Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic

[Carol]

There is a bakery near me that occasionally has fresh rugelach up on the counter. They are soooo good.

 

[Bruno@MT]

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]

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 Yoḥai'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 protestant). 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."81sacramental 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:.