter: Matthew 5:43-48 to be specific.
> Anyway, you may notice that in it Christ instructs us to Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think that anyone has done it perfectly, ALL of the time without fail. Also: note the last line. "You are to be perfect,..." That's what I was referring too. It's not a straw man argument, it's in the context that Jesus posed it in.
> 
> Please understand: I'm in NO way meaning that anyone is free of the command to LOVE and be Perfect in anyway. We will all be held accountable for that!  I'm simply saying, while on this earth mankind of every stripe will continue to fail.... but we become better by picking ourselves up and trying again, by the Grace of God.


 Thank you, for clarifying what you were saying. But my point is the same, until you (general you) can get that that right, how is it right to seek out others to point out their beliefs as wrong and in need of conversion to your own?  Once again back to the mote and plank: Matt 7:5.


----------



## jks9199

Xinglu said:


> Harsh, perhaps, but valid.  Last time I checked the RCC views the "holy sacraments" as essential to salvation.  Since only RCC members can receive those sacraments, the implication is that protestants and any offshoot from that branch are ultimately "dead" or spiritually "blocked" unable to progress past a certain point.
> 
> While the first sacrament baptism may be recognized by the RCC from other denominations Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony are not.
> 
> Confirmation is important because to the RCC it is the validation and sealing of the baptismal covenant.  Something non-catholics cannot have and is taught as essential to salvation.
> 
> Eucharist is obligatory at least once a year.  Non-Catholics cannot have this.
> 
> Penance and Reconciliation (confession) is to set right the sins one has made since baptism.  Non-Catholics cannot be absolved of their sins in this manner, yet another essential to salvation sacrament.
> 
> Anointing of the sick includes last rites... kinda important within the RCC.  Cannot be had by non-Catholics.
> 
> Holy Orders, not essential.
> 
> Matrimony while the RCC is obligated to recognize all legal marriages they do not consider non-sanctified marriages as holy or blessed by God.  This implies a lot of things.
> 
> So - to the RCC those not partaking of the sacraments are up a certain creek with no paddle to speak of.  Might sound harsh, but boiled down to brass tacks, that is their position.



This is a very superficial and incomplete understanding of the Sacraments of the Church, and the Church's teachings about them.  You may wish to review The Catechism of the Catholic Church for more complete teachings.  

The Church generally recognizes any Baptism, so long as it is done with respect to and the intent to be baptized according to the teachings of Christianity.  (Yes, a non-Christian may actually baptize a person into Christianity under some circumstances, like an infant born into medical crisis.)  Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.

The Eucharist (or Communion) is a special issue.  The Church considers the Eucharist to be the summit of worship, for in the Eucharist we come as close to God in the form of Christ as is humanly possible.  When consecrated, the Host (in the form of bread and wine) become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ, according to the teachings of the Church.  Because of this radical statement and belief -- only those in full communion (or unity) with the Church may receive the Sacrament; a Catholic who is conscious of having committed a grave sin or who does not believe themselves to be in a state of grace should not receive Communion.  This can be as simple a failing as not observing the liturgical fast...  Because of the divisions between Catholics and other Christians, only a very few non-Catholic denominations can receive Communion -- and a Catholic may only participate in an equally small number of non-Catholic Communion services.


----------



## Carol

jks9199 said:


> Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.


 
The Church recognizes most Christian marriages (and others, such as a civil ceremony with a JP) as marriages that can be convalidated by the Church.  But, sparing a diosesal dispensation, a marriage outside the Church is not valid (and the Catholic(s) in the marriage cannot receive the Eucharist) until the marriage has been convalidated by a priest.


----------



## Xinglu

jks9199 said:


> This is a very superficial and incomplete understanding of the Sacraments of the Church, and the Church's teachings about them.  You may wish to review The Catechism of the Catholic Church for more complete teachings.
> 
> The Church generally recognizes any Baptism, so long as it is done with respect to and the intent to be baptized according to the teachings of Christianity.  (Yes, a non-Christian may actually baptize a person into Christianity under some circumstances, like an infant born into medical crisis.)  Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.
> 
> The Eucharist (or Communion) is a special issue.  The Church considers the Eucharist to be the summit of worship, for in the Eucharist we come as close to God in the form of Christ as is humanly possible.  When consecrated, the Host (in the form of bread and wine) become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ, according to the teachings of the Church.  Because of this radical statement and belief -- only those in full communion (or unity) with the Church may receive the Sacrament; a Catholic who is conscious of having committed a grave sin or who does not believe themselves to be in a state of grace should not receive Communion.  This can be as simple a failing as not observing the liturgical fast...  Because of the divisions between Catholics and other Christians, only a very few non-Catholic denominations can receive Communion -- and a Catholic may only participate in an equally small number of non-Catholic Communion services.



We can pick nits all day long, but the point is the same: no sacraments :: no favor/positive merit with God.  No favor/positive merit with God :: no heaven.

Tell me, this does the RCC believe that one can be not Catholic AND attain "salvation" (outside of special circumstances)?  If so, what is the point of Catholicism ?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Hey, wait a minute...who scared off Brother John? Where'd he go?


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So if you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism, does that mean that practicing another religion makes you *not *a Jew? That is the question that I am asking in relation to the fact that you say that if you are ethnically Jewish and are trying to be converted would destroy Jews.


 
Because beeing a Kew according to Halach is only part of it. Much of the culture and shared experience are grounded in Judaism. Destroy Judaism and you destroy the Jews.



> BTW, the idea of ethnically Jewish is valid by definition: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group *(ethnic group) *sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.


 
It's close but it does not really fit.




> Again, I go back to the walking across the street without looking. I understand that people often don't want to be told things that upset their world view (in the broad sense), and get upset when it is done. What I am trying to illustrate is that rather then get up in arms about it, why the absolute refusal to take it in the spirit with which it is intended. If a person is being obnoxious when doing so, then treat him as such. If they are trying to legitimately "help" (as this word for some reason keeps getting taken out of context, I will put it in quotations) and are being kind and considerate , then why not take it in that context?


 
Why can't you understand that we don't want or need your 'help'? Your offer to 'help' assumes that there is something we lack. We don't.





> Be that as it may, I don't know anything about J4J. I used them as they were already discussed. Whether it's a group or individuals, the point is still the same.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm not understanding. You say that you don't need to practice Judaism to be Jewish, but at the same time you say that Judaism is a part of being Jewish. Your statements are conflicting.


 
It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people. 



> What I am trying to get at here is that in the Jewish world, there are Jews who dispute the orthodox view, whether right or wrong. This is a question of epistomolgy, not dogma.




You're right. The Reform mvement doesn't fully accept the Revelation at Sinai. But their interpretation is not that different from the Orthodox interpretation. And for as far away as Reform swung, Jesus has always been a line they stayed far away fom.



> I would be interested in what you think the statement reveales about me. I have no bone to pick in this fight other then people getting along, and gathering information for my own understanding of how, generally speaking, Jews view other ethincities and religions. Again, the questions are one of trying to debate the epistomology of this subject, or how can we *know* who is right or wrong.




We are discussing faith. You want to beleive that you are right, that is your prerogative. Jews don't care what Xtians believe, so long as you don't ty to convince us that you are right and therefore we are wrong.




> I find it interesting that you have no problem with calling Christians wrong or lack knowledge, but when the same characterization is made of you, somehow you take umbrage with that. You don't like to treat others the way that you are treated. And I'm talking about our discussions here, not with some obnoxious Christian who is badgering you. Somehow, Brother John (for instance) telling you that your interpretation is wrong and he is attempting to destroy your people, but you telling him that his entire belief system is perfectly justifiable. Talk about arrogant and condescending. Kettle, meet pot.


 
Xtians are trying to destroy and invalidate our religion. we don't give a hoot about the Xtian religion. Is it right for you? if yes then good on you, hope it makes you a better person.




> Ok. But do Jews acknowledge that other gods actually exist in reality? I really don't know. And what happens to people in the afterlife, if Jews believe in such, if they do not believe in the Jewish God?


 
can you understand that we don't concern ourselves with that?

We have a covenant with G-d. We are following His Torah. We do not concern us with what others believe.


----------



## Brother John

Ken Morgan said:


> Hey, wait a minute...who scared off Brother John? Where'd he go?


Hey Ken...
I'm still about. Reading mostly, but I did post a response to Xinglu in post #161. 

But I'm not scared off. I feel I stated my case and other than that...I'll just let others keep discussing this and enjoy the read.

But thanks for looking out for me. 
WHERE I went too? The gym, then Wal-Mart. 
I'm back now.. 


Your Brother
John


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> Yes, I was generalizing: Would a rephrase such as "The Christians I have met are arrogant and condescending?" be more precise for you?


 
Yes, actually.




> Irrelevant. We live in modern times. Teaching methods need to be contemporary as we are here and now, not 1500 years ago. And if you plan to "appeal to tradition," please don't, it's fallacious and I don't care to have that conversation.


 
Not at all, since it is the "tradition" which Christians are practicing.  You may consider such methods irrelevant, but when they are basing their practise on such, it is perfectly relevant. 

After all, are we not discussing "destroying" the traditions of the Jewish faith as a part of this thread.




> "Wrong," there it is again. Please, how can a proselytizer who doesn't know me assume my beliefs are wrong and not come across as insulting?


 
I said *"*wrong*" *so that you understand that I am talking about from their perspective.  Anyway, insulting is in the eye of the beholder.  You choose your attitude based on what they are doing, they are not dictating it for you.  Therefore if you considering it insulting, that is because you *choose* for it to be insulting.



> I make it a point to not discuss religion with others offline unless I am directly asked about it. I even tell people who start to tell me all about theirs (unsolicited) that I'm simply not interested and ask if we could talk about something else. Never, in the many times I have said that are my wishes respected. In fact, I'm usually met with one of two reactions: increased intensity with their efforts, or passive agressive behavior. It's not like I'm being rude about it either. I try very hard to be honest AND respectful about my disinterest.



And I have agreed with you about people being a**es.  I make no excuses for them.  I will stipulate, so that we don't have to keep rehashing it, that some Christians are d**ks when it comes to such things. 



> I assert both. If one is a Jew, yet converts to Christianity, they are a Christian, not a Jew. If they are a Jew by birth or conversion and don't go to temple or participate in the religion: they are still a Jew. But if you turn your back on the Jewish faith and culture, you forfeit being jewish. That is my understanding.


 
I get that that is your understanding, but it sounds like a bit of boulderdash to me.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Brother John said:


> Hey Ken...
> I'm still about. Reading mostly, but I did post a response to Xinglu in post #161.
> 
> But I'm not scared off. I feel I stated my case and other than that...I'll just let others keep discussing this and enjoy the read.
> 
> But thanks for looking out for me.
> WHERE I went too? The gym, then Wal-Mart.
> I'm back now..
> 
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 

Yeah observer status on some threads is much more enjoyable....


----------



## Brother John

Ken Morgan said:


> Yeah observer status on some threads is much more enjoyable....


:soapbox: <---- Not fun.

:knight2:<------- tiresome, time consuming and does NO good.

:hmm:+irateboo+:cheers:+opcorn:=  *MUCH more fun*!!!!


*Your Brother* (*who likes it with LOTS of butter*)
*John*


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> Because beeing a Kew according to Halach is only part of it. Much of the culture and shared experience are grounded in Judaism. Destroy Judaism and you destroy the Jews.


 
I don't think theirs anything in Christianity which would destroy Jewish cultures.  In fact, I know Christian who believe that following the cultural traditions of Judaism would put them "closer" to God here on earth.  And how do you "destroy" your ancestry or historical heritage?  It is biological fact that your ancestors are 'X'.  Try as you might to deny it, it wouldn't be any less true.





> It's close but it does not really fit.


 
Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words so that they fit your argument.  The term applies. 



> Why can't you understand that we don't want or need your 'help'? Your offer to 'help' assumes that there is something we lack. We don't.


 
Because it is what they believe, just like some scientist believe we need to stop greenhouse gasses in order to save the ozone.   




> It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people.


 
Ok, but what you are talking about is cultural, not religious.  

But for my enlightenment, what would traditional Jews think about ethnic Jews who do not observe Jewish rites, but have also not converted to another faith.  Would they no longer be considered Jews?

This reminds me of the time in college where I was accused by my college roommate of "acting real white".  That, despite my ancestry, I am no longer black because I don't "act" black.




> You're right. The Reform mvement doesn't fully accept the Revelation at Sinai. But their interpretation is not that different from the Orthodox interpretation. And for as far away as Reform swung, Jesus has always been a line they stayed far away fom.


 
So, what you're saying is, it's a matter of degrees of separation.  We will accept you as Jewish if you go this far, but if you cross this line, you are no longer Jewish?

Weird.



> We are discussing faith. You want to beleive that you are right, that is your prerogative. Jews don't care what Xtians believe, so long as you don't ty to convince us that you are right and therefore we are wrong.


 
Ok, but that's not what Christians believe. 





> Xtians are trying to destroy and invalidate our religion. we don't give a hoot about the Xtian religion. Is it right for you? if yes then good on you, hope it makes you a better person.


 
What you have said here doesn't address anything that you quoted.  I am merely pointing out that the arrogance and condescension is on both sides, not one of the other. 



> can you understand that we don't concern ourselves with that?
> 
> We have a covenant with G-d. We are following His Torah. We do not concern us with what others believe.


 
So no where in the Jewish literature is there even one philosophical text dealing with the Jewish perspectives of other religions and their gods.  I get that you, specifically, may not be interested in it.  But are you telling me that no Jewish philosopher has touched on the subject?  Honestly, I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Just to throw this little tidbit out there:



> It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and *a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox.* In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship.
> 
> Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm


 


> According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; *one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish.* According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. *According to the Orthodox movement, the fathers religion and whether the person practices is immaterial.* No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.
> 
> Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html


 
All bolds are mine.  Although I have not found anything that states what a Jew converting to another religion would be considered, the fact that under certain circumstances (depending on which orthodoxy of Judaism you are referring to) you need not practice or obey the laws of the Torah to be considered a Jew.


----------



## CanuckMA

> Quote:
> It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people.
> Ok, but what you are talking about is cultural, not religious.


 
That's where you get it wrong. Every one of those is a religious obligation. That tjhey are also done by secular Jews is because how much Judaism is intrinsic to who we are.



> But for my enlightenment, what would traditional Jews think about ethnic Jews who do not observe Jewish rites, but have also not converted to another faith. Would they no longer be considered Jews?


 
They are apostate Jews. Once they convert to another religion, that's another matter.


Being Jewish is tightly bound to Judaism, whether one practices or not does not eny that bond. If you destroy Judaism, you destroy the Jews. It's hard to explain and grasp because there is no other group where who they are and their religion is so intertwined.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> They are apostate Jews. Once they convert to another religion, that's another matter.


 


> That's where you get it wrong. Every one of those is a religious obligation. That tjhey are also done by secular Jews is because how much Judaism is intrinsic to who we are.


 
Looking at various Jewish website regarding apostate Jews, there is not difference between an atheist Jew or a Christian Jew.  

I get that they are religious rites that secular Jews are observing.  But what is there that says that if the become Christians and observe Jewish rites, that they are no longer Jews?  After all, Christianity is obstensibly a Judaism based religion.  

Another quote:



> In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. *Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains &#8211; as far as the halakhah is concerned &#8211; a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a).* According to *Na&#7717;manides this attitude derives from the fact that the covenant between God and Israel was made "with him that standeth here with us today before the Lord our God and also with him that is not with us here today" (Deut. 29:14; Na&#7717;manides _ad loc._). For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice and for the proselyte it ceases to be one once he has converted. However, persons who did assume another religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not taken such actions. These people are known in the _halakhah_ as _mumar_ (from the root meaning "to change"), or _meshummad_ (from the root meaning "to persecute or force abandonment of faith"), or _apikoros_ ("heretic"), or _kofer_ ("denier"), or _poshe'a Yisrael_ ("rebellious Jew"). Since in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible, the above terms are often used very loosely in rabbinic literature.
> 
> Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01188.html


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Just to throw this little tidbit out there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All bolds are mine. Although I have not found anything that states what a Jew converting to another religion would be considered, the fact that under certain circumstances (depending on which orthodoxy of Judaism you are referring to) you need not practice or obey the laws of the Torah to be considered a Jew.


 
But once you destroy Judaism, Halacha disapears, therefore the definition of who is a Jew disapears.


----------



## CanuckMA

And now I'm done.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> But once you destroy Judaism, Halacha disapears, therefore the definition of who is a Jew disapears.


 
I don't know why, with a Judaism-based religion such as Christianity, you would be forced to abandon the precepts of Halacha. Especially since the things that I have quoted above show that you do not have to observe them in order to be Jewish.

I'm sorry that you are done, but thank you for the lively debate anyhow.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although I have not found anything that states what a Jew converting to another religion would be considered, the fact that under certain circumstances (depending on which orthodoxy of Judaism you are referring to) *you need not practice or obey the laws of the Torah to be considered a Jew.*



I see, when I tell you that, it's boulderdash but if a website tells you that it's true... nice talking with you, sir.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> I see, when I tell you that, it's boulderdash but if a website tells you that it's true... nice talking with you, sir.


 

When the sites that I use quote the actual relevent religious texts, I will make the assumption that they are correct, unless shown otherwise. Beside, would it have been better if I had said Rabbi Smavick told me. 

Besides, what you said was that it was your "understanding", ie., what someone told you.  At least this way you can check my sources.  


Why not, instead of complaining, you show me contradictory evidence?


----------



## Xinglu

Contradictory to what?!  Your post and source confirmed what I had told you that you previously called boulderdash.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> Contradictory to what?! Your post and source confirmed what I had told you that you previously called boulderdash.


 


> But if you turn your back on the Jewish faith and culture, you forfeit being jewish.


 
Where in all of my citations does it say that?  In fact, my reading of them says quite the opposite.


----------



## Carol

Is it possible that the Jewish diaspora in reality is not best described by a a description a couple sentences long?


----------



## Bruno@MT

Carol Kaur said:


> The Church recognizes most Christian marriages (and others, such as a civil ceremony with a JP) as marriages that can be convalidated by the Church.  But, sparing a diosesal dispensation, a marriage outside the Church is not valid (and the Catholic(s) in the marriage *cannot *receive the Eucharist) until the marriage has been convalidated by a priest.



The odds were heavily stacked against me, but I managed to pull it off 
Perhaps the fact that the priest didn't know me had something to do with it.
I got married in the US. The service was performed by rev. Warren Kessler. We validated our marriage for the Belgian law, but not before the catholic church.

Personally, I think that if the Catholic teachings are valid, then God already knows I am married. I never saw much need for going through the middle management.


----------



## Carol

Bruno@MT said:


> The odds were heavily stacked against me, but I managed to pull it off
> Perhaps the fact that the priest didn't know me had something to do with it.
> I got married in the US. The service was performed by rev. Warren Kessler. We validated our marriage for the Belgian law, but not before the catholic church.
> 
> Personally, I think that if the Catholic teachings are valid, then God already knows I am married. I never saw much need for going through the middle management.



Oh you sneaky devil you!    You and your wife do a lot better job with your marriage than I did with mine.  Props for that, regardless of your standing within Canon law. :lol:


----------



## Tez3

One thing to remember when looking up Jewish sites, rabbis etc for an opinion is that its going to be just that, an opinion. There is no ultimate authority who decides exactly what anything means or who can make a ruling. Theres is no equivilant to a Pope who says what is final so every thing a rabbi says is something that they themselves think which could be quite contradictory to what another rabbi says. Remember arguing about the law makes sure the law is always relevant to the times, Jewish law is a living entity not a dead one. 
I think its something that non Jews find confusing, that we can have so many different views but the same beliefs.


----------



## jks9199

Bruno@MT said:


> The odds were heavily stacked against me, but I managed to pull it off
> Perhaps the fact that the priest didn't know me had something to do with it.
> I got married in the US. The service was performed by rev. Warren Kessler. We validated our marriage for the Belgian law, but not before the catholic church.
> 
> Personally, I think that if the Catholic teachings are valid, then God already knows I am married. I never saw much need for going through the middle management.


When my wife and I got married, we got to involve 3 dioceses.  My uncle was a Benedictine priest in Illinois; I live in Virginia, she lived in Missouri, and we were married in Missouri.  I'm Catholic; she's not.  We completed marriage prep here in Virginia (except for some parts she did in Missouri...)

I needed to have my bishop sign off on the mixed marriage; we had to be sure the marriage prep documentation got sent to the diocese in Missouri, who also had to sign off on that... and on my uncle performing the ceremony.  My uncle also needed permission from the bishop and the abbot...  And we had to make sure he could legally marry us, too!

Lots of fun... but at the same time, it was all quite doable.  Some if it was almost routine (getting approval for the mixed marriage, for example), some of it took a little bit of time and some research on the priest doing the bulk of our marriage prep.


----------



## dbell

Xinglu said:


> Excuse me?  I am not prejudice against Christians nor will I tolerate the implication that I am.  I have simply noted what all but one of my interactions with them has been.  Because of this I have formed an opinion about their organisation/institution not about parishioners/adherents/faithful that I don't personally know or have met.



Your post say otherwise about being prejudice about Christians, including this post I am quoting...  At least you present yourself that way...



Xinglu said:


> Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what Christianity really is or who a Christian is.  Protestants call Catholics, LDS, JW non-christians.  Evangelicals call non evangelicals non-christians.  Catholics regard non-catholics as a dead branch.  At least the different sects of Judaism still regard each-other as Jews!



Actually the Protestant faiths I have experienced (Methodist, Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.)  do not call Catholics non-Christians.  They do LDS and JW.  However, JW doesn't consider themselves Christian, not sure why you and other Jewish folks on this forum think they do?  Catholics, by their faith base, do not consider non-Catholic Christians a dead branch.  Some individuals may, but the faith does not.  We still consider other Christian based faiths Christians...

But some of the different sects of Judaism do consider other sects to be Jewish in "race", but not in faith..


----------



## Tez3

dbell said:


> Your post say otherwise about being prejudice about Christians, including this post I am quoting... At least you present yourself that way...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Protestant faiths I have experienced (Methodist, Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) do not call Catholics non-Christians. They do LDS and JW. However, JW doesn't consider themselves Christian, not sure why you and other Jewish folks on this forum think they do? Catholics, by their faith base, do not consider non-Catholic Christians a dead branch. Some individuals may, but the faith does not. We still consider other Christian based faiths Christians...
> 
> But some of the different sects of Judaism do consider other sects to be Jewish in "race", but not in faith..


 
To be honest we tend not to delve too much into the various Christian denominations, few I think Jewish or Christian have that much time to spare! I know a little about the Eastern Orthodox churches because I have been reading about Byzantium recently. I broadly assume I suppose that any church with Jesus in is Christian. Usually though I just think of them all as goyim.
I'm not sure we have sects as such, it's more like different families. Some relatives you agree with some you don't, a couple you might not stand but when push comes to shove we are all the same family and we will close ranks against criticism from outside. As in most families criticism from inside is fine as are differences but it doesn't get taken well from outsiders.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> Ah, you see I'm being reprimanded already for making a little personal attack lo.l As a peron of faith no less I shouldn't make attacks. Who says not? You attack me sunshine I'll attack back usually better. You mistake me for a Christian sir, I turn no other cheek.
> Faith, I don't have faith, I don't believe in G-d, I know theres a G-d so whether others do or not doesn't bother me. I like people for who they are not what religion, if any, they follow.



You are using schematics here.  You know there is a G-d based on your faith that there is a G-d.  I can say the same thing as I KNOW there is a G-d and that Jesus was the Messiah He sent to us...  But it is based on faith, in both of our cases.



Tez3 said:


> Jehovahs Witnesses are as Christian as any other Christian religion.



No, they actually are not...  THEY even say they are not...



Tez3 said:


> The use of the word Xtian has been discussed on here before, I'm off on nights but will try to find the link. It was pointed out by Christians that in fact this is correct and isn't an insult or demeaning but goes back to the Greek/Latin ( sorry can't remember which) I believe. Have quickly googled and found this so it's not insulting.
> http://xtians.org/



In all of my studies, including in Greek and Latin, it was not and is not acceptable to most main line Christian belief systems.  If you put Xtians, XMas, you are taking Christ out of the equation which is not acceptable to most Christians.  It is offensive to me, and many people I asked about it of this past two weeks...  It feels to me as if you (general you, not you specifically) are afraid to say Christ in such things as it might be real, and you don't want to make it real...  And because someone creates a web site called xtians.org doesn't make it not insulting.  It just means the people that created that web site (and if you log in and dig into their site, it is not overly Christian centric) felt that using that name was acceptable.



Tez3 said:


> You can write G-d however you like, we write it that way for a reason as Canuck says which is nothing to do with computers, your writing it any way you want isn't disrespectful to us. Write it how you usually do.
> 
> Post up the names please of these rabbis who are trying to convert non Jews, we should be able to ask them the whys and wherefores.



I don't have their contact info on this computer, but when I get my other laptop back I will.   (Not sure why it matters though....)


----------



## Ken Morgan

opcorn:opcorn:


----------



## Tez3

dbell said:


> You are using schematics here. You know there is a G-d based on your faith that there is a G-d. I can say the same thing as I KNOW there is a G-d and that Jesus was the Messiah He sent to us... But it is based on faith, in both of our cases.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they actually are not... THEY even say they are not...
> 
> 
> 
> In all of my studies, including in Greek and Latin, it was not and is not acceptable to most main line Christian belief systems. If you put Xtians, XMas, you are taking Christ out of the equation which is not acceptable to most Christians. It is offensive to me, and many people I asked about it of this past two weeks... It feels to me as if you (general you, not you specifically) are afraid to say Christ in such things as it might be real, and you don't want to make it real... And because someone creates a web site called xtians.org doesn't make it not insulting. It just means the people that created that web site (and if you log in and dig into their site, it is not overly Christian centric) felt that using that name was acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have their contact info on this computer, but when I get my other laptop back I will.  (Not sure why it matters though....)


 


Well I'm just going by what other Christians have said on MT, call yourselves what you like. 
You don't really have much of a sense of humour where this is concerned do you? It's an old joke saying Jews know there's a god etc etc, perhaps American comedians don't tell it. Why would we be bothered about saying Christ? that's a rather old pagan belief isn't it, whereby you say a word and it makes something real?
I can say a lot of words too such as Buddha, Allah, Ganesha, Garuda, Hanuman etc and am quite happy with it. I say them with equal respect too as I would anyone's gods. 

Why does it matter that we'd like the names of the rabbis concerned? Well, we'd like to see all the circumstances of the stories so we can make a proper evalutaion rather than just how you perceive it.


----------



## dbell

Tez3 said:


> Well I'm just going by what other Christians have said on MT, call yourselves what you like.
> You don't really have much of a sense of humour where this is concerned do you? It's an old joke saying Jews know there's a god etc etc, perhaps American comedians don't tell it. Why would we be bothered about saying Christ? that's a rather old pagan belief isn't it, whereby you say a word and it makes something real?
> I can say a lot of words too such as Buddha, Allah, Ganesha, Garuda, Hanuman etc and am quite happy with it. I say them with equal respect too as I would anyone's gods.
> 
> Why does it matter that we'd like the names of the rabbis concerned? Well, we'd like to see all the circumstances of the stories so we can make a proper evalutaion rather than just how you perceive it.



Actually I do have a sense of humor...  Even when talking about this subject... But, to be told my faith is insulting another faith, then have people of that faith do the same to mine, I thought I'd point it out...

No, a word doesn't make something real, at least to me, which has me wondering why an X had to be put in place of a word instead of using that word?  If not for pagan reasons, was it laziness?  Or was it an attempt to insult?  (I felt the latter for what it was worth...)

I will get their contact info for you soon.


----------



## CanuckMA

OK, i'll break my exile for this one.

I use X because I will not write the name of another god. for similar reasons thjat I will not enter a non-Jewish place of worship.


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> OK, i'll break my exile for this one.
> 
> I use X because I will not write the name of another god. for similar reasons thjat I will not enter a non-Jewish place of worship.


 
Now you see? Canuck and I have different views on this, I'll quite happily go round anyone's elses place of worship though it's as a tourist*, I don't worship anywhere else. I don't mind saying anyones gods name either but our core beliefs, our religion is the same one. We may debate with each other about this but we are in agreement still. It's one of the best things for me about Judaism, that free choice is allowed. 
People shouldn't assume things about Judaism, they shouldn't assume either that because of things we do and believe we are out to insult anyone else. 
 Of course if you are looking to be insulted and to find insults in people's writings there's no help for it.

*In the UK and Europe we have beautiful Norman and older cathedrals which if you appreciate old buildings and history are a must see. I don't mean I traipse into modern churches lol! I was in Gloucester Cathedral (over 900 years old) the other weekend, it's one I hadn't seen, it's a wonderful building. We also have York Minster (first built in 623 CE) just down the road from us. Visiting these places isn't an act of worship or really anything to do with religion as such.


----------



## cdunn

Yeshua ben Yosef's title was written in Greek as &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962;. Accordingly, Xp and Xt have been used as formal, respectful abbreviations for that title since long before there was an English language. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has it in "English" as far back as 1021. It is only recently that it has fallen out of favor as a way of referring to him. Personally, if I were one of his followers, I'd be more up in arms about the change of his actual name to be nigh homophonic with flourescent orange snack crackers than over a proper abbreviation of his title, but that's just me.


----------



## Brother John

Tez3 said:


> Jehovahs Witnesses are as Christian as any other Christian religion.


 
Forgot you'd said this, thought I'd add my .02.

The J.W.'s aren't "Christian". They do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. 

Amongst several other reasons, they are not a "Christian" sect.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Where in all of my citations does it say that?  In fact, my reading of them says quite the opposite.



"Inactive" jews are not turning their back on their culture.  I know lots of "inactive" Christians that still identify as as such.  Because the religion accounts for so much of their culture if they convert to another religion they HAVE at that point turned their back on their culture.  They are an apostate for lack of a better word.

If all Jew's converted to Christianity, then Judaism would no longer exist. And therefore Jews would not exist.  That has been the whole point this entire time.  And it is the goal of Christianity to convert EVERYONE is it not?


----------



## Tez3

Brother John said:


> Forgot you'd said this, thought I'd add my .02.
> 
> The J.W.'s aren't "Christian". They do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
> 
> Amongst several other reasons, they are not a "Christian" sect.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 

Well you'd better tell Wikipedia, the BBC and the JWs themselves as they quote on their site.
http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/beliefs.htm


"_Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses are members of a worldwideChristian religion who actively share with others information about God, whose name is Jehovah, and about his Son, Jesus Christ. We base our beliefs solely on the principles found in the Holy Bible and view first-century Christianity as our model."_

_and_
*"Are you Christians?*

_Yes. We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and put faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided for the salvation of mankind. We imitate his example in preaching and teaching and in our dealings with fellow humans. We also look forward to living in true peace on earth under his heavenly Kingdom."_


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ataglance/glance.shtml


----------



## Xinglu

dbell said:


> Your post say otherwise about being prejudice about Christians, including this post I am quoting...  At least you present yourself that way...


Please, tell me how I really feel some more. Clearly you are in a better position to tell me about how I feel towards other people I haven't met. 





dbell said:


> Actually the Protestant faiths I have experienced (Methodist, Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.)  do not call Catholics non-Christians.  They do LDS and JW.  However, JW doesn't consider themselves Christian, not sure why you and other Jewish folks on this forum think they do?  Catholics, by their faith base, do not consider non-Catholic Christians a dead branch.  Some individuals may, but the faith does not.  We still consider other Christian based faiths Christians...
> 
> But some of the different sects of Judaism do consider other sects to be Jewish in "race", but not in faith..



LDS :: The Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-day Saints.  It's in their name even.  And all the "nice" young men who come knocking on my door all way want to tell me about... wait for it... *JESUS CHRIST*!!!  But wait... not Christian you say? I wonder what their website has to say? Their Scriptures? 

JW :: They consider themselves Christians and it is on their website.  The few I have had knock on my door, like the LDS want to talk about Jesus Christ.

Thank you for proving my point.

Furthermore: if the RCC see other Christian churches as valid paths to salvation, what is the point of being Catholic?


----------



## Ken Morgan

Far be it for me to throw gasoline on a smoldering fire...
But from my perspective, this is an argument about who has the best imaginary friend...


----------



## Tez3

On the subject of the JWs, they share something in common with the Jews in that many of them in Europe were sent to the concentration camps by the Nazis. While many here will not agree with their beliefs I think their individual bravery in trying to stand up to the Nazis and their subsequent suffering means we should certainly respect them. They did a great deal more than many other Christians at the time.
I've had them at my door too, I won't turn them away and have found to a person they were polite, respectful and haven't ever pushed me to convert once they understood my position.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005394


----------



## Xinglu

Brother John said:


> The J.W.'s aren't "Christian". They do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.



Really?

Then why do they contradict you?


----------



## Xinglu

Ken Morgan said:


> Far be it for me to throw gasoline on a smoldering fire...
> But from my perspective, this is an argument about who has the best imaginary friend...



Quoting George Carlin there?


----------



## cdunn

Tez3 said:


> Well you'd better tell Wikipedia, the BBC and the JWs themselves as they quote on their site.


 
The differences in the doctrine are subtle and tricky things, revolving around the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the omnipresence of the Son. The JWs preach that Yeshua is a discrete creation of the LORD, while the orthodox faiths preach that he is not, instead being a part of the trinitarian godhood in some ineffable manner that the Catholics call a Mystery of the Faith.

So, they're heretics. Are they Christian? Depends.


----------



## Tez3

Ken Morgan said:


> Far be it for me to throw gasoline on a smoldering fire...
> But from my perspective, this is an argument about who has the best imaginary friend...


 

Oh dear lol! It's also an argument about whether you're allowed to have the same imaginery friend as I have! 
I think mine is the best because we have the best food and the best sense of humour! (just thought I'd through some wood on the fire along with your petrol)


----------



## girlbug2

Xinglu and others, re: mormons, JWs and other religions. It is possible to believe in Jesus Christ as a historical person, even to agree with his teachings, without believing in him as Savior. the JWs and mormons (yes despite having Jesus Christ in their name) do not actually believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is what will save, or that he was God's one and only begotten son. It is for that reason that Christians do not regard them as Christian sects- for them, Jesus is not truly the Christ (the only way to God). Hence, they are not Christians.


----------



## Tez3

cdunn said:


> The differences in the doctrine are subtle and tricky things, revolving around the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the omnipresence of the Son. The JWs preach that Yeshua is a discrete creation of the LORD, while the orthodox faiths preach that he is not, instead being a part of the trinitarian godhood in some ineffable manner that the Catholics call a Mystery of the Faith.
> 
> So, they're heretics. Are they Christian? Depends.


 
To be honest I think if you want you call yourself a Christian you are, same as if you call yourself an atheiest or agnostic you are. It's your personal relationship or not that you have with your god/dess that matters and you can be what ever you want to be. I really don't see how it matters to other people what you believe as long as you aren't hurting anyone. 
Ken believes that its all imaginery which I know will annoy some people lol but hey if he's not pushing anyone to join him in his belief why get upset, lifes too short and we'll all find out eventually I suspect who's right. You don't have to have a religion to be a good person and to try to do the best by people and perhaps in the end that's what counts more than anything.


----------



## Xinglu

girlbug2 said:


> Xinglu and others, re: mormons, JWs and other religions. It is possible to believe in Jesus Christ as a historical person, even to agree with his teachings, without believing in him as Savior. the JWs and mormons (yes despite having Jesus Christ in their name) do not actually believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is what will save, or that he was God's one and only begotten son. It is for that reason that Christians do not regard them as Christian sects- for them, Jesus is not truly the Christ (the only way to God). Hence, they are not Christians.



Yet another false argument.  

With very little effort I was able to find this on the LDS website. 



> Atonement of Jesus Christ
> As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected, and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God.



And from the JW website I found this.



> The Scriptures describe Christ as the one who 'loves us and who loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood.' (Revelation 1:5; John 3:16) Yes, by means of Jesus' blood, we can gain full and lasting forgiveness of our sins. The apostle Paul wrote: "Since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath." That is how lasting life can be saved by blood.Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:14.


----------



## cdunn

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I think if you want you call yourself a Christian you are, same as if you call yourself an atheiest or agnostic you are. It's your personal relationship or not that you have with your god/dess that matters and you can be what ever you want to be. I really don't see how it matters to other people what you believe as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
> Ken believes that its all imaginery which I know will annoy some people lol but hey if he's not pushing anyone to join him in his belief why get upset, lifes too short and we'll all find out eventually I suspect who's right. You don't have to have a religion to be a good person and to try to do the best by people and perhaps in the end that's what counts more than anything.


 
Doesn't matter to me who calls them Christian, just mentioning that it depends on your definition of Christian. Do True Scotsmen put cream in their tea?

I am generally in agreement with Ken, with the addition that those who use their religion to perform or justify evil and suffering make me very, very angry indeed.


----------



## Tez3

Xinglu said:


> Yet another false argument.
> 
> With very little effort I was able to find this on the LDS website.
> 
> 
> 
> And from the JW website I found this.


 
I think the truth is that because these two groups of people aren't liked by other Christian sects as they may behave or believe differently from them they've decided not to call them Christians which surely is somewhat un Christian of them!

cdunn, you've just horrified me lol NO ONE puts cream in their tea, ugh! cream would curdle in tea! Anyway a true Scotman puts whisky in his tea, honest, ask my dad.
Yep my dad is Scottish, we're Jewish and my other half is Yorkshire so bring on the jokes about being mean!!


----------



## Xinglu

Tez3 said:


> I think the truth is that because these two groups of people aren't liked by other Christian sects as they may behave or believe differently from them they've decided not to call them Christians which surely is somewhat un Christian of them!



I am inclined to agree with you.  To me: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.  I have seen nothing from these organizations that leads me to believe they are not just another flavor of Christianity.


----------



## Ken Morgan

cdunn said:


> Do True Scotsmen put cream in their tea?


 
That's barbaric. My Mom's from Scotland, all my aunts, uncles, cousins and myself use milk. Though a drop of whiskey never hurt anyone...

George Carlin was a God. Oh sorry wrong thread to say that on...


----------



## Tez3

Ken Morgan said:


> That's barbaric. My Mom's from Scotland, all my aunts, uncles, cousins and myself use milk. Though a drop of whiskey never hurt anyone...
> 
> George Carlin was a God. Oh sorry wrong thread to say that on...


 

*Whiskey!!!  :soapbox:*

*Good grief man, whiskey is Irish! Whisky, dear boy, whisky!*


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> *Whiskey!!! :soapbox:*
> 
> *Good grief man, whiskey is Irish! Whisky, dear boy, whisky!*


 
Ah but you're forgetting, I'm Scotch-Irish on one side and Scottish on the other. I swing both ways....


----------



## CanuckMA

Only the Irish could ever get drunk enough to waste good whiskey in tea.

*ducks*


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> Only the Irish could ever get drunk enough to waste good whiskey in tea.
> 
> *ducks*



Oh...now THEM's fighting words!!!!  You betta be hiding boy!! :lfao:


----------



## Tez3

Ken Morgan said:


> Ah but you're forgetting, I'm Scotch-Irish on one side and Scottish on the other. I swing both ways....


 
There's a huge potential there for religious arguments! It's probably better you are a non believer lol! On either side of the Catholic v Protestant argument they'd rather you were a heathen than the 'opposition'. 

Apart from those two factions at each others throats here, our 'native' Christian churches, the Church of England and the Catholic church here don't push to convert people anymore and we have a pleasant relationship with them probably because they too are under pressure from the imported Christian groups who consider both groups to be well not Christian!
Christianity in England has for a long while now been a genteel thing. A civilised and respectable religion for quiet people who firmly believed G-d is an Englishman with all the virtues that entails. It's part of the Establishment, being a vicar is a job for a gentleman (and now lady of course), nothing was disagreeable. However in recent years we have had groups come over from America and they disturb the peace as it were. Shouting, singing, crying even in services and aggressive 'marketing'. Very unEnglish and very disturbing for a number of reasons not just because Jews and other religions are targeted. Many of these groups also target the socially disadvantaged such as the mentally ill. The pitch is 'give up your medication, Jesus will cure you'... dangerous. There is more than a whiff of the cult about many of the groups that are coming over now. The Jews for Jesus group are Christians trying to pose as Jews to entice Jews to follow them to become 'completed' Jews. They are more than aggressive in their 'mission' actually scaring children with their message of Jews burning in hellfire etc unless they convert, this is outside Jewish primary schools (here age 4-11 year olds), they also target the old some of whom are camp survivors and of fragile health. Some old people with dementia were targeted not long ago, they pretended to the old people's home owners that they wanted to entertain by singing Jewish songs etc but started preaching, upsetting the residents. The preaching by these people is particularly loud, aggressive and extremely graphic.

The JWs and the Mormans have always come over, the Mormans expecially are nearly always American, polite young men often but they aren't aggressive in the way that the 'new' groups are.


For those that seek to 'save us'  this may be interesting reading for you as the major religions at least now believe we don't need saving and that our covenant with G-d is intact.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/jews4jesus/christian_responses.asp


----------



## CanuckMA

Carol Kaur said:


> Oh...now THEM's fighting words!!!! You betta be hiding boy!! :lfao:


 
Peace!

Can I make amends by offering you a bottle of cough syrup gone bad, otherwise known as Manishevitz? :rofl::cheers:


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> There's a huge potential there for religious arguments! It's probably better you are a non believer lol! On either side of the Catholic v Protestant argument they'd rather you were a heathen than the 'opposition'. http://


 

Its funny, here in Canada, everyone Ive ever had a relationship with has been RC, with me being CoI, and no one cared. I dont know if the family would be so open minded if I lived over there

Various reasons I became an Atheist, the imaginary friend part is definitely one of them, (God, Jesus, Santa, the Great Pumpkin, the Tooth fairy all the same to me), the hypocrisy, the strength of the sciences, violent history, and people tossing bombs through the front window of family members, doesnt endear oneself towards religion.


----------



## Tez3

Ken Morgan said:


> Its funny, here in Canada, everyone Ive ever had a relationship with has been RC, with me being CoI, and no one cared. I dont know if the family would be so open minded if I lived over there
> 
> Various reasons I became an Atheist, the imaginary friend part is definitely one of them, (God, Jesus, Santa, the Great Pumpkin, the Tooth fairy all the same to me), the hypocrisy, the strength of the sciences, violent history, and people tossing bombs through the front window of family members, doesnt endear oneself towards religion.


 

Sadly though the Troubles never really had much to do with religion, it was always about the power of sovereigns, land and political power. Later it became about gangs, drugs and crime which it is now. Religion was the mask worn to garner followers.

Faiths rarely actually have anything to do with wars, it's always as I've said before about power, land and wealth.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Tez3 said:


> Sadly though the Troubles never really had much to do with religion, it was always about the power of sovereigns, land and political power. Later it became about gangs, drugs and crime which it is now. Religion was the mask worn to garner followers.
> 
> Faiths rarely actually have anything to do with wars, it's always as I've said before about power, land and wealth.


 
I know.


----------



## Bruno@MT

CanuckMA said:


> OK, i'll break my exile for this one.
> 
> I use X because I will not write the name of another god. for similar reasons thjat I will not enter a non-Jewish place of worship.



If I were to start a religion using the word 'the' as a holy word, does that mean that you would from then on refrain from using that word?
Personally, I think that words have only the power you grant them.
Just because you put special meaning to a word does not mean that my use of that word has to mean the same thing to me.


----------



## Tez3

Bruno@MT said:


> If I were to start a religion using the word 'the' as a holy word, does that mean that you would from then on refrain from using that word?
> Personally, I think that words have only the power you grant them.
> Just because you put special meaning to a word does not mean that my use of that word has to mean the same thing to me.


 
Bruno, he's not expecting it to mean anything to anyone other than himself. We don't expect you to think or believe what we do, he was answering a question about how *he* thought and felt about it. We don't speak for others only ourselves.
If you start a religion using the word 'the' as a holy word, it's just a holy word to you, we'd use it unless it was the name of a god.


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> Peace!
> 
> Can I make amends by offering you a bottle of cough syrup gone bad, otherwise known as Manishevitz? :rofl::cheers:


 
Hey sure, why not. But please send some Matzo Ball soup with it. Tastes yummy and soaks up the extra alcohol when you've overindulged. :lfao:


----------



## Tez3

Carol Kaur said:


> Hey sure, why not. But please send some Matzo Ball soup with it. Tastes yummy and soaks up the extra alcohol. :lfao:


 
You see? All Jewish discussions on religion end up like this....discussing food and drink! In fact all Jewish discussions on anything end up like this!


----------



## CanuckMA

We can sum up most of our holidays with:

They tried to destroy us, we kicked their a**es, let's eat.:roflmao:


----------



## Tez3

There's nothing better for universal understanding and sympathy than sitting down together eating good food and drinking good wine! Hard to feel grumpy on a comfortably full stomach!


----------



## thardey

I have friends who are elders in the Mormon church (or LDS, as some prefer) one who is a Bishop, and I am friends with his son, who is on his way to being a Bishop.

I've spent over a year in a weekly Bible study at my house with JW's, though I haven't attended their church.

I studied for a year and a half with a non-religious Jew, who was volunteering to teach modern Hebrew to a bunch of Christians. He often tried to explain "Jewishness" to us, with respect on both sides.

My wife's family is Roman Catholic, and last month we had a fun discussion with her cousin on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

A good friend of mine recently was baptised into the Eastern Orthodox Church. We've had many discussions about his "conversion."

I was baptised in a Church of Christ, Married in a Baptist Church, interned under a Reform church, and now am ordained in the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal.)

And even though I've known and studied with and respected these people who all came from different backgrounds and faiths. There is only one thing that I would be comfortable in speaking on their behalf, and surprisingly, it is the same thing for all of them:

"Please don't try to explain to me what I believe!"

Telling a Jew what Jews believe based on a website. (Any website) is insulting. If the Jewish culture could be explained that easily, then why bother with actually studying the Talmud? Let's just look this all up on Wikipedia, and be done with it! [/sarcasm] 

Telling me what I believe as a Christian, let alone what branch I must fall into, or what I qualify for, or what my goals are, based on a few bad examples is equally insulting. 

Saying things like "Christians want to convert everybody." Is an extremely loaded statement. There are many, many different interpretations as to what that means. What it means to me is probably different than what it means to many other Christians. Obviously there's issues with free will and God's will there. Since God gave free will (also a loaded statement) we have to respect that. Yet it also says that God does not will that any should perish.

Saying "X-brand church is not Christian" is also extremely loaded. Do you mean "Not going to heaven?" or do you mean "Not only saved through faith in Jesus' death on the cross?" or do you mean "Forgiven through Jesus' death, but now accountable for your actions?" Or do you mean "Ascribes to the Nicene Creed?" Or the "Athanasian Creed?" Or do you mean "their doctrine doesn't represent mine, so I won't defend it?" Or do you mean "X church has chosen to separate themselves from a body of 'Christian' churches, and call themeselves the 'Only true Christian Church?'"

RC's and Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox (That I know) hold to the Nicene Creed. JW's that I know do not. Some Mormons do, and some don't, depending on how they interpret it. Obviously, Jew's don't!  

As far as being "Jewish" -- the question that keeps getting asked over and over again: "Why can't you be Jewish and a Christian?" has been answered more by the actions and responses, than by any specific argument. Look back over the thread as a whole and you will see it by example.

Christians, if they are willing to believe the message of Jesus, are compelled to share their beliefs with those who are _interested._ (Jesus made it clear several times that those who weren't interested were to be left alone.) Jesus *commanded* "Go, make disciples of all nations."

Part of the core of Jewish culture is to specifically *not do that.* (As was stated several times, and quite clearly, by Tez and Canuck.)

Therefore, if a Jew follows the teachings of Jesus and Paul/Saul, then he/she will be acting in opposition to the heritage of Jewish culture. So, you cannot be living a "Christian" life in harmony with the "Jewish" life. You would end up as a hypocritical Christian, or a destructive element to Jewish heritage. It's not about theology, it's about how you live. Maybe if more Christians understood that, they would understand the sacrifice they are asking Jews to make when they try to "help" them.

It's like being a wealthy miser in a stoic religion, it just doesn't work.

If you want to know what I believe, then ask me. If you want to tell me why what you believe that I believe is wrong. By all means, tell me what I believe, then tell me why it's wrong. You may be surprised when I agree with you!

To Xinglu: I am sorry about the way that my fellow brothers treated you. I will not argue with you over the details of why I am different from them, and they are wrong, because in doing so, I would be guilty of doing exactly what they did. That is, to "teach you" the "True" meaning of Christianity, in order to "convert" you. So, I apologize for your offense, and it is an unfortunate, but unavoidable side-effect of Christianity. If any more keep bugging you, you can tell them I said to back off! 
:cheers:


----------



## thardey

^^
Wow, that looks a lot longer than I thought now that it's posted.


----------



## Carol

thardey said:


> ^^
> Wow, that looks a lot longer than I thought now that it's posted.



No matter, its all excellent stuff.   Thardey, I knew you were a devout Christian, but I did not know you were ordained.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3

thardey said:


> ^^
> Wow, that looks a lot longer than I thought now that it's posted.


 
but it's a fine post! Thank you!


----------



## thardey

Carol Kaur said:


> No matter, its all excellent stuff. Thardey, I knew you were a devout Christian, but I did not know you were ordained. :asian:


 
Haha, yeah, what you guys didn't know is how often I use these MT discussions for inspiration for sermons!


----------



## Ken Morgan

thardey said:


> Haha, yeah, what you guys didn't know is how often I use these MT discussions for inspiration for sermons!


 
royalties???


----------



## Tez3

thardey said:


> Haha, yeah, what you guys didn't know is how often I use these MT discussions for inspiration for sermons!


 

Do you have cake after your services? We do, seriously we do....and wine or a nice cuppa!

One of the things we do at my synagogue and a few others I know is audition rabbis when we want a new one (we employ them), it must be quite awful really giving a sermon knowing everyone is judging every word. They often don't know whether to make us laugh, make us feel guilty, entertain or educate us. A good sermon though is a pleasure.
When I was in the RAF many years ago there was a Welsh padre who always had a packed 'house',  he was a wonderful speaker, he sounded like Richard Burton and he had the lyrical voice only the Welsh have. Aaah, there's beautiful it was, real tidy like.


----------



## Carol

thardey said:


> Haha, yeah, what you guys didn't know is how often I use these MT discussions for inspiration for sermons!



That could be enough to get me going back to church!


----------



## Tez3

Here's a question! Why do people go to church/shul/mosques/temples/meeting places to worship in public?
I can't think of any religion though I expect there is one that isn't 'public'.


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> Here's a question! Why do people go to church/shul/mosques/temples/meeting places to worship in public?
> I can't think of any religion though I expect there is one that isn't 'public'.




Much depends on how many worshippers there are.  In the early 1980s, there were no Sikh Gurdwaras (temples) in the greater Boston area, at all.  

However, there were several Indo-American Sikhs that would host worship services in their homes, and there was a group of largely western Sikhs (mostly converted) that held worship services around the city, wherever they could find room.    By 1990, one group had bought an old church and remodeled it in to a temple, the other group had built a small Ashram in a more remote community.  Since then, there have been one or two other temples that have opened up.  

Even with the physical buildings having been built, it is not uncommon for a Sikh to host a keertan service in their home.   Its not required that the services be lead by a priest, it can be done by that meets a certain set of qualifications (knows the prayers, has made a formal commitment akin to a baptism, etc).   However, once a community reaches a certain size, it is much easier to have a building as a central gathering place, and hire a priest to lead the services and provide spiritual support when people in the community needs someone to turn to.

Food is involved also    Each time a service is held, one family arranges to cook a full vegetarian meal for all attendees, regardless of their faith.  One of the reasons why the meals are vegetarian is so the meals do not violate the rules of other religions.


----------



## Tez3

Carol Kaur said:


> Much depends on how many worshippers there are. In the early 1980s, there were no Sikh Gurdwaras in the greater Boston area, at all.
> 
> However, there were several Indo-American Sikhs that would host worship services in their homes, and there was a group of largely western Sikhs (mostly converted) that held worship services around the city, wherever they could find room. By 1990, one group had bought an old church and remodeled it in to a temple, the other group had built a small Ashram in a more remote community. Since then, there have been one or two other temples that have opened up.
> 
> Even with the physical buildings having been built, it is not uncommon for a Sikh to host a keertan service in their home. We don't require that our religious services be lead by a priest, it can be done by that meets a certain set of qualifications (knows the prayers, has made a formal commitment akin to a baptism, etc). However, once a community reaches a certain size, it is much easier to have a building as a central gathering place, and hire a priest to lead the services.
> 
> Food is involved also  Each time a service is held, one family arranges to cook a full vegetarian meal for all attendees, regardless of their faith. One of the reasons why the meals are vegetarian is so the meals do not violate the rules of other religions.


 


I recently trained Gatka with a Sikh martial arts group. Exhausting but great fun. Can dance a bit too now!

Whether in a house or a larger building though we all congregate don't we? It must be part of the human condition to want to worship with others perhaps?

What I'm looking for is actually more things we have in common rather than put us apart, I think we've had enough now of the differences that divide us, sometimes nastily, so perhaps a few similarities would be good. Food is good!


----------



## ELLEN

To mattninjazv:       I *can* read the hebrew and the greek, and i would be "blocked" if i said what i sincerely believe what you've posted is all about!!!!  Can you or have you read the "original"???

Anti-semitic, propoganda at it's worst, is the most "polite" i can be!!!!!
Ellen


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> I recently trained Gatka with a Sikh martial arts group. Exhausting but great fun. Can dance a bit too now!
> 
> Whether in a house or a larger building though we all congregate don't we? It must be part of the human condition to want to worship with others perhaps?
> 
> What I'm looking for is actually more things we have in common rather than put us apart, I think we've had enough now of the differences that divide us, sometimes nastily, so perhaps a few similarities would be good. Food is good!



Heehee...mmm...foood....  

I do think its part of the human condition to want to worship with others.  It can be motivating and a chance to learn something new, or hear another perspective.  It can also feel rather tiresome, but I think people put the efforts in to it because they want to get something out of it.  

That seems to be unique to the faithful and the skeptical alike, there are a few groups around Boston such as the Boston Atheists that are also gatherings of like-minded people.

Another commonality is that most faiths encourage people to do some sort of volunteer service whether that work is within the faith community (hanging decorations for a holiday service, helping the leader with the service, performing music, etc) or is secular service amongst the people (reading to the blind, volunteering at a soup kitchen, running a clothing drive).  

I think volunteer work is more rewarding when you can do it to support a group of people.  And I think many times it is more enjoyable too because you may be able to take on a task that you could not do by yourself, and that has the added benefit of building rapport.


----------



## thardey

We have potlucks one Sunday a month. Those are the days I often invite local community service reps to stop by. They eat with us after, and share their programs.

We also always have doughnuts and coffee before church. There's nothing like food to get people relaxed.

There's another church that shares the building. They meet on Saturday nights, and they always start with food. Either a BBQ, or potluck.


----------



## thardey

Tez3 said:


> I recently trained Gatka with a Sikh martial arts group. Exhausting but great fun. Can dance a bit too now!
> 
> Whether in a house or a larger building though we all congregate don't we? It must be part of the human condition to want to worship with others perhaps?
> 
> What I'm looking for is actually more things we have in common rather than put us apart, I think we've had enough now of the differences that divide us, sometimes nastily, so perhaps a few similarities would be good. Food is good!


 
I've also noticed the difference in singing in groups, vs. singing by yourself. Something about singing spiritual truths to each other at the same time is so encouraging.


----------



## Carol

ELLEN said:


> To mattninjazv:       I *can* read the hebrew and the greek, and i would be "blocked" if i said what i sincerely believe what you've posted is all about!!!!  Can you or have you read the "original"???
> 
> Anti-semitic, propoganda at it's worst, is the most "polite" i can be!!!!!
> Ellen



Hi Ellen,

Welcome to Martial Talk!  Please don't worry...MattNinja has been banned and won't be participating in any conversations here again.   

Glad to have you with us!


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> Here's a question! Why do people go to church/shul/mosques/temples/meeting places to worship in public?
> I can't think of any religion though I expect there is one that isn't 'public'.


 
Judaism comes very close. Most of the daily prayers can be said in private. Only ones that don't are major affirmation of faith, Kaddish and Torah reading. And even then, no Rabbi is required.

We do it for community support. Of course _we_ do the morning service in synagogue for the breakfast.


----------



## CanuckMA

Tez3 said:


> One of the things we do at my synagogue and a few others I know is audition rabbis when we want a new one (we employ them), it must be quite awful really giving a sermon knowing everyone is judging every word. They often don't know whether to make us laugh, make us feel guilty, entertain or educate us. A good sermon though is a pleasure.


 
I've heard of congregations sending part of the search commitee to a prospective Rabbi's current congregation, unannounced. Can you immagine, once you've applied to a few congregations, there could be prospective employers listening to you on any given day.


----------



## Flea

It gives a whole new meaning to the term _mystery_ shoppers!  :ultracool


----------



## Xinglu

I think that regardless of what you believe in, fellowship is extremely important to we humans.  It is a sense of community that we have lost with our big cities and impersonal living and work.  We need the support structure and to know that those we are associating with understand our values and will do what they can to support us in upholding them.  Also when hard-times do come, that community can serve as a wonderful way to rehabilitate or to gain better morale when you are just down.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Tez3 said:


> One thing to remember when looking up Jewish sites, rabbis etc for an opinion is that its going to be just that, an opinion. There is no ultimate authority who decides exactly what anything means or who can make a ruling. Theres is no equivilant to a Pope who says what is final so every thing a rabbi says is something that they themselves think which could be quite contradictory to what another rabbi says. Remember arguing about the law makes sure the law is always relevant to the times, Jewish law is a living entity not a dead one.
> I think its something that non Jews find confusing, that we can have so many different views but the same beliefs.


 
I actually agree with you here.  But, the problem is that I am *asking* for contradictory evidence, and none has been given.  

I have never said that I am an expert on Judaism or the Jewish culture, so I can only go by the research that I discover.  If I am wrong, please, show me how I am.

If nothing else, it shows that what is considered a Jew is controversial even among Jews.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> OK, i'll break my exile for this one.
> 
> I use X because I will not write the name of another god. for similar reasons thjat I will not enter a non-Jewish place of worship.


 
Another god?  Or a word used to denote what others choose to call a god?

I aske the distinction, because if you say "another god", you are acknowleging the existence of other gods besides that of the Torah


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> "Inactive" jews are not turning their back on their culture. I know lots of "inactive" Christians that still identify as as such. Because the religion accounts for so much of their culture if they convert to another religion they HAVE at that point turned their back on their culture. They are an apostate for lack of a better word.
> 
> If all Jew's converted to Christianity, then Judaism would no longer exist. And therefore Jews would not exist. That has been the whole point this entire time. And it is the goal of Christianity to convert EVERYONE is it not?


 
Ok. I get that they are apostate, which is actually a generalized term not specifically related to Judaism.  

But, can you show me the relevant Jewish law that states that they are no longer Jewish.  Because, according to what I have read, you can be no less God's chosen people simply because you choose not to be.  That would actually, philosophically speaking, give you power over God.

And, I don't see how an athiestic Jew who may or may not keep up with Jewish rites is considered a Jew, but a Christian Jew (for lack of a better description) who does maintain the rites, is not.  They have both turned their back on God, so to speak.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I think if you want you call yourself a Christian you are, same as if you call yourself an atheiest or agnostic you are. It's your personal relationship or not that you have with your god/dess that matters and you can be what ever you want to be. I really don't see how it matters to other people what you believe as long as you aren't hurting anyone.


 
I find this very ironic considering some of this discussion.  So let me ask you, if a person considers himself or herself a Jew, are they?  And for the sake of argument, lets assume that they follow Jewish rites.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ok. I get that they are apostate, which is actually a generalized term not specifically related to Judaism.
> 
> But, can you show me the relevant Jewish law that states that they are no longer Jewish.  Because, according to what I have read, you can be no less God's chosen people simply because you choose not to be.  That would actually, philosophically speaking, give you power over God.


  Not being fully versed in Halacha, I cannot point to that law nor will I attempt to.  I would recommend asking a Rabbi who IS well versed in Halacha.  PErhaps Tez or Canuck can, and they have far more understanding of Halacha than I since they live it everyday.  The best I could do is to ask a few friends of mine and see what they have to say and get back to you on it.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And, I don't see how an athiestic Jew who may or may not keep up with Jewish rites is considered a Jew, but a Christian Jew (for lack of a better description) who does maintain the rites, is not.  They have both turned their back on God, so to speak.



That's just it, one cannot be a Jew and practice Christianity without being a hypocritical Christian.  Likewise, on the Jewish side, said person would be rejecting the God of whom they are chosen for a new God: Jesus.  An atheist Jew is not in that same hypocritical state.  That is the difference.  But even if they don't preform the rites they can still practice the vast majority of Halacha since a lot of it has to do with lifestyle and living not rites/rituals.


----------



## dbell

Xinglu said:


> Please, tell me how I really feel some more. Clearly you are in a better position to tell me about how I feel towards other people I haven't met.



Relax dude!!  I just said it APPEARS!  I didn't say you think that way, just your post and your writings give that impression to me!!



Xinglu said:


> LDS :: The Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter-day Saints.  It's in their name even.  And all the "nice" young men who come knocking on my door all way want to tell me about... wait for it... *JESUS CHRIST*!!!  But wait... not Christian you say? I wonder what their website has to say? Their Scriptures?



Again, I said they do tend to say that LDS aren't Christians...  *I* didn't say they weren't...  (Although I do question it from my reading of their books, etc.)



Xinglu said:


> JW :: They consider themselves Christians and it is on their website.  The few I have had knock on my door, like the LDS want to talk about Jesus Christ.



The JW I speak to very clearly say they are not a Christian sect...  And two of the "official" web sites I went to don't say they are Christian, one specifically said they weren't..  (Will have to try to find them again...)



Xinglu said:


> Thank you for proving my point.



Not sure I did...



Xinglu said:


> Furthermore: if the RCC see other Christian churches as valid paths to salvation, what is the point of being Catholic?



Didn't say that RCC sees other Christian Churches as valid paths to salvation, but do say they are heading in the general right direction...  As are many other paths...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

thardey said:


> "Please don't try to explain to me what I believe!"
> 
> Telling a Jew what Jews believe based on a website. (Any website) is insulting. If the Jewish culture could be explained that easily, then why bother with actually studying the Talmud? Let's just look this all up on Wikipedia, and be done with it! [/sarcasm]


 
I haven't told anyone what they believe.  What I have done is provided references as to my understanding that, if someone choses to, can potentially be refuted and then asked questions.

I would go so far as to say that, in regards to Judaism, the Jews here are far more knowledgable then me as to Judaic law.  *So use it to refute my sources.  *All I get are circular arguments in return, with no evidence to back it up.

To segway what has been said, I am asking to be taught.

And I don't mean to rant, but:

[rant] 
Why are people here so damn easily insulted.  I mean for god's sake.  This is a section of this site which is set aside for potentially contraversial subjects.  If you don't like it, go to a site that agrees with everything that you say and be happy.  I get it if someone uses a racial slur, or talks about your mama.  But geez, to get pissed because someone shows a source that you don't like.  Freakin' get over it.
[end rant]




> As far as being "Jewish" -- the question that keeps getting asked over and over again: "Why can't you be Jewish and a Christian?" has been answered more by the actions and responses, than by any specific argument. Look back over the thread as a whole and you will see it by example.
> 
> Christians, if they are willing to believe the message of Jesus, are compelled to share their beliefs with those who are _interested._ (Jesus made it clear several times that those who weren't interested were to be left alone.) Jesus *commanded* "Go, make disciples of all nations."
> 
> Part of the core of Jewish culture is to specifically *not do that.* (As was stated several times, and quite clearly, by Tez and Canuck.)
> 
> Therefore, if a Jew follows the teachings of Jesus and Paul/Saul, then he/she will be acting in opposition to the heritage of Jewish culture. So, you cannot be living a "Christian" life in harmony with the "Jewish" life. You would end up as a hypocritical Christian, or a destructive element to Jewish heritage. It's not about theology, it's about how you live. Maybe if more Christians understood that, they would understand the sacrifice they are asking Jews to make when they try to "help" them.
> 
> It's like being a wealthy miser in a stoic religion, it just doesn't work.


 
Interesting.  And can you show me where in Jewish scripture / law it says this.  I will show the following as an example of where you may be wrong:



> ... but Judaism has a long history of not only welcoming, but encouraging gentiles to become Jewish... Jews only stopped open proselytism because of pressure from Christian and then Muslim rulers, beginning in 407 C.E. when the Roman Empire outlawed conversion to Judaism under penalty of death. But the internal, theological impetus to be "a light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6) persisted through the centuries, albeit undercover, advancing and retreating along with Jewish fortunes in the Diaspora.
> 
> Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2002/07/The-More-Jews-The-Better.aspx


 
However, I also did find this: 



> ... The grounds generally adduced in favour of a Jewish proselytizing mission at this period are examined and rejected as inadequate.   Goodman does not deny the existence of proselytes - indeed, they constituted a separate group within 'the Jewish commonwealth' (pg86); nor does he deny the existence of an 'apologetic' mission aimed at winning 'gentiel sympathisers' (pg 87).  What he does deny is that there was an active universalist proselytizing mission at this early date.
> 
> Source: http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/XLI/2/342


 
But even this recognizes that proslytizing is not against Jewish values.


----------



## Xinglu

dbell said:


> Relax dude!!  I just said it APPEARS!  I didn't say you think that way, just your post and your writings give that impression to me!!


 I keep forgetting that sarcasm tends to come off as anger in written format.  I'm relaxed, really I am.  Just snarky at times. 





dbell said:


> Again, I said they do tend to say that LDS aren't Christians...  *I* didn't say they weren't...  (Although I do question it from my reading of their books, etc.)


  Fair enough, I missed that you said they, and I assumed you agreed.  Shame on my assumption, bad Xing, very bad!  I will punish myself later in true Dobby (yes from Harry Potter) fashion.





dbell said:


> The JW I speak to very clearly say they are not a Christian sect...  And two of the "official" web sites I went to don't say they are Christian, one specifically said they weren't..  (Will have to try to find them again...)


  Well, the watchtower website is their official website and it (watchtower) does all of their publications as well.  That is where I quoted all of my information from and all the links are there in the posts.





dbell said:


> Not sure I did...


What that Christians can't agree about what a Christian is?  Sure you did 





dbell said:


> *Didn't say that RCC sees other Christian Churches as valid paths to salvation*, but do say they are heading in the general right direction...  As are many other paths...


 And that is my point, they are still up that creek.  No salvation.  Dead branch. That really is the bottom-line isn't it?


----------



## dbell

I go to work for 8 hours and come back to 5 pages of messages here!!  WOW!!  Rattled up hornets nest!!

And I missed the food while I was gone!!


----------



## Xinglu

dbell said:


> I go to work for 8 hours and come back to 5 pages of messages here!!  WOW!!  Rattled up hornets nest!!
> 
> And I missed the food while I was gone!!



LOL, that's okay, there are always leftovers and some dishes are better served as such


----------



## Carol

There is a bakery near me that occasionally has fresh rugelach up on the counter.  They are soooo good.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Tez3 said:


> Bruno, he's not expecting it to mean anything to anyone other than himself. We don't expect you to think or believe what we do, he was answering a question about how *he* thought and felt about it. We don't speak for others only ourselves.
> If you start a religion using the word 'the' as a holy word, it's just a holy word to you, we'd use it unless it was the name of a god.



Ok then for the sake of the argument, suppose I name my god 'the'. Would that stop you from using the word?

In celtic pagan religions, Brigit (and the various alternative spellings) is the name of the mother Goddess. This is a real religion. Does this mean that you will never pronounce that name? Or possibly you didn't know until now so you'll never pronounce that name again?

That was my point. If I don't believe in a certain God, then its name is just a word. The name Brigit to you is just a name like Irene or Mark or Bruno. And to me it is that as well except when I use it to name her as a deity. In that case it is the name of the mother Goddess.


----------



## Tez3

People are really getting their knickers in a twist and I know that Judaism is perhaps far more complicated than it looks at first sight.
Now what is a Jew isn't particularly 'controversial' as such, what is needed is discussion of individual cases by a congregation/grou of rabbis ( depends on which 'group' for want of a better word is discussing) if you like about whether a person is a Jew or not. We if you like have law by consensus. As I've said we have no ruling body or head of religion, for the most part communites will decie, debate and mull over for themselves. this doesn't make it an argument between Jews, its debate, its what we do. the first thing a Jewish child learns to say is 'why'!
People here seem to want one definitive statement that rules everyone, it doesn't happen that way. Rabbis are teachers not priests, they are more learned than their communty not more religious. 

Bruno, how Canuck sees things and how I see things may not be the same always, you can't generalise about our people, I think that's what is confusing so many, that we aren't like Christians denominations in that we have such separate views as to be cut off from each other, we have differing opinions but are still the same as each other. 

*Ellen*, I'll answer you on a post to be sure you can read it.  if you look at the bottom of people's posts quite often there are names of other posters, this means they have 'thanked' the writer for their post. If you enjoy a post you can thank them by clicking on the 'thanks' button, sounds obvious but took me a while to figure it, I'm a computer klutz! There's no message involved in thanking other than the name coming up. I haven't sent you a message by pm but I will now (perhaps someone else who is better at explaining things could too pse?), you'll be able to answer it , there doesn't have to be a certain number of posts you make before PMing. That'll come up in a box ( a pop up I think its called?) they always take me by surprise. Spilled my coffee one day like that lol! although many of us are arguing on this thread you will see us agreeing and getting on well on others!  The people here on MT are very cool and we are all friendly honest, you've seen the very prompt action thats taken when someone isn't. Anyone here will always take time out to help so just shout!

dbell, I wouldn't say a hornets nest, it's a lively discussion, one that most Jews are very used to, lively discussions are how religious matters are discussed and decided, I think that's the alien concept here when people want such defining answers from us as to Jewish law and to the Jewish religion.


----------



## thardey

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I haven't told anyone what they believe. What I have done is provided references as to my understanding that, if someone choses to, can potentially be refuted and then asked questions.
> 
> I would go so far as to say that, in regards to Judaism, the Jews here are far more knowledgable then me as to Judaic law. *So use it to refute my sources. *All I get are circular arguments in return, with no evidence to back it up.
> 
> To segway what has been said, I am asking to be taught.
> 
> Interesting. And can you show me where in Jewish scripture / law it says this. I will show the following as an example of where you may be wrong:


 
There was a period of "proselytization," particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem. But after severe persecution, the practice changed:


> The bitterness engendered by the Hadrianic persecution undoubtedly prompted the Rabbis to make conversion as difficult as possible. It is more than a mere supposition that both at that period and earlier Jews suffered considerably from the cowardice and treachery of proselytes, who often acted as spies or, to escape the "fiscus Judaicus" (see Grätz, _l.c._ pp. 7 _et seq._), denounced the Jews to the Romans. An instance of this kind is reported in connection with Simeon ben Yo&#7717;ai's sufferings (Shab. 33b). This circumstance explains the reasons that led to the introduction into the daily liturgy of a prayer against the "denunciators and slanderers" ("mesorot," "minim"; see Joël, "Blicke in die Religionsgesch." i. 33). Yet the true proselytes were all the more highly esteemed; a benediction in their behalf was added to the eighteen of the Shemoneh 'Esreh, and later was incorporated with that for the elders and pious (Tosef., Ber. iii.; Yer. Ber. 8a; Ta'an. 85c; comp. Grätz, _l.c._ p. 11).
> 
> Read more: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=556&letter=P&search=proselyte#ixzz0Zz6bnyXb​
> ​​


 
I recommend the article quoted -- it gives great examples of the different opinions held about proselytes by various Rabbis over time, along with the curcumstances that influenced them. At different periods, the opinions vary greatly. There's even a duality in the article: proselytes were discouraged, but true proselytes were celebrated.

Tez and Canuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've been taught about the "Talmud" is that it's an interpretation of the "Tanakh," or the Mosaic Law. It's a collection of commentaries on those laws, often contradicting themselves. Like Tez says, each Jewish community interprets those commentaries specific to their situation.

You're not likely to find a "law" that states you can't be a Jew and Christian, but looking at it practially, the two religions are different, and opposed to each other.

From a Christian perspective, Paul's biggest problem were the "Judaizers" -- Jews who converted to Christianity and insisted that Christians follow the Jewish Law. A lot of Paul's teaching, particularly in the "New" Testament books of Galatians and Ephesians were dedicated to explaining why Christians could not continue to follow the Jewish law, nor should they try. 

While I greatly respect the Jewish religion, and the same to Jewish culture, the commands and responsibilities of Christianity are simply not compatible with them. They are not the same, or even similar religions.

I study the "Tanakh" (What I call the Old Testament) first through the Messianic lense of Jesus, then through the commentary of Paul, and then through the history of the Jews. That's because I am not a Jew. I don't believe that most Jews would rather that I study it differently. I am always blessed and encouraged by the richness of the Jewish perspective, but it is not where I start.

For the Jews, I don't expect them to read the Tanakh through Messianic eyes, because the scriptures mean something different to them, and have a different purpose for them than they do for me.

In the same way, though I worship the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I do it in a completely different way. The only "right" I have to worship Him comes through the door opened by Jesus. However, if Jesus didn't have the right to open that door, then I would be worshipping God through idolatry, and violating the 2nd of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus and Paul, and to a lesser extent, the remaining 11 disciples, taught about leaving your "old way" ("Let the dead bury their own dead.") and looking ahead to a "new covenant" (aka testament). It's as much that Christianity doesn't allow for the Jewish Heritage, doctrines, and practices, as the other way around. 

It's harsh, but true, that the practices of Christianity do "destroy" Judaism.

That said, I hope that the Jews on this board know that I hold them in the highest respect, and I owe a huge debt of gratitude for being faithful children of God. I have learned much from your history, and your example. I won't try to teach you, or destroy your heritage.

"Good fences make good neighbors," and good boundaries make strong friends. I believe that if we can be honest about our differences, we can be true to ourselves, to each other, and maintain respect while finding, and celebrating, the things that we do agree on.


----------



## thardey

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok then for the sake of the argument, suppose I name my god 'the'. Would that stop you from using the word?
> 
> In celtic pagan religions, Brigit (and the various alternative spellings) is the name of the mother Goddess. This is a real religion. Does this mean that you will never pronounce that name? Or possibly you didn't know until now so you'll never pronounce that name again?
> 
> That was my point. If I don't believe in a certain God, then its name is just a word. The name Brigit to you is just a name like Irene or Mark or Bruno. And to me it is that as well except when I use it to name her as a deity. In that case it is the name of the mother Goddess.


 
Just a thought, and mabe a tag-on question. The word in question is "Christ" which isn't a name. It's a title. In the same way "God" is also a title. Some would say that God's name is Jehovah. Some won't even try to pronounce it, out of respect, but say "The Name" or "Lord" (Hashem, or Adonai.)

The name of the fellow in question is "Jesus." (A.k.a., Yeshua, Joshua, Jesu, Iesu, and Jesus, pronounced "Hey-sus.") Joshua and the Latin Jesus are still common names throughout the world. But obviously my friend Joshua, or Moses' general Joshua, are not the same person as the fellow who has been given the title "Christ." 

So does it matter that it's not so much the word, but the person it represents?


----------



## Carol

thardey said:


> So does it matter that it's not so much the word, but the person it represents?


 
Perhaps it is not so much the word, it is the _position_ it represents.

Personally when I see a Jewish person spell Christ with an X, I see that as a sign of respect.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Enough.
Everybody just come on over to the dark side, plenty of room, no waiting and the food is awesome.


----------



## CanuckMA

thardey said:


> Tez and Canuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've been taught about the "Talmud" is that it's an interpretation of the "Tanakh," or the Mosaic Law. It's a collection of commentaries on those laws, often contradicting themselves. Like Tez says, each Jewish community interprets those commentaries specific to their situation.


 
Almost.

Talmud is composed of 2 books. 

When G-d gave Moses Torah at Sinai, He gave him 2 'Torahs'. A written one, the 5 Books of Moses, and an Oral one. It can be said that the Written Torah is mnemonics for the Oral. The Oral Torah was transmitted from Moses to Joshua, through the Judges, through the Prophets until written down by the Rabbis. 
That is the Mishna.

The Gemara is a collection of Rabbinic debates, often spanning over a century between the Sages.

Mishna and Gemara togethr form Talmud.



> You're not likely to find a "law" that states you can't be a Jew and Christian, but looking at it practially, the two religions are different, and opposed to each other.
> 
> It's harsh, but true, that the practices of Christianity do "destroy" Judaism.


 
Well said.



> That said, I hope that the Jews on this board know that I hold them in the highest respect, and I owe a huge debt of gratitude for being faithful children of God. I have learned much from your history, and your example. I won't try to teach you, or destroy your heritage.
> 
> "Good fences make good neighbors," and good boundaries make strong friends. I believe that if we can be honest about our differences, we can be true to ourselves, to each other, and maintain respect while finding, and celebrating, the things that we do agree on.


 
Debates between Xtian and Jewish scholars can be very intelectually stimulating. As long as everybody remembers that you won't convince the other that you're right.


----------



## CanuckMA

Ken Morgan said:


> Enough.
> Everybody just come on over to the dark side, plenty of room, no waiting and the food is awesome.


 
Feh...


Clearly you've never been to a Jewish feast. :ultracool

Tez, just a teaser for you, a couple of years ago my nephew, Ashkenaz from Poland married a Sephardic woman from Yemen. I'll let you imagine the dinner...


----------



## Carol

Ken Morgan said:


> Enough.
> Everybody just come on over to the dark side, plenty of room, no waiting and the food is awesome.


 
I think a believer can learn a lot from an atheist too, such as the importance of taking responsibility for oneself, and not relying upon the Almighty as an excuse for getting oneself out of an obligation that one should really be handling themselves.

Just because something may not be my particular path doesn't mean the path doesn't have value.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Carol said:


> I think a believer can learn a lot from an atheist too, such as the importance of taking responsibility for oneself, and not relying upon the Almighty as an excuse for getting oneself out of an obligation that one should really be handling themselves.
> 
> Just because something may not be my particular path doesn't mean the path doesn't have value.


 
I was trying to add humour to the discussion Carol, but I'll give credit where credit is due, *THAT *was very, very well said!! My compliments toung lady.
:asian::asian:


----------



## jks9199

The following is from The Catechism of The Catholic Church:



> *Each particular Church is "catholic" *
> *832* "The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."312
> *833* The phrase "particular Church," which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314
> *834* Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317
> *835* "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she put down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319
> * Who belongs to the Catholic Church? *
> *836* "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
> *837* "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
> *838* "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 _With the Orthodox Churches_, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
> * The Church and non-Christians *
> *839* "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
> _The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People_. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
> *840* And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
> 
> *841* _The Church's relationship with the Muslims_. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
> *842* _The Church's bond with non-Christian religions_ is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
> 
> All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
> *843* The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
> *844* In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
> 
> Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
> *845* To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
> * "Outside the Church there is no salvation" *
> *846* How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
> 
> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
> *847* This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
> 
> Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
> *848* "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338



You may note that it recognizes any Christian church as having some communion with the Catholic Church; thus they are not "dead branches" and can be an means of salvation.


----------



## Xinglu

jks9199 said:


> The following is from The Catechism of The Catholic Church:
> 
> 
> 
> You may note that it recognizes any Christian church as having some communion with the Catholic Church; thus they are not "dead branches" and can be an means of salvation.


If and only if: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church..."  I'll buy this argument for the third world countries, however, in the major industrial nations (with the exception of maybe China) most people have heard of the RCC and are not completely ignorant of "the Gospel of Christ or his Church."

In fact most protestant churches know the RCC quite well as by definition they "protest" it (hence the name *protest*ant).  You can't protest what you are ignorant of.


----------



## jks9199

Again, I quote the Cathechism:


> * Wounds to unity *
> *817* In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
> 
> Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
> *818* "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
> *819* "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
> * Toward unity *
> *820* "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
> *821* Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:   - a permanent _renewal _of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
> - _conversion of heart_ as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
> - _prayer in common_, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'282
> -_ fraternal knowledge of each other_;283
> - _ecumenical formation_ of the faithful and especially of priests;284
> - _dialogue _among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
> - _collaboration _among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.
> 
> 
> *822* Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288





> *The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians*
> *1271* Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81_sacramental bond of unity_ existing among all who through it are reborn."82 "Baptism therefore constitutes the





> *1398* _The Eucharist and the unity of Christians_. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, _"O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"_237 The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.  *1399* The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion _in sacris_, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238
> *1400* Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
> *1401* When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.241



Emphasis in each section mine.


----------



## thardey

CanuckMA said:


> Almost.
> 
> Talmud is composed of 2 books.
> 
> When G-d gave Moses Torah at Sinai, He gave him 2 'Torahs'. A written one, the 5 Books of Moses, and an Oral one. It can be said that the Written Torah is mnemonics for the Oral. The Oral Torah was transmitted from Moses to Joshua, through the Judges, through the Prophets until written down by the Rabbis.
> That is the Mishna.
> 
> The Gemara is a collection of Rabbinic debates, often spanning over a century between the Sages.
> 
> Mishna and Gemara togethr form Talmud.


 
Excellent, thank you. I was wondering how the Oral Law fit into the Talmud.



> Debates between Xtian and Jewish scholars can be very intelectually stimulating. As long as everybody remembers that you won't convince the other that you're right.


 
I hope this joke isn't inappropriate, and if it is, someone please tell me. But it seemed to fit the "lively" discussions we have here.



> One Pope, in the Dark Ages, decreed that all Jews had to leave Rome. The Jews did not want to leave, and so the Pope challenged them to a disputation to prove that they could remain. No one, however wanted the responsibility... until the synagogue janitor, Moishe, volunteered.
> As there was nobody else who wanted to go, Moishe was given the task. But because he knew only Hebrew, a silent debate was agreed. The day of the debate came, and they went to St. Peter's Square to sort out the decision. First the Pope waved his hand around his head. Moishe pointed firmly at the ground.
> The Pope, in some surprise, held up three fingers. In response, Moishe gave him the middle finger.
> The crowd started to complain, but the Pope thoughtfully waved them to be quiet. He took out a bottle of wine and a wafer, holding them up. Moishe took out an apple, and held it up.
> The Pope, to the peoples surprise, said, "I concede. This man is too good. The Jews can stay."
> Later, the Pope was asked what the debate had meant. He explained, "First, I showed him the Heavens, to show that God is everywhere. He pointed at the ground to signify that God is right here with us. I showed him three fingers, for the Trinity. He reminded me that there is One God common to both our religions. I showed him wine and a wafer, for God's forgiveness. With an apple, he showed me original sin. The man was a master of silent debate."
> In the Jewish corner, Moishe had the same question put to him, and answered, "It was all nonsense, really. First, he told me that this whole town would be free of Jews. I told him, Go to Hell! Were staying right here! Then, he told me we had three days to get out. I told him just what I thought of that proposal." An older woman asked, "But what about the part at the end?" "That?" said Moishe with a shrug, "Then we broke for lunch."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Tez3 said:


> People are really getting their knickers in a twist and I know that Judaism is perhaps far more complicated than it looks at first sight.
> Now what is a Jew isn't particularly 'controversial' as such, what is needed is discussion of individual cases by a congregation/grou of rabbis ( depends on which 'group' for want of a better word is discussing) if you like about whether a person is a Jew or not. We if you like have law by consensus. As I've said we have no ruling body or head of religion, for the most part communites will decie, debate and mull over for themselves. this doesn't make it an argument between Jews, its debate, its what we do. the first thing a Jewish child learns to say is 'why'!
> People here seem to want one definitive statement that rules everyone, it doesn't happen that way. Rabbis are teachers not priests, they are more learned than their communty not more religious.
> 
> Bruno, how Canuck sees things and how I see things may not be the same always, you can't generalise about our people, I think that's what is confusing so many, that we aren't like Christians denominations in that we have such separate views as to be cut off from each other, we have differing opinions but are still the same as each other.


 
I have to disagree on your interpretation of Christianity.  Other than Catholisism, I don't know of any church, at least in America, that has a heirarchy as you seem to suggest.  Priests are just as much teachers in Christianity as they are in Judaism.  They have no "absolute authority" within the church to dictate what is right and wrong.

For example, there are many churces in the U.S. that see nothing wrong with homosexuality, even though most do not.  My uncle belongs to one. So to say that somehow priests are dictatorial in their outlook is incorrect.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Other than Catholisism, I don't know of any church, at least in America, that has a heirarchy as you seem to suggest.



The LDS and the Episcopalians have a clear "hierarchy." The latter has a ruling body and the former has a clear "head."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

thardey said:


> There was a period of "proselytization," particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem. But after severe persecution, the practice changed:
> 
> 
> I recommend the article quoted -- it gives great examples of the different opinions held about proselytes by various Rabbis over time, along with the curcumstances that influenced them. At different periods, the opinions vary greatly. There's even a duality in the article: proselytes were discouraged, but true proselytes were celebrated.


 
I have no problem with this line of thinking.  What I was simply protesting was the idea that prostelyzation was against Judaic law, and therefore if you did it, you could no longer be considered Jewish.



> Tez and Canuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've been taught about the "Talmud" is that it's an interpretation of the "Tanakh," or the Mosaic Law. It's a collection of commentaries on those laws, often contradicting themselves. Like Tez says, each Jewish community interprets those commentaries specific to their situation.


 
To a certain extent, this goes to the core of my argument.  I get that Judaic law can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers.  The same occurs within Christianity.  Often, it hinges on culture and upbringing.  But if that is thae case, who is to say what being Jewish really is all about.  And, if you cannot define what being a Jew is, who can say what a Jew is not.  And if that is the case, how can one define an ethnic Jew as not being Jewish.



> You're not likely to find a "law" that states you can't be a Jew and Christian, but looking at it practially, the two religions are different, and opposed to each other.


 
I will stipulate that the Judaic law does not state who *can't *be a Jew.  But it, apparently, does state who can.  



> From a Christian perspective, Paul's biggest problem were the "Judaizers" -- Jews who converted to Christianity and insisted that Christians follow the Jewish Law. A lot of Paul's teaching, particularly in the "New" Testament books of Galatians and Ephesians were dedicated to explaining why Christians could not continue to follow the Jewish law, nor should they try.


 
Having grown up in the Lutheran Church (K-12 schooling, as well as Sunday Church, Vacation Bible School, Christian summer camps) I have never heard that to obey Jewish Law was anathema to Christianity.   What I was taught, however, was that for Gentiles, foloowing Judaic law was not *required.*  The main reasont for this being Jesus' admonition that is it by faith, not works, through which you are saved.  

I would be interestd to know exactly which Jewish practices would be forbidden in Christianity (from a Biblical, not political perspective).






> Jesus and Paul, and to a lesser extent, the remaining 11 disciples, taught about leaving your "old way" ("Let the dead bury their own dead.") and looking ahead to a "new covenant" (aka testament). It's as much that Christianity doesn't allow for the Jewish Heritage, doctrines, and practices, as the other way around.


 
With all due respect, I think you are misinterpreting the context.  This is my opinion, of course, which may be no more "right" then yours.  I point to this as an example: http://ldolphin.org/deaddead.html
(I hope you'll take a look.  I know I hate to go to links.)




> It's harsh, but true, that the practices of Christianity do "destroy" Judaism.


 
For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.



> That said, I hope that the Jews on this board know that I hold them in the highest respect, and I owe a huge debt of gratitude for being faithful children of God. I have learned much from your history, and your example. I won't try to teach you, or destroy your heritage.


 
I find this an ironical statement if you are a Christian, at least as I have understood Christianity.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Xinglu said:


> The LDS and the Episcopalians have a clear "hierarchy." The latter has a ruling body and the former has a clear "head."


 
Perhaps I should have been more explicit.  I should have stated that Protestant churches have no hierarchy.  LDS, IMO, does not follow the archtypical Protestant view.  

As far as Episcopalians, they consider themselves "Protestant, but Catholic."  I'll let the Episcopalians speaak for themselves.


----------



## Sukerkin

I am so tempted to throw something glib and disrespectful into this serious discussion of what I consider to be delusional beliefs but I shall censor myself ... {strained voice} must ... not ... post ... link to ... "Cake or Death"!

On the flip side, I commend people for keeping their heads and actually engaging in discourse.  Well done all :applause:.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

Sukerkin said:


> I am so tempted to throw something glib and disrespectful into this serious discussion of what I consider to be delusional beliefs but I shall censor myself ... {strained voice} must ... not ... post ... link to ... "Cake or Death"!
> 
> On the flip side, I commend people for keeping their heads and actually engaging in discourse. Well done all :applause:.


 
It's almost restoring my faith in The Study.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Perhaps I should have been more explicit.  I should have stated that Protestant churches have no hierarchy.  LDS, IMO, does not follow the archtypical Protestant view.


  True, they don't consider themselves protestant.  In fact their eleventh article of faith speaks to this: 





> We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.






5-0 Kenpo said:


> As far as Episcopalians, they consider themselves "Protestant, but Catholic."  I'll let the Episcopalians speaak for themselves.


Yeah, I've never quite understood that.  Perhaps they claim to be a reformation of the Catholic church, but in truth I don't know.  If any MT member reading this happens to be episcopalian, perhaps you could answer that?



Sukerkin said:


> ... {strained voice} must ... not ... post ... link to ... "Cake or Death"!



:roflmao:


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> Yeah, I've never quite that. Perhaps they claim to be a reformation of the Catholic church, but in truth I don't know. If any MT member reading this happens to be episcopalian, perhaps you could answer that?


 
Not Episcopalian so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  

They are best described (IMO) as a Catholic sect.

The Church of England recognized the King of England instead of the Pope as its head, which caused the Anglican church to not be in full communion with the Vatican. Because that divide was unrelated to the Protestant Reformation, and because the Anglicans essentially see themselves not as traditionally anti-Catholic, but traditionally anti-Papal, the Anglicans (and Episcopalians) do not typically consider themeselves to be Protestant.  I think the "Protestant, but Catholic" of the Episcopalians specifically speaks more to their splintering away from the Anglican church and taking more liberties with their worship the way Protestants do (evangelizing, female/gay clergy, etc) while still following the devotions and rituals that Catholics do.

There have been efforts by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to bring Anglicans and Episcopalians in communion with the Holy See.

http://www.anglicanuse.org/


----------



## Chris Parker

5-0 Kenpo said:


> For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.


 
Well, with respect, you may need to think a little broader then.

Factories and mass-production of the Industrial Revolution destroyed many people's ways of life, and the move from "old technology" jobs to off-shore "new tech" ones has done the same type of thing. This is a similar concept, but much deeper and more personal due to the spiritual implications.

I mentioned earlier the example of the Norse religious beliefs being overtaken by the Christian. To go into a little more depth, Norse Mythology is filled with protagonists and antagonists. A fair few of the protagonists are well known, including Odin, God of War, Loki, God of Mischief, and Freya, Goddess of Fertility. But perhaps best known (even having a comic book character modelled on him) is Thor, God of Thunder. Throughout Thor's adventures, he had a regular antagonist, the Midgard Serpent, or World Serpent. This was a great creature, so large that it was able to encircle the entire world.

Thor and the Midgard Serpent met a few times, first when the Serpent was disguised as a large cat, and was part of a series of impossible tasks that Thor failed to perform. Embarrassed, he held a grudge against the Serpent. Later, when fishing with a Giant, Thor managed to ensnare the Midgard Serpent, and bring it to the surface of the ocean. As it emerged, dripping blood and venom from it's jaws, Thor took up his Hammer to fight the monstrous creature. However, his Giant friend, overcome with fear, cut the line holding the Serpent, and it escaped Thors Hammer.

The third and final encounter is predicted to be at Ragnarok, the Nordic end-of-the-world myth (I'm not covering their Creation myth here, but it is very intriguing as well). At Ragnarok, Thor and the Midgard Serpent have their final battle. At the end, Thor is victorious, killing the Serpent with his Thunder Bolts and Hammer. However he is exposed to the venom from the Serpents jaws, and dies himself. As Thor represents order, and the Serpent represents Chaos, this is symbolically the destruction of the balance of the world. In the myth, it is explained with the Midgard Serpent (who, since becoming large enough to encircle the world, has been biting his own tail, holding the world together) losing his grip on his tail, leaving the world in pieces. Here endeth the Nordic Myth of the End of the World.

Enter the Christian missionaries. Upon encountering "resistance" (well, we are talking about Viking lands here), the missionaries started to re-tell the established stories, and embelished them for their own ends. Amongst other changes they made, a big one was with the tale of Ragnarok. Most of it was kept as is, but a new ending was tagged on. In this version, after the battle between Thor and the Midgard Serpent the world was destroyed... but there was one thing left (note that the Christian missionaries have now changed the Ragnarok myth from a future to a past story...), known as the World Tree. And hidden within it, one man and one woman. So symbolically, they used the established Nordic Myths as precursors to Christian doctrine, using the World Tree as a symbol for Eden, and the one Man and Woman as Adam and Eve. Segue smoothly into Genesis... now! As time goes on, the Nordic myths are told less and less, and eventually taken out completely. The Norse religious beliefs are destroyed.

Now, you may say that they are still there, after all, I have just recounted a part of them to you, so they must have survived, right? Unfortunately, no. The stories have survived, but the spiritual traditions have not. The spiritual beliefs have not. The spiritual culture has not. They have been destroyed. This is the aim of every Christian missionary, although they do usually dress it in phrasing and beliefs that allow them to believe honestly that they are doing it for the best reasons ("saving" others, bringing the light of God into their lives etc), despite the fact that what they are honestly doing is equivalent to religious genocide. Okay, that's a harsh term, but it is correct.

The destruction of Judaism is basically as above. It is not a destruction of the people physically, it is a destruction of the people spiritually. If the Christian traditions take precedence and overshadow the older Jewish traditions, then although the Jewish stories will continue in the form of the Old Testament, the spiritual traditions will be gone. 

Does that make it a little clearer?


----------



## Sukerkin

That was well written, Mr. Parker {bows}.  I was going to Rep you for it but my stack is 'full' presently - so, as I say, it's the embarassment of public praise for you good sir .


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> *Whiskey!!! :soapbox:*
> 
> *Good grief man, whiskey is Irish! Whisky, dear boy, whisky!*


This reminds me of the night I almost got killed by a bunch of british soldiers in a bar in Germany.  One guy asked me if I had any Irish in me (I have red hair).  I said no, "but I think I might be part scotch."  

He literally choked on his drink and then, in the most indignant voice said, "SCOTCH!  You drink bloody scotch.  It's Scottish, man!"  

I thought he was going to kill me.


----------



## Carol

It doesn't help that we Americans grew up with Scotch Guard and Scotch Tape. 

"Scotch is a drink, Scots is a people" :lol:


----------



## Steve

Carol said:


> It doesn't help that we Americans grew up with Scotch Guard and Scotch Tape.
> 
> "Scotch is a drink, Scots is a people" :lol:


And a fine, fine drink it is, too. Particularly with a good cigar.  Thank you, Scotchland!


----------



## thardey

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I have no problem with this line of thinking. What I was simply protesting was the idea that prostelyzation was against Judaic law, and therefore if you did it, you could no longer be considered Jewish.


 
Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.



> To a certain extent, this goes to the core of my argument. I get that Judaic law can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers. The same occurs within Christianity. Often, it hinges on culture and upbringing. But if that is thae case, who is to say what being Jewish really is all about. And, if you cannot define what being a Jew is, who can say what a Jew is not. And if that is the case, how can one define an ethnic Jew as not being Jewish.
> 
> I will stipulate that the Judaic law does not state who *can't *be a Jew. But it, apparently, does state who can.


 
That's a good way to put it. 



> Having grown up in the Lutheran Church (K-12 schooling, as well as Sunday Church, Vacation Bible School, Christian summer camps) I have never heard that to obey Jewish Law was anathema to Christianity. What I was taught, however, was that for Gentiles, foloowing Judaic law was not *required.* The main reasont for this being Jesus' admonition that is it by faith, not works, through which you are saved.
> 
> I would be interestd to know exactly which Jewish practices would be forbidden in Christianity (from a Biblical, not political perspective).


 
The Abstract: (Galatians 5) Emphasis mine.


> It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
> Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
> Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
> You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
> But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.
> For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
> You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?
> That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.
> A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.
> I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
> Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
> As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!


 
So, number 1: Circumcision as a part of the covenant is not "recommended" to say the least. 
You can't functionally be a Christian while being alienated from Christ. And of course, you can't be righteous as a Christian, if you have "fallen away from grace."

There goes step #1 for converting to Judaism. There goes step #1 for raising Jewish children.

Also, there goes step #1 in the history of Judaism, being part of the Abrahamic covenant, which predated Moses by several hundred years.

The Priesthood (Hebrews 7:17)


> For it is declared: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
> The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
> (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
> And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
> but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever. 
> Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.


 
Context: Jesus is described as the new "High Priest" of the order of Melchezidek. This sets aside the old priesthood of Aaron and Moses. Christians are not to follow the Aaronic Priesthood anymore.

There goes both the authority of the written law, and especially the authority of the oral law.

The covenant. Hebrews 8:7,13


> For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
> But God found fault with the people and said: The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
> *snipped*
> By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


 
If I am not mistaken, Jews are know as "Children of the covenant."

In making the "Old" covenant with Moses obsolete, you change the very core of Jewish heritage. Christians may study the old covenant, and in fact better understand the new covenant in the context of the old, but are not to live by it.

The "Old Covenant" defined: (Jer. 31:31-32, Heb. 8:8-13)


> The time is coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
> It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD.


 
That would be the entire Law given at Sinai, and during the wanderings in the desert. Essentially Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The Sabbath:
Some Christians read this differently, but it's safe to say that most Christians do not obvserve the Jewish Sabbath, even if they worship on Saturday. The Seventh-day Adventist's practice of Sabbath is not even close to even the present-day Jewish interpretation.

Romans 14:5


> One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
> He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.


 
The difference is that Christians are not to judge others who don't celebrate on the Sabbath. Even in the slightest sense. For Jews, they are called to hold one another accountable for keeping the Sabbath, and they have the responsibility to maintain it as a holy day.

So, between the Curcumcision, the Priesthood, the Covenant, and the Sabbath, that doesn't leave a lot of Jewish heritage. The outward trappings may remain: the actions, but they are stripped of authority and meaning.



> With all due respect, I think you are misinterpreting the context. This is my opinion, of course, which may be no more "right" then yours. I point to this as an example: http://ldolphin.org/deaddead.html
> (I hope you'll take a look. I know I hate to go to links.)


 
Fantastic link, and actually what I was reffering to.

Near the bottom of your link:


> *The Reason for Jesus Response*
> Why would Jesus respond in a seemingly harsh manner? The purpose of His response may have been twofold. The first purpose was to encourage the disciples to faithfully follow Him. The second purpose and perhaps more importantly, was to teach correct theology.
> The concept of gathering the bones of ones ancestors is deeply embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures and reflected in Israelite burial practices (Gen. 49:29; Judges 2:10; 16:31; I Kings 11:21, 43, etc.). However, by New Testament times, the concept had taken on a new meaning. According to the Rabbinic sources, the decomposition of the flesh atoned for the sins of the dead person (a kind of purgatory) and the final stage of this process was gathering the bones and placing them in an ossuary (Meyers 1971: 80-85). Jesus confronts this contrary theology. Only faith in Christs redemptive work on the cross can atone for sin, not rotting flesh or any other work or merit of our own (Heb. 9:22, 26; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8, 9). Jesus may have rebuked these two disciples rather harshly because they were following the corrupted practice of secondary burial.


 
In saying "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead" Jesus was requiring commitment to himself over the Jewish traditions. That was quite a statement, and the type of thing that set him against the Scribes, who were guarding the Oral Law, and the traditions. 



> For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.


I've got about as far as I'm comfortable in a public setting -- particularly the Study, without feeling like I am getting preachy.

I am willing to continue to answer questions, but it is a little too personal to go much further here. In private, I would be willing to go as deep as you like, but out of respect for those who aren't Christian, I don't want to alienate them.



> I find this an ironical statement if you are a Christian, at least as I have understood Christianity.


 
For a full dose of the irony, check this thread out: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48269

I often learn the most from those I disagree with.


----------



## CanuckMA

thardey said:


> Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.


 
In Tradition, once accepted and followed becomes as strong as Halacha.

For example, Torah prohibits the eating of 5 grains during Pesach. Ashkenaz tradition also prohibits eating legumes and rice, therefore because I'm Ashkenaz, I cannot eat them. My niece-in-law, OTOH, being Sephardic, can sit down in gront of  bowl of rice.


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> To a certain extent, this goes to the core of my argument. I get that Judaic law can be interpreted in different ways by different teachers. The same occurs within Christianity. Often, it hinges on culture and upbringing. But if that is thae case, who is to say what being Jewish really is all about. And, if you cannot define what being a Jew is, who can say what a Jew is not. And if that is the case, how can one define an ethnic Jew as not being Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> I will stipulate that the Judaic law does not state who *can't *be a Jew. But it, apparently, does state who can.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interestd to know exactly which Jewish practices would be forbidden in Christianity (from a Biblical, not political perspective).
> 
> 
> 
> For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.


 

You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother or have converted according to Halacha. That is pretty straightforward.

Once a Halachic Jew, if you do not practice, you are an apostate. If you convert to another religion a) if you were a convert, your conversion could be annulled. b) if you were born of a Jewish mother, you would still need a statement of reaffirmation to be accepted back in the reigious community.

As to how the destruction of Judaism will destroy the Jewish People, most of our tradition is based on the religion, once gone, there goes our tradition.
And once we no longer follow Judaism, intermarriage will dwindle out what you call the 'ethnic' Jews.

If Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, none of the kids are Jewish.
If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, the 'status' of Jewishness will only keep going until their kids meet the first condition.

So assume that today Xtians convert every Jew, our tradition becomes meaniless and whithin a few generations, nobody will be able to claim even the bloodline of Jewshness.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

thardey said:


> Not so much against Jewish Law, but against Jewish tradition. Which to Gentiles like me may not seem like much, but it seems to be much more important than I am able to fathom. Probably since I wasn't raised with it.


 
Ah, but the tradition has been known to change.  Which I think is important to this discussion.

The Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice as was done in the Old Testament.  Are they no longer true Jews?

Do Jewish women still go into seclusion during their periods?  If not, are they no longer practicing Jews?

Truly, it is up to the Jews to define themselves.  If all Jews were to become believers in Jesus, then that would define Jews, they would not become non-Jews.

 To address on specific regarding your Biblical quote for circumcision: The purpose of the comment was not in regards to stopping the practice.  It was to tell people that it was no longer *required.*  His condemnation for the practice was not the practice itself, but the importance people were ascribing to it.



> In saying "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead" Jesus was requiring commitment to himself over the Jewish traditions. That was quite a statement, and the type of thing that set him against the Scribes, who were guarding the Oral Law, and the traditions.


 
Of this, I will agree.  However, IMO, this does not mean that you can no longer follow Jewish traditions.  The context was that someone was trying to push the performing of a tradition over what God Himself wanted that person to do, at that time.  About the only further implication that I would have is Jesus' emphasis on faith, rather then rote practicing of a tradition.

See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity.  It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts.  As we can see even in our own age, hypocracy runs rampant amongst the powerful, be it politicians or religious clergy.  And it was something that Jesus believed had reached a tipping point.  Therefore the emphasis on getting people to believe the message, rather then the actors delivering the message.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> You are a Jew if you are born of a Jewish mother or have converted according to Halacha. That is pretty straightforward.
> 
> Once a Halachic Jew, if you do not practice, you are an apostate. If you convert to another religion a) if you were a convert, your conversion could be annulled. b) if you were born of a Jewish mother, you would still need a statement of reaffirmation to be accepted back in the reigious community.
> 
> As to how the destruction of Judaism will destroy the Jewish People, most of our tradition is based on the religion, once gone, there goes our tradition.
> And once we no longer follow Judaism, intermarriage will dwindle out what you call the 'ethnic' Jews.
> 
> If Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, none of the kids are Jewish.
> *If a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, the 'status' of Jewishness will only keep going until their kids meet the first condition.*
> 
> So assume that today Xtians convert every Jew, our tradition becomes meaniless and whithin a few generations, nobody will be able to claim even the bloodline of Jewshness.


 
It's not that I don't want to believe you, but everything that I have read / heard tells me that simply being born of a Jewish mother, not your beliefs, will entitle you to being Jewish.  

Also, in every church that I have been to, Christians are encouraged to only marry other Christians.  This would be similar to the emphasis on Jews marrying only other Jews, if of course, we leave this to the realm of religion.

Which leads me to my next question:  Why should Jews care about the "bloodline of Jewishness".  And by this, I am making the assumption that you are referring to a genetic heritage.  I hesitate to tell you what this makes me think, for fear of offending you and ruining a perfectly friendly and constructive conversation.


----------



## Xinglu

5-0 Kenpo said:


> See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity.  It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts.



I have a question then: Why do Christians not observe the Jewish rites and traditions then?  If it was only placing emphasis on faith rather than acts (and tradition) then abandoning them all together would be uncalled for.

Furthermore, James in his epistle made it clear that faith without acts is dead as a doornail.  D-E-D, dead. 



> *James 2:14-26*
> My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don't do anything to show that you really do have faith?  Can that kind of faith save you?  If you know someone who doesn't have any clothes or food, you shouldn't just say, "I hope all goes well for you. I hope you will be warm and have plenty to eat."  What good is it to say this, unless you do something to help?  Faith that doesn't lead us to do good deeds is all alone and dead!
> 
> Suppose someone disagrees and says, "It is possible to have faith without doing kind deeds."
> 
> I would answer, "Prove that you have faith without doing kind deeds, and I will prove that I have faith by doing them."  You surely believe there is only one God. That's fine. Even demons believe this, and it makes them shake with fear.
> 
> Does some stupid person want proof that faith without deeds is useless?  Well, our ancestor Abraham pleased God by putting his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him.  Now you see how Abraham's faith and deeds worked together. He proved that his faith was real by what he did.  This is what the Scriptures mean by saying, "Abraham had faith in God, and God was pleased with him." That's how Abraham became God's friend.
> 
> You can now see that we please God by what we do and not only by what we believe.  For example, Rahab had been a prostitute. But she pleased God when she welcomed the spies and sent them home by another way.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't breathe is dead, and faith that doesn't do anything is just as dead!



What this tells me, is that Christians are supposed to value acts.  Traditions are acts, heck, the RCC has a lot of traditions: but none of them are Jewish.  *Why not?*  I mean, if one can be a Christian and observe Judaism then why don't they?


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It's not that I don't want to believe you, but everything that I have read / heard tells me that simply being born of a Jewish mother, not your beliefs, will entitle you to being Jewish.


 
Yes and no. While being born of a Jewish mother is a prime way, there is a line where it is no longer good enough. That line is definetely crossed when you start to actively practice another religion. And while more fuzzy, after a few generations of not practicing Judaism at all, even a documented matrilineal descent would not make you simply be accepted as a Jew.



> Also, in every church that I have been to, Christians are encouraged to only marry other Christians. This would be similar to the emphasis on Jews marrying only other Jews, if of course, we leave this to the realm of religion.
> 
> Which leads me to my next question: Why should Jews care about the "bloodline of Jewishness". And by this, I am making the assumption that you are referring to a genetic heritage. I hesitate to tell you what this makes me think, for fear of offending you and ruining a perfectly friendly and constructive conversation.


 

Not so much a genetic heritage, for a Gentile woman who converts according to Halacha bears Jewish children. It refers more to, absent a living Judaism, there ar no longer converts. Therefore the only way one can be considered Jewish is to be born of a Jewish mother. And again absent of Judaism, that would die out as well.


----------



## jks9199

Xinglu said:


> I have a question then: Why do Christians not observe the Jewish rites and traditions then?  If it was only placing emphasis on faith rather than acts (and tradition) then abandoning them all together would be uncalled for.
> 
> Furthermore, James in his epistle made it clear that faith without acts is dead as a doornail.  D-E-D, dead.
> 
> 
> 
> What this tells me, is that Christians are supposed to value acts.  Traditions are acts, heck, the RCC has a lot of traditions: but none of them are Jewish.  *Why not?*  I mean, if one can be a Christian and observe Judaism then why don't they?


Actually, you can see the Jewish roots in several aspects of Catholic worship.  For example, much of the Catholic Mass (especially in the Eucharistic Prayers) has its roots in the Seder or Passover meal.


----------



## CanuckMA

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ah, but the tradition has been known to change. Which I think is important to this discussion.
> 
> The Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice as was done in the Old Testament. Are they no longer true Jews?


 
we pray for the resoration of the Temple and a return to animal sacrifice 3 times a day. Those Laws have not been abrogated, merely suspended.



> Do Jewish women still go into seclusion during their periods? If not, are they no longer practicing Jews?


 
We still practice the Family Purity LAws. A Jewish man will not have direct or indirect contact with his wife from the begining of her periods until she has gone to the Mikvah.



> Truly, it is up to the Jews to define themselves. If all Jews were to become believers in Jesus, then that would define Jews, they would not become non-Jews.


 
In a word, no. That would make us Xtians.



> To address on specific regarding your Biblical quote for circumcision: The purpose of the comment was not in regards to stopping the practice. It was to tell people that it was no longer *required.* His condemnation for the practice was not the practice itself, but the importance people were ascribing to it.


 
Considering it is the Sign of the Covenant, as told by G-d to Abraham, I'd say it is pretty darn important. We have circumsised our children under every possible conditions. Completely secular Jews will have their boys circumcised. 




> Of this, I will agree. However, IMO, this does not mean that you can no longer follow Jewish traditions. The context was that someone was trying to push the performing of a tradition over what God Himself wanted that person to do, at that time. About the only further implication that I would have is Jesus' emphasis on faith, rather then rote practicing of a tradition.


 
It is not wrote practice of tradition. Judaism is a way of life. It defines who I am and how I relate to the world. I pray 3 times a day. I utter blessings when encountering the wonders of the world around me. 



> See, I don't think that the rites themselves are against Christianity. It is the fact that Jesus, and later his disciples, wanted the emphasis placed on faith, rather then acts. As we can see even in our own age, hypocracy runs rampant amongst the powerful, be it politicians or religious clergy. And it was something that Jesus believed had reached a tipping point. Therefore the emphasis on getting people to believe the message, rather then the actors delivering the message.


 

Faith and acts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a much greater emphasis on acts, here and now in Judaism than in Xtianity.


----------



## CanuckMA

jks9199 said:


> Actually, you can see the Jewish roots in several aspects of Catholic worship. For example, much of the Catholic Mass (especially in the Eucharistic Prayers) has its roots in the Seder or Passover meal.


 

Come again????

It's been a long time since I was forced to sit through a Catholic Mass, but I still can see the connection.


----------



## Carol

Jewish traditions that Catholics (and in some cases, Christianity as a whole) observe: 

A sabbath day. 

In Jewish kingdoms, it is not the _wife _of the King who is the principle Queen, it is the _mother_ of the King who is the principle Queen.  This is clearly seen in the Marian devotions of the Catholic church, as St. Mary is the Mother of the King (of Kings).

Monotheism.  God as the Holy Trinity?  God as Triune, yet still 3 = 1?   And don't get me started on that evil dude with horns that also has ethereal powers.   Not trying to be facetious or disrespectful here, but I think the Jewish influence is why Christianity is a monotheistic faith, and not polytheistic faith.  

I'd guess that the vast majority of Catholic boys are circumcised, at least here in the US.  Can't say about elsewhere.  As an aside, the word circumcision is borrowed from Latin _circumcisio _(as opposed to Hebrew or Greek).

Tithing.  The word "tithe" is taken from Anglo-Saxon words meaning "to pay one-tenth".  This is a value that the Church holds to even today, yet its basis is from the Levites:

"And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord." - Leviticus 27:32 KJV.

There are probably others...


----------



## Carol

CanuckMA said:


> Come again????
> 
> It's been a long time since I was forced to sit through a Catholic Mass, but I still can see the connection.




The _Sanctus _is taken from the words of the Prophet Isaiah:



> Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
> Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
> Hosanna in the highest.
> Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
> Hosanna in the highest.



Here are the first two grafs of a prayer of Intersession, note the focal point is that of sacrifice (a Jewish tradition), and the people revered (other than Jesus) were Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek.  



> Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people      and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead,      and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us      we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice:      the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted      the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in      faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.


----------



## jks9199

The Eucharist was instituted as Jesus and the Disciples had their Passover meal; the format of the Eucharistic prayers as well as the idea that it's a continuation of the same sacrifice are reflections of the Jewish roots.  Note that I am not saying they are identical or the same -- only that the root can be identified.


----------



## Xinglu

Carol said:


> A sabbath day.


  But not the Jewish Sabbath.  So not THE Sabbath.  Christians have rejected the Jewish Sabbath and have chosen another day altogether.  Instead of the seventh day of the week, the first.  *A* sabbath does not *THE* sabbath make.  That would be like saying *A* god equates *THE* God.



Carol said:


> In Jewish kingdoms, it is not the _wife _of the King who is the principle Queen, it is the _mother_ of the King who is the principle Queen.  This is clearly seen in the Marian devotions of the Catholic church, as St. Mary is the Mother of the King (of Kings).


  Is that only the Catholics?  Or do the protestants and other Christian churches revere Mary in the same way?  Furthermore, I want to know the Jewish take on this: do the Jews offer prayers to women that they may intercede on your behalf with God?  Is this ACTUALLY a Jewish tradition/belief?  My gut says "no."



Carol said:


> Monotheism.  God as the Holy Trinity?  God as Triune, yet still 3 = 1?   And don't get me started on that evil dude with horns that also has ethereal powers.   Not trying to be facetious or disrespectful here, but I think the Jewish influence is why Christianity is a monotheistic faith, and not polytheistic faith.


  Yet the Jew's deny the Trinity.  They (a few friends of mine who are jewish), have suggested that the trinity is more polytheistic than monotheistic.  If the Jews on this forum are willing to confirm or deny this understand I have I would greatly appreciate it.



Carol said:


> I'd guess that the vast majority of Catholic boys are circumcised, at least here in the US.  Can't say about elsewhere.  As an aside, the word circumcision is borrowed from Latin _circumcisio _(as opposed to Hebrew or Greek).


 Do you *have* to get the snip to to be Catholic?  Because to be a Jew it is an absolute requirement.  No snip, no conversion.


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> But not the Jewish Sabbath.  So not THE Sabbath.  Christians have rejected the Jewish Sabbath and have chosen another day altogether.  Instead of the seventh day of the week, the first.  *A* sabbath does not *THE* sabbath make.  That would be like saying *A* god equates *THE* God.



So observation of a sabbath day, one day a week had absolutely nothing to do with Judaism?  Nothing at all? 



> Is that only the Catholics?  Or do the protestants and other Christian churches revere Mary in the same way?  Furthermore, I want to know the Jewish take on this: do the Jews offer prayers to women that they may intercede on your behalf with God?  Is this ACTUALLY a Jewish tradition/belief?  My gut says "no."


Ah, but note that I said nothing about intercession in my post.   But Mary being recognized as Regina had nothing to do with the Jewish traditions of  principle Queen of a Kingdom being the King's mother and not his wife?



> Yet the Jew's deny the Trinity.  They (a few friends of mine who are jewish), have suggested that the trinity is more polytheistic than monotheistic.  If the Jews on this forum are willing to confirm or deny this understand I have I would greatly appreciate it.


So, Christians (and likely most reputable theological bodies, Christian and non-Christian alike) viewing themselves as monotheistic had nothing to do with Judaism? 



> Do you *have* to get the snip to to be Catholic?  Bechause to be a Jew it is an absolute requirement.  No snip, no conversion.


I dunno. I suspect not.  However...the original posit was framed with regards to traditions, which are not necessarily things one _*has *_to do to be Jewish.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CanuckMA said:


> we pray for the resoration of the Temple and a return to animal sacrifice 3 times a day. Those Laws have not been abrogated, merely suspended.
> 
> We still practice the Family Purity LAws. A Jewish man will not have direct or indirect contact with his wife from the begining of her periods until she has gone to the Mikvah.


 
Interesting.  Would that be all Jews, or certain sects of Judaism?





> In a word, no. That would make us Xtians.


 
The point is that they would not be non-Jews, ethnically or traditionally speaking. 




> Considering it is the Sign of the Covenant, as told by G-d to Abraham, I'd say it is pretty darn important. We have circumsised our children under every possible conditions. Completely secular Jews will have their boys circumcised.


 
I didn't say that it wasn't important.  What I was saying was that it was not necessary for non-Jews to perform. 




> It is not wrote practice of tradition. Judaism is a way of life. It defines who I am and how I relate to the world. I pray 3 times a day. I utter blessings when encountering the wonders of the world around me.


 
I believe you.  But I still don't think that you have to abandon those practices to be a Christian, and they can have the same spiritual value because Christianity is based on Judaism. 




> Faith and acts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a much greater emphasis on acts, here and now in Judaism than in Xtianity.


 
It is just the fact that our faith drives our acts, our acts don't drive our faith.  That is the point.


----------



## Xinglu

Carol said:


> So observation of a sabbath day, one day a week had absolutely nothing to do with Judaism?  Nothing at all?



No, not Jewish tradition.  If it was Jewish tradition it would be the seventh day of the week and not the first.



Carol said:


> Ah, but note that I said nothing about intercession in my post.   But Mary being recognized as Regina had nothing to do with the Jewish traditions of  principle Queen of a Kingdom being the King's mother and not his wife


  Sure, the Jews would give the kings mother a ton of respect, but prayers for intercession are applicable here as I doubt very strongly that even the most liberal Jewish tradition would take their respect for the king's mother that far.  Probably, because it would violate their monotheistic view. At the very least (assuming [for arguments sake, of course] multiple gods existed) they would be praying to an entity (note that I am not regarding her as a god) other than God thus violating their tradition/belief structure.  The level of respect given to Mary by the RCC is not in line with Jewish tradition as I understand it.  Once again, if any of the Jews on this forum care to correct/expound/elaborate please, I would appreciate it. 



Carol said:


> So, Christians (and likely most reputable theological bodies, Christian and non-Christian alike) viewing themselves as monotheistic had nothing to do with Judaism?


 Looking at what the Jewish definition of monotheism is, I'm not entirely sure that any trinity based faith can be considered monotheistic. Once again, the Christian faith has taken a term, interpreted it and redefined it to fit their needs/dogma/wants to say that it is the same as or even reflective of Judaism seems (IMHO) to be reaching a bit.



Carol said:


> I dunno. I suspect not.  However...the original posit was framed with regards to traditions, which are not necessarily things one _*has *_to do to be Jewish.


My original question (to which I'm assuming you were replying to) was: If it is not against Christianity to practice and observe Jewish rites and traditions, then why don't Christians do so?  Christians to not View God in the same way (trinity), they do not observe the same Sabbath (or even in a similar way), and Circumcision is not mandatory for Christians as it is for Jews, and then there is the Whole Mary issue (but only for Catholics, as not all Christians regard her as the Catholics do).


----------



## Carol

Xinglu said:


> My original question (to which I'm assuming you were replying to) was: If it is not against Christianity to practice and observe Jewish rites and traditions, then why don't Christians do so?



Hmm...damn good question, and one that I personally don't have a good answer for you, to be honest.

I can make some wild guesses...

- Many Christians don't understand Judaism.  There may also be many Christians that think they understand Judaism but instead hold a perception that Jewish folks feel is inaccurate.  

- Many Christians who are learned spend more time in study devoted to their own faith than in study devoted to other faiths.

- Fo Christians, belief in Jesus is a necessary condition.  As such, the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, are typically emphasized more than the Old Testament.  

- Christianity doesn't teach Jewish traditions.  

- The two faiths progressed as seperate faiths, each developing their own branches, cultures, and traditions over the past 2000 or so years.  

- There isn't much "encouragement" for the cultures to intermingle. 

- Jews are a distinct minority in the US (and most other places where there are a high percentage of Christians).  Outside of Israel, the Jew has had to adapt to the Christian more than the Christian has had to adapt to the Jew.


----------



## cdunn

Xinglu said:


> Yet the Jew's deny the Trinity. They (a few friends of mine who are jewish), have suggested that the trinity is more polytheistic than monotheistic. If the Jews on this forum are willing to confirm or deny this understand I have I would greatly appreciate it.


 
One even could make the argument that, especially when called an aspect of God, the Christ is a living idol made of flesh and bone. He is, after all, an effable, physical representation of the ineffable God. And, well, I think  the point of 'idols == bad mojo' is adequately made.


----------



## celtic_crippler

I don't roll on Shabbos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-g2skOVkL0&feature=related


----------



## yorkshirelad

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> The Samaritan at the well ? This is a famous story.
> 
> You do not know this story. It comes as no surprise.
> 
> If more jewish people knew what Jesus Christ really taught then there would be peace between the arabs and jews.


The inquisition is also a famous story. The crusade are a really good yarn. If you want to hear a wonderful story to tell your kids, tell them about the one and a half millenia sexual torture done to children by the Catholic clegy. Then tell them how the heads of this wonderful Christian organization tried to cover these crimes up to preserve their wealth and power. Tell them how Ratzinger (God's rep on Earth supposedly) relocated pedophile priests to different parishes so they could continue raping children without fear of being caught by the secular authorities.......Oh sorry, what was that about Jews not knowing Christ again. Btw, I want you to list the powerful Jewish organizations that have covered up the rape of children by their own Rabbis.

I'm waiting.......... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I've only just started reading this thread, so I'm sorry that I responded to such an old post, but the hypocracy chaps my ***!

Wow this is an old thread. I really dont want to ressurect the dead. Should've left that to Jesus!


----------

