Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
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.
OP
OP
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Enough.
Everybody just come on over to the dark side, plenty of room, no waiting and the food is awesome.
Everybody just come on over to the dark side, plenty of room, no waiting and the food is awesome.
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.
Well said.
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.
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...
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.
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:
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.
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
Black Belt
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.
Excellent, thank you. I was wondering how the Oral Law fit into the Talmud.
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.
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
Black Belt
The LDS and the Episcopalians have a clear "hierarchy." The latter has a ruling body and the former has a clear "head."
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.
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.
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).
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.)
For myself, you have yet to adequately explain why.
I find this an ironical statement if you are a Christian, at least as I have understood Christianity.
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.
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:.
On the flip side, I commend people for keeping their heads and actually engaging in discourse. Well done all :applause:.
Similar threads
