It's almost restoring my faith in The Study.
Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
It's almost restoring my faith in The Study.
Xinglu
Black Belt
True, they don't consider themselves protestant. In fact their eleventh article of faith speaks to this:
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?
:roflmao:
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
Grandmaster
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?
.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
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.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
And a fine, fine drink it is, too. Particularly with a good cigar. Thank you, Scotchland!It doesn't help that we Americans grew up with Scotch Guard and Scotch Tape.
"Scotch is a drink, Scots is a people" :lol:
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.
That's a good way to put it.
The Abstract: (Galatians 5) Emphasis mine.
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)
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
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)
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
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.
Fantastic link, and actually what I was reffering to.
Near the bottom of your link:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Black Belt
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
In a word, no. That would make us Xtians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
The Sanctus is taken from the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
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.
Similar threads
