I think this answers all the questions - Who really is a Jew?

[Ronn]

The Original Way

Paul said, "Romans 2:28, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Why would he say that? It sounds like he thinks being a Jew is a good thing. In fact, he calls himself a Jew. What we need to decide is whether Paul is making an important point or just polishing his halo. If he is making a point of being Jewish there will be other scriptures that make the same point and other circumstances explained by that point. It turns out we don't have far to look to find a credible speaker and this time it's the King of the universe talking to the woman at the well.

St. John 4:22, "You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

This sounds like He means you have to be Jewish to be saved. Or, does He mean salvation is wrapped up with the Jews because He is the chief Jew? Or, perhaps the only method of salvation is the one given to the priests in the Temple.

Let's look. He did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." So, He could not have meant that salvation was by any process at the Temple, because He had already changed that. If He meant it was because He is the chief Jew, He would not have said, Jews, meaning a lot of people. But, What if He meant a group of people like those Paul referred to, a group of people who are Jews because of their faith in the spirit but not necessarily in the flesh? This suggests He means the very same thing as Paul. The Lord also said,

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

That would explain how there can be a Jewish Bride for The Lord to finish the wedding. It also explains how all Israel will be saved because the Bride is Israel. It would also explain what The Lord said in Revelation.

Rev 2:9,"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you."

If being Jewish had anything to do with bloodline it wouldn't matter what they said. They would still be Jews. The only way someone could lie about being a Jew is if being Jewish is a matter of faith. All believers know there is only one faith, one path and one family of God and it appears to be the people who are called by the Lord's Name.
The Jews beginning came at the mountain that burned with fire where there was a marriage ceremony. There, they took the name of the Bridegroom as in our custom today. Difference is, In those days taking the name comes at the start of the engagement, not the cohabitation. Between a man and woman the cohabitation or consummation came a year later. Between God and man it's much longer but is still called the Consummation, where the two parties become one family and live together. This becomes even more conspicuous when we look at the Hebrew name for God and the name of the people 'called by His Name'.
It's a bit of a reach to pronounce, יהוה, Jehovah. The yod י carries the 'Je', but there is no 'Ho' because without an O the 'hay' ה is silent. Next is the vav ו pronounced, 'Vah', with the vowel qamets וָ , then another silent 'hay', making - YehVah. However, using different vowels it should be translated, Yehu, which happens to match the name for Jews in Hebrew, the Yehudim.

יְהוּה - Yey Hoo

While the word - Yehudim, יְהוּדִּים means Jews, the dim, דִּים, means 'those of', therefore, 'those of God'. In turn, it makes the scripture accurate that says, 'My people who are called by My Name'. Of course this happened thousands of years before any other nation got this information or English was invented. Trying to convince us all that the whole nation is called by the name of Judah, one of the tribes, appears to be a deception.
​

The mountain that burned with fire or Mount Sinai in Arabia, was renamed by the Arabs, Jabal al Laws. Google that, it still has black on top and you can see it using Google earth.
When God gave the ten commandments to Moses, one of them said,

Exodus 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain." and later...
Pro 30:9 "Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

This commandment has nothing to do with using bad language. The first scripture is the rule, the second is an example of breaking it by not keeping His commandment and thereby taking His name in vain or being called by His name without living by His standards. There was no reason to attach another punishment for cursing God since that already existed.

Today, we are no less wedding guests just because we were not the first to be invited. We are no less olive branches because we were grafted into the olive tree and we are no less Jews because we are His second Bride.

Ron Cash

 

[Caladan]

Paul said, "Romans 2:28, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

You are as much a Jew as you are Chinese, or Japanese. Stop the with the Late Antiquity to post-colonial appropriation of Jews and their scriptures.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There are no such things as Jews in the real world of course. It's just a word which we use to label other people and ourselves, depending on our personal view of things.

Think of it like the word 'traveler'. Is there really such a thing as a traveler? How far does one have to travel to be a traveler? Out of one's house? Out of one's property or town? Across a sea? How often must I travel in order to actually be a traveler?

See what I mean? There are no such actual objects as travelers or Jews. They're just words which each person decides to paste on his own or someone else's forehead.

I'm just saying you might be worrying a bit much about the issue, is all.

 

[Caladan]

There are no such things as Jews in the real world of course. It's just a word which we use to label other people and ourselves, depending on our personal view of things.

Of course there are, and there have been for centuries. The fact that you bothered identifying yourself as someone who is from the American South in your location label confirms this. You, like other people, have an identity, whether it is derived from ethnic, cultural, or geographical circumstances.

Think of it like the word 'traveler'. Is there really such a thing as a traveler? How far does one have to travel to be a traveler? Out of one's house? Out of one's property or town? Across a sea? How often must I travel in order to actually be a traveler?

If one travels the world on some basis for purposes which go beyond the regular bed and breakfast or standard site seeing, for example in order to trek the wilderness, spend months exploring and journeying certain regions, or conducting fieldwork as part of a lifestyle, then it is safe to say that they are appropriately labeled as travelers, and that they can fairly easily recognize and socialize with other travelers.

See what I mean? There are no such actual objects as travelers or Jews. They're just words which each person decides to paste on his own or someone else's forehead.

A wolf is also just a word, so is an antelope. Or if we want to go into specifics a Malinois is also just a word and so is a Dutch shepherd, but these are words which tell us a lot when we wish to address specific dogs and their qualities.

I'm just saying you might be worrying a bit much about the issue, is all.

That is of course true, as has been the case for a very long time.

 

[crossfire]

There are no such things as Jews in the real world of course. It's just a word which we use to label other people and ourselves, depending on our personal view of things.

Think of it like the word 'traveler'. Is there really such a thing as a traveler? How far does one have to travel to be a traveler? Out of one's house? Out of one's property or town? Across a sea? How often must I travel in order to actually be a traveler?

See what I mean? There are no such actual objects as travelers or Jews. They're just words which each person decides to paste on his own or someone else's forehead.

I'm just saying you might be worrying a bit much about the issue, is all.

You know, we could really use this kind of logic on Nagarjuna's Mula Madhayamaka Karika chapter two.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3626354-post9.html

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

OP, are you saying that Christians are Jews?

 

[Sunstone]

The Original Way

Paul said, "Romans 2:28, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Why would he say that? It sounds like he thinks being a Jew is a good thing. In fact, he calls himself a Jew. What we need to decide is whether Paul is making an important point or just polishing his halo. If he is making a point of being Jewish there will be other scriptures that make the same point and other circumstances explained by that point. It turns out we don't have far to look to find a credible speaker and this time it's the King of the universe talking to the woman at the well.

St. John 4:22, "You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

This sounds like He means you have to be Jewish to be saved. Or, does He mean salvation is wrapped up with the Jews because He is the chief Jew? Or, perhaps the only method of salvation is the one given to the priests in the Temple.

Let's look. He did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." So, He could not have meant that salvation was by any process at the Temple, because He had already changed that. If He meant it was because He is the chief Jew, He would not have said, Jews, meaning a lot of people. But, What if He meant a group of people like those Paul referred to, a group of people who are Jews because of their faith in the spirit but not necessarily in the flesh? This suggests He means the very same thing as Paul. The Lord also said,

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

That would explain how there can be a Jewish Bride for The Lord to finish the wedding. It also explains how all Israel will be saved because the Bride is Israel. It would also explain what The Lord said in Revelation.

Rev 2:9,"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you."

If being Jewish had anything to do with bloodline it wouldn't matter what they said. They would still be Jews. The only way someone could lie about being a Jew is if being Jewish is a matter of faith. All believers know there is only one faith, one path and one family of God and it appears to be the people who are called by the Lord's Name.
The Jews beginning came at the mountain that burned with fire where there was a marriage ceremony. There, they took the name of the Bridegroom as in our custom today. Difference is, In those days taking the name comes at the start of the engagement, not the cohabitation. Between a man and woman the cohabitation or consummation came a year later. Between God and man it's much longer but is still called the Consummation, where the two parties become one family and live together. This becomes even more conspicuous when we look at the Hebrew name for God and the name of the people 'called by His Name'.
It's a bit of a reach to pronounce, יהוה, Jehovah. The yod י carries the 'Je', but there is no 'Ho' because without an O the 'hay' ה is silent. Next is the vav ו pronounced, 'Vah', with the vowel qamets וָ , then another silent 'hay', making - YehVah. However, using different vowels it should be translated, Yehu, which happens to match the name for Jews in Hebrew, the Yehudim.

יְהוּה - Yey Hoo

While the word - Yehudim, יְהוּדִּים means Jews, the dim, דִּים, means 'those of', therefore, 'those of God'. In turn, it makes the scripture accurate that says, 'My people who are called by My Name'. Of course this happened thousands of years before any other nation got this information or English was invented. Trying to convince us all that the whole nation is called by the name of Judah, one of the tribes, appears to be a deception.
​

The mountain that burned with fire or Mount Sinai in Arabia, was renamed by the Arabs, Jabal al Laws. Google that, it still has black on top and you can see it using Google earth.
When God gave the ten commandments to Moses, one of them said,

Exodus 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain." and later...
Pro 30:9 "Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

This commandment has nothing to do with using bad language. The first scripture is the rule, the second is an example of breaking it by not keeping His commandment and thereby taking His name in vain or being called by His name without living by His standards. There was no reason to attach another punishment for cursing God since that already existed.

Today, we are no less wedding guests just because we were not the first to be invited. We are no less olive branches because we were grafted into the olive tree and we are no less Jews because we are His second Bride.

Ron Cash

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! But now I feel compelled to drink heavily.

 

[Caladan]

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! But now I feel compelled to drink heavily.

After reading crossfire's link... so am I.

 

[Caladan]

OP, are you saying that Christians are Jews?

Some many many centuries ago there used to be. Because they still expressed the cultural baggage of Judea or at least the Jewish culture and traditions as part of their ethnicity and background of birth.
After several centuries the Christian movement largely became practiced by other cultures, and in various geographical locations. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, Germanic, etc. For the life of me I have no idea why replacement theologies attempt to render both Jewish heritage and identity and a myriad of other ones with long standing historical legacy as obsolete.
I think various cultures have a great legacy, and sometimes I get to think that I have more passion about their legacy than they do.

 

[crossfire]

After reading crossfire's link... so am I.

I have aspirin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some many many centuries ago there used to be. Because they still expressed the cultural baggage of Judea or at least the Jewish culture and traditions as part of their ethnicity and background of birth.
After several centuries the Christian movement largely became practiced by other cultures, and in various geographical locations. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, Germanic, etc. For the life of me I have no idea why replacement theologies attempt to render both Jewish heritage and identity and a myriad of other ones with long standing historical legacy as obsolete.
I think various cultures have a great legacy, and sometimes I get to think that I have more passion about their legacy than they do.

I know that the first Christians were Jewish and then the religion became mostly Gentile (although there's always been Jewish converts). But I'm trying to figure what the OP's point is.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OP, are you saying that Christians are Jews?

I didn't read his whole message, but Yeah, I think that's what he's saying.

 

[Sunstone]

But I'm trying to figure what the OP's point is.

My hunch is the OP is mostly concerned with trying to conceptually replace Jews as "God's chosen people" with fundie Christians. But maybe I've just been drinking too much since I first read the...thing.

 

[Caladan]

I have aspirin.

Can you drop two in my scotch? :thud:

My hunch is the OP is mostly concerned with trying to displace Jews as "God's chosen people" with fundie Christians. But maybe I've just been drinking too much since I first read the...thing.

I think you need another drink Phil... you're still sharp.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Of course there are, and there have been for centuries.

That's a fine opinion, but not one that I share.

The fact that you bothered identifying yourself as someone who is from the American South in your location label confirms this. You, like other people, have an identity, whether it is derived from ethnic, cultural, or geographical circumstances.

If you went though a long, convoluted bit of argumentation to provide the final answer as to whether I really am or really am not 'a Southerner', I'm afraid I would consider you to be confused about labelling.

As for the rest of your assertion, I oppose groupism most everywhere I find it. I think we should resist it. Once we believe that we 'really are' a Crip, then we begin to see Bloods as the enemy.

If one travels the world on some basis for purposes which go beyond the regular bed and breakfast or standard site seeing, for example in order to trek the wilderness, spend months exploring and journeying certain regions, or conducting fieldwork as part of a lifestyle, then it is safe to say that they are appropriately labeled as travelers...

That's a fine opinion. As I say, everyone has one.

...and that they can fairly easily recognize and socialize with other travelers.

I have no trouble socializing with travelers, even if I myself am not a traveler. I don't base my socialization decisions on the label of the other person.

A wolf is also just a word, so is an antelope. Or if we want to go into specifics a Malinois is also just a word and so is a Dutch shepherd, but these are words which tell us a lot when we wish to address specific dogs and their qualities.

Language is a convenience, that's true. The problem comes when we begin to believe -- as the OP apparently does -- that there are really such things as Jews and even dogs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You know, we could really use this kind of logic on Nagarjuna's Mula Madhayamaka Karika chapter two.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3626354-post9.html

Thanks, but I couldn't bring myself to read all that.

 

[crossfire]

Alright, who gets the Scotch and who get the blue Curacao?

 

[Sunstone]

Alright, who gets the Scotch and who get the blue Curacao?

I'll go with the blue today. There looks to be more of it. And from the looks of the OP, I'll need more of it.

 

[Caladan]

That's a fine opinion, but not one that I share.

So you do not see (I wont even ask about appreciating) any differences between Southern American society and Japanese one for example? Neither are distinct in several ways? In addition, would you expect a visitor to Texas or to Tokyo to see no differences in local culture? Shouldn't a slightly enlightened visitor appreciate before hand what are the cultural norms in each place? Or perhaps what the local culture has to offer? Anything from local cuisine, to music style, to festivals, to taboos?

If you went though a long, convoluted bit of argumentation to provide the final answer as to whether I really am or really am not 'a Southerner', I'm afraid I would consider you to be confused about labelling.

There is nothing to be confused about, you bothered to let the rest of us know where you are from not only in the world, but also in your own country. So either it means something (anything) or it does not. You are the one who claimed words such as 'Jew' or 'Wolf' do not objectively mean anything. It seems to me that words only mean anything when they support your OWN personal subjectivity but not that of others.

As for the rest of your assertion, I oppose groupism most everywhere I find it. I think we should resist it. Once we believe that we 'really are' a Crip, then we begin to see Bloods as the enemy.

I do not favor any from of cliques or social isolation. This has nothing to do with the fact that I appreciate different individuals and different social environments according to their interests, values, and norms. I do not expect from certain friends of mine to spend an entire day at an archaeological museum with me, however I do expect it from others. This doesn't mean that in the next day I will not grab a pint with the former, or with both.
I am not the one who is fixated on exclusion.

That's a fine opinion. As I say, everyone has one.

The problem in discussion and debate is when one side asks us to be objective about their subjectivity while not offering the same. Another problem is that it has become a common trend to supercedes objectivity with subjectivity and claim it as an objective right. It could be sometimes, but certainly not in all cases.

I have no trouble socializing with travelers, even if I myself am not a traveler. I don't base my socialization decisions on the label of the other person.

Good for you, neither to the rest of us. But you do seem to erase the life experiences, personality, and culture of others. Quite nonchalantly I might add, as if they mean little in day to day life.

Language is a convenience, that's true. The problem comes when we begin to believe -- as the OP apparently does -- that there are really such things as Jews and even dogs.

There are Jews in the world, there are Japanese, there are Malinois and there are Dutch Shepherd. All these words are essential and true, taking the word 'wolf' will not stop a wolf from being one. By your logic, how would you order a pizza with anchovies or any other of your favorite toppings over the phone without using words to describe what is it exactly that you wish to eat?
You may refuse to believe venomous snakes exist, but if one bites you in Australia you are still going to have to go to the hospital, and you are still going to have to tell them what bit you in order to receive the correct anti venom.
Likewise, if you are going to Israel, Jews are going to speak Hebrew. If you are going to neighboring Egypt, people are going to speak (Egyptian) Arabic, and if you travel a bit north west to Greece, people are going to speak Greek. So there are definite distinct attributes to different societies. For some reason people cant respect that. I hope you don't expect us all to speak English in the future and abandon our local customs and etiquette?

 

[crossfire]

So you do not see (I wont even ask about appreciating) any differences between Southern American society and Japanese one for example? Neither are distinct in several ways? In addition, would you expect a visitor to Texas or to Tokyo to see no differences in local culture? Shouldn't a slightly enlightened visitor appreciate before hand what are the cultural norms in each place? Or perhaps what the local culture has to offer? Anything from local cuisine, to music style, to festivals, to taboos?

For example, I'm not sure whether doing anything like a Hina Matsuri would even occur to the people of the southern US. There might be a few who might get into something like Hadaka Matsuri, but I doubt that anything like a Kanamara Matsuri would be appreciated there. (I could be wrong, however.)

There is nothing to be confused about, you bothered to let the rest of us know where you are from not only in the world, but also in your own country. So either it means something (anything) or it does not. You are the one who claimed words such as 'Jew' or 'Wolf' do not objectively mean anything. It seems to me that words only mean anything when they support your OWN personal subjectivity but not that of others.

This deserves applause. :clap