Messianic Jews vs. Reality

[Rakhel]

Well this is fun

 

[JacobEzra.]

Well this is fun

Sorry to ruin all the fun Rakhel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's your point?

Perhaps that your bigotry is pathetic and disgusting.

 

[Levite]

The only support for rejecting Torah is from the Pauline epistles and gentile Theological lawless doctrines. Read Matthew 7:22-23, the "doers of Lawlessness" will be rejected and sent to hell. You apparently don't know the history of the Trinity. The Trinity was developed over a century after even Paul died. You continue to prove my point that you prefer to let gentile representatives with later doctrines and theologies represent the original, that's not logical whatsoever. If you want to discuss the Trinity, I have debunked it on numerous threads. There were competing sects even since Christianity's inception. Justin Martyr for example, viewed Yashua as an angel. I(f you continue to let later "Majority" gentile representations be the representative, you continue to prove my point.

Thanks again for proving my point about Rabbinicists being eager to use the later gentile strawman version as the representative. Why don't you explain the "Why" behind this position. Why should the Gentile "Orthodox" from the Nicean councils get the right to say what was true 2000 years ago but those who reject it don't? You are doing a great job of proving my point for me.

Yes, I understand when trinitarianism was developed. But the simple truth is that movements, religions, cultures, etc. are all generally defined by how the majority of the group claiming the name has defined the parameters of identity over the duration of their existence. In the case of Christianity, the majority of Christians, historically, have been trinitarians, who subscribed to if not all, then many, of the tenets agreed upon at Nicaea.

In the case of Judaism, the only serious opposition to Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple was Karaism, which was never more than a minority sect, and has been a tiny fringe element, verging on extinction, since the Renaissance. We count Rabbinic Judaism as the only normative and legitimate Judaism because the vast majority of Jews in the past 2000 years have been Rabbinic Jews, who so identified what legitimate Judaism is; and no non-Rabbinic fringe movement has ever come close to capturing the interest of even a heavy minority of the Jewish People.

As for rejecting the teaching of the Rabbis, the Rabbis rejected each other's teachings.

The Rabbis rejected one another's teachings within the strict framework of halachah. None of them ever rejected a Rabbi's authority to interpret Torah without also rejecting the Rabbi as a heretic.

That's entirely debatable and a subjective opinion. Both European and American reform (especially Reconstructionist) reject nearly the entirety of the Rabbis. End of story.

That actually goes beyond merely un-nuanced into the realm of being not an accurate depiction of Reform thought; and I say so, though I am not even a big fan of Reform Judaism. As for Reconstructionism, I may think their theology is abysmal, but at least their authorities do teach their followers to observe the mitzvot, and they do teach that Jews should practice Judaism, and not other religions.

The word "Worship" only means to bow down. That's a fact. The word is the same for David being worshiped, for Joshua worshiping the Angel, and for David worshiping Saul. 1 Chronicles 29:20. I know you'll disagree, but the word is the same. And thanks for the Etymology link for the word in ENGLISH, but it's irrelevant. Try proving the HEBREW word's differential uses.

Strong's Hebrew: 7812. ?????? (shachah) -- to bow down

As for Joshua worshiping the Angel.
Thus you are misinformed about the word Shachah. Glad to help you out.

What I said was not that hishtachavut (the hitpa'el infinitive of the root shachah) does not mean to prostrate oneself, but that the word is used in two very different senses, which are not to be confused. Biblical Hebrew is an extremely nuanced language, and will often use the same word in very different (sometimes even oppositional) ways, sometimes even successively. There is the usage as "worship" and the usage as "bow [out of respect]," and the two are not the same usage.

When the text says:
ויאמר דויד לכל־הקהל ברכו־נא את־ה' אלהיכם ויברכו כל־הקהל לה' אלהי אבתיהם ויקדו וישתחוו לה' ולמלך
"And David said to all the assemblage, 'Bless now YHVH your God!' And the assemblage blessed YHVH the god of their ancestors, and they knelt and prostrated themselves before YHVH and before the king,"
it does not intend that the meaning be that the people worshipped both God and David. The meaning is that they prostrated themselves in prayer before God, and in respect before the king. And so agree pretty much all the classical Biblical commentators; although Ibn Ezra (the greatest medieval grammarian of Hebrew) also states that the use of the vav in u'l'melech here is atypical, and where it usually means "and" or "also," here it means "with," which would mean that the verse should actually be rendered, "...and they, with the king, knelt and prostrated themselves before YHVH." And clearly Ibn Ezra's interest in some part is to prevent just the misreading that you are making.

Similarly, in Joshua, when the text says:
ויאמר לא כי אני שר־צבא־ה' עתה באתי ויפל יהושע אל־פניו ארצה וישתחו ויאמר לו מה אדני מדבר אל־עבדו
"And he said, "Not so, for I am an officer in the legion of YHVH that am come now. And Joshua's face dropped earthward, and he prostrate himself, and said to him, 'What does my Lord say to His servant?"
it is unclear that Joshua is worshipping at all, and not bowing from respect, but if he is, his language makes it clear that the object of his veneration is not the angel, but the One who sent the angel.

The King James Bible and a glance at an online concordance doesn't really give you an accurate rendering of verses, much less a real understanding of the ways that Biblical Hebrew works and uses its words. Glad to help you out with that.

This is irrelevant in terms of the actual subject. I'm glad to not be normative to gentile "Orthodox" Christianity, and I'm glad to be not normative to "Rabbinicism".

Great. Well, if the Christians don't care if non-normative theologies and doctrines claim the label of Christianity, good on 'em, and have a blast with the label. But historically, Judaism has, indeed, cared when non-normative theologies and doctrines that cross the line of embracing foreign religious figures and teachings claim the label of Jewishness. Belief in Jesus as messiah, as god, as part of God, as anything more than just another unfortunate charismatic killed by the Romans thousands of years ago, is unacceptable under the label of "Jewish." I would never tell someone else what they may and may not believe, but I will say that to call that belief by the label Jewish is both incorrect and offensive.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, I understand when trinitarianism was developed. But the simple truth is that movements, religions, cultures, etc. are all generally defined by how the majority of the group claiming the name has defined the parameters of identity over the duration of their existence. In the case of Christianity, the majority of Christians, historically, have been trinitarians, who subscribed to if not all, then many, of the tenets agreed upon at Nicaea.

Then you once again prove my point, that the Rabbinicists are "a bit eager to let the Straw man do the representation". When you allow gentile interpretations to represent what the originals believed as if the originals believed what the later gentiles interpret them to be as if the minority view doesn't count, you prove ym case. Thank you.

In the case of Judaism, the only serious opposition to Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple was Karaism, which was never more than a minority sect, and has been a tiny fringe element, verging on extinction, since the Renaissance. We count Rabbinic Judaism as the only normative and legitimate Judaism because the vast majority of Jews in the past 2000 years have been Rabbinic Jews, who so identified what legitimate Judaism is; and no non-Rabbinic fringe movement has ever come close to capturing the interest of even a heavy minority of the Jewish People.

Okay, so thus, as I said then Reform and Reconstructionist shouldn't be allowed to be called "Judaism".

The Rabbis rejected one another's teachings within the strict framework of halachah. None of them ever rejected a Rabbi's authority to interpret Torah without also rejecting the Rabbi as a heretic.

Halacha was not really established as an all-inclusive set of interpretation until long after the Shammai-Hillel debates and the Sadducee-Pharisee disputes. Even Rabbi Akiva I believe considered Bar Kokhba as the Moshiach or at least called him a "star", what makes his view not heretical in this sense?

That actually goes beyond merely un-nuanced into the realm of being not an accurate depiction of Reform thought; and I say so, though I am not even a big fan of Reform Judaism. As for Reconstructionism, I may think their theology is abysmal, but at least their authorities do teach their followers to observe the mitzvot, and they do teach that Jews should practice Judaism, and not other religions.

This makes no sense to what I said. You'd have to prove that Messianic Judaism teaches one to violate the Torah in order to group them in a different class than you'd group the Reconstructionists and Reform. And if you think that Reconstructionists and Reform Rabbis teach their followers to observe all the Mitzvot, I'd like to know which ones do, because I have yet to talk to any that insist on obeying the totality of the commandments.

What I said was not that hishtachavut (the hitpa'el infinitive of the root shachah) does not mean to prostrate oneself, but that the word is used in two very different senses, which are not to be confused. Biblical Hebrew is an extremely nuanced language, and will often use the same word in very different (sometimes even oppositional) ways, sometimes even successively. There is the usage as "worship" and the usage as "bow [out of respect]," and the two are not the same usage.

So show some examples of the difference, especially in the light of Chronicles 29:20.

When the text says:
ויאמר דויד לכל־הקהל ברכו־נא את־ה' אלהיכם ויברכו כל־הקהל לה' אלהי אבתיהם ויקדו וישתחוו לה' ולמלך
"And David said to all the assemblage, 'Bless now YHVH your God!' And the assemblage blessed YHVH the god of their ancestors, and they knelt and prostrated themselves before YHVH and before the king,"
it does not intend that the meaning be that the people worshipped both God and David. The meaning is that they prostrated themselves in prayer before God, and in respect before the king. And so agree pretty much all the classical Biblical commentators; although Ibn Ezra (the greatest medieval grammarian of Hebrew) also states that the use of the vav in u'l'melech here is atypical, and where it usually means "and" or "also," here it means "with," which would mean that the verse should actually be rendered, "...and they, with the king, knelt and prostrated themselves before YHVH." And clearly Ibn Ezra's interest in some part is to prevent just the misreading that you are making.

Well I disagree with you there, do you have any other Textual examples to back your point or is this just a one-time anomaly in your view? Can you get some of these "Classical Biblical commentators" that all agree?

Similarly, in Joshua, when the text says:
ויאמר לא כי אני שר־צבא־ה' עתה באתי ויפל יהושע אל־פניו ארצה וישתחו ויאמר לו מה אדני מדבר אל־עבדו
"And he said, "Not so, for I am an officer in the legion of YHVH that am come now. And Joshua's face dropped earthward, and he prostrate himself, and said to him, 'What does my Lord say to His servant?"
it is unclear that Joshua is worshipping at all, and not bowing from respect, but if he is, his language makes it clear that the object of his veneration is not the angel, but the One who sent the angel.

Fair enough, you can see it that way. So we can see that perhaps when Jesus was "worshiped" it was no different than how. Just because Trinitarians "worship" Jesus as G-d doesn't mean the original Christians did. Again, you can't use a later gentile interpretation to represent the original. Why don't we look at what the Ebionites and Nazarenes believed instead? Why must the majority do the representation as if their beliefs were true as opposed to what the minority says?

The King James Bible and a glance at an online concordance doesn't really give you an accurate rendering of verses, much less a real understanding of the ways that Biblical Hebrew works and uses its words.

Well feel free to get an online source that does.

Great. Well, if the Christians don't care if non-normative theologies and doctrines claim the label of Christianity, good on 'em, and have a blast with the label. But historically, Judaism has, indeed, cared when non-normative theologies and doctrines that cross the line of embracing foreign religious figures and teachings claim the label of Jewishness. Belief in Jesus as messiah, as god, as part of God, as anything more than just another unfortunate charismatic killed by the Romans thousands of years ago, is unacceptable under the label of "Jewish." I would never tell someone else what they may and may not believe, but I will say that to call that belief by the label Jewish is both incorrect and offensive.

[/quote]

Whether you find it offensive or not means little to me, but you should also be offended by Reform and Reconstructionists using the term "Jewish" as well. Considering I"m ethnically Jewish and I believe in following the Torah to the letter, I'm pressed to find another term. If it means anything to you, I do not like being associated with the Evangelical-style doctrines that most "Messianic Jews" are associated with, but I don't what else to call myself. If "Judaism" means "Rabbinicism", that's like the Catholics saying "Christianity means Catholicism". But you have your right to your opinion, but what do we call the beliefs of the Jews before the Rabbis and Talmudists?

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps that your bigotry is pathetic and disgusting.

So you're saying that because I mentioned Jewish views on Canaanites and Ammonites, it's MY bigotry? Explain in detail. Why don't you call Moses a pathetic and disgusting bigot while you're at it, he's the one who wrote that the Canaanites are a cursed race.

 

[JacobEzra.]

but what do we call the beliefs of the Jews before the Rabbis and Talmudists?

Historic Judaism.

You know, before Bayit Sheni fell. Though didn't Rabbi's appear before then?

 

[kai]

MOD POST
Lets stay on topic and refrain from argumentative posts.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you're saying that because I mentioned Jewish views on Canaanites and Ammonites, it's MY bigotry? Explain in detail. Why don't you call Moses a pathetic and disgusting bigot while you're at it, ...

Strange. I've studied Torah and I don't recall Moses talking about blood purity.

..., he's the one who wrote that the Canaanites are a cursed race.

I'm not surprised that you think so.

 

[not nom]

I'm not surprised that you think so.

wether moses or X wrote it is besides the point.. fact of the matter is, shermana didn't come up with it.

 

[D-MITCH777]

What makes someone Jewish? Is it the religion they practice, or their ancestry? If it's ancestry, how do we know which group of Jews are the true descendants of the Israelites.

 

[JacobEzra.]

What makes someone Jewish? Is it the religion they practice, or their ancestry? If it's ancestry, how do we know which group of Jews are the true descendants of the Israelites.

Must not be to hard considering plenty of people make Aliyah and to do so, must prove their Jewish ancestry.

 

[D-MITCH777]

Iv'e just found this site about Jewish Ancestry.
Jewish Genetics - DNA, genes, Jews, Ashkenazi(It's got nothing to do with Jews being Khazar converts)

Key findings:

The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.
Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples from the northern Mediterranean region and even less from Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern Europeans.
Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite peoples.
Georgian Jews (Gruzinim) are a mix of Georgians and Israelites.
Yemenite Jews (Temanim) are a mix of Yemenite Arabs and Israelites.
Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly Israelites.
Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with Berbers.
Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no Israelite ancestry.
Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry in their mtDNA.
Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Iv'e just found this site about Jewish Ancestry.

This is better, but what has any of this to do with the topic?

 

[D-MITCH777]

Nothing. it was about my previous question on what defines a Jew.

 

[Father Heathen]

actually "race" is not much more than a belief, either.. it's just labeling stuff as if that would make it so. I mean, belief at least has a chance to be correct (by dabbling with the untestable, woop-dee-doo).. but talking about races? the window of opportunity to get away with that is shrinking. all your race are belong to wikipedia; and good riddance, too.

And a social construction. The human genome shows no marker(s) for race. Combinations of genes give rise to common phenotypes, but that's all.

Of course "race" is just a socal construct, but it's based on physical characteristics. Physical characteristics don't dictate a person's beliefs, and vice versa. That's the point I'm getting at. Of course, any religion that actually does place an emphasis on "race" isn't worth taking seriously anyway.

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course "race" is just a socal construct, but it's based on physical characteristics.

Something I always ask people when they bring up "race":

What "race" is a 1/2 black 1/2 Chinese person? What race is Vietnamese? What race is 1/2 Vietnamese and 1/2 Native American. And I never get an answer!

Physical characteristics don't dictate a person's beliefs, and vice versa. That's the point I'm getting at. Of course, any religion that actually does place an emphasis on "race" isn't worth taking seriously anyway.

True, true, all true. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Judaism is more than theological belief. It is also peoplehood. It is both anshei mitzvah and am yisrael.

 

[not nom]

exactly..

fact of the matter is, shermana didn't come up with it.

..but good thing there are scapegoats huh.

 

[apophenia]

This thread is really about 'religion' vs 'spirituality'.
The word religion derives from the Latin 'religare', to bind together. In that sense religion is purely cultutral. This is Cynthia Cypher's position when she says "I find most of them insulting. Many of those who call themselves Messianic Jews haven't a shred on Jewish DNA in them, many of them are gentiles " . That is a clear statement that Cynthia regards Judaism as purely cultural, to the point of genetic.

Similarly in relation to Islam we often hear that women wear the veil for 'religious reasons'. That also clearly defines religion as a set of cultural norms, especially given that there is no requirement stated in the Quran for women to cover their faces.

In the last sutras of Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells Arjuna to renounce all forms of religion, and come directly to Him. This draws a very clear line between religion and spiritual experience.

It also perhaps explains why hindus are generally much more tolerant regarding religion, because Krishna has made it unambiguous that religion is not only merely cultural artifact, but actually a barrier to spiritual knowledge.

So really, this thread highlights the fact that religion is essentially cultural, and not at all the same thing as spiritual realisation.