Messianic Jews vs. Reality

[JacobEzra.]

So do you think all the women that Ezra forced the husbands to divorce simply refused to convert? Solomon is already discredited by the Tanakh itself. Where does David get with foreign women?

I think they had no idea what the Women did, and so gave'em the boot. Not to mention coming out of Exile and all. I think Ezra was just a bit stressed and overly dramatic though.

 

[Shermana]

Did Moses write the Torah? I thought it was given to him in full by God. I also herd he had to argue with the Angels to get it.

He scribed what he was straight told from Heaven, what you heard is probably some Midrash or something about him arguing with the Angels. The point of the comment though is that anyone who says my views are "insulting to Judaism" rejecting Rabbinical authority while themselves reject Mosaic authorship of the Torah has a bit of a conundrum going on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meanwhile its okay for you, who puts "Judaism" as your religion, to openly reject that Moses wrote/scribed the Torah.

Exactly. And to think that you as Messianinc Pseudo-Jew have the moral, ethical, or intellectual credibility to banish the reconstructionist, conservative, reform, and progressive movements from the ranks of Judaism is as laughable as it is obscene.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly. And to think that you as Messianinc Pseudo-Jew have the moral, ethical, or intellectual authority to banish the reconstructionist, conservative, reform, and progressive movements from the ranks of Judaism is as laughable as it is obscene.

So explain yourself, why are THEY and yourself allowed to reject Rabbinical authority, especially on such major issues? Why are they (and you) not "Pseudo-Jews" by your own standard?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Messianic Pseudo Jew?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So do you think all the women that Ezra forced the husbands to divorce simply refused to convert? Solomon is already discredited by the Tanakh itself. Where does David get with foreign women?

Or, for that matter, Boaz.

 

[Shermana]

Messianic Pseudo Jew?

What would "Pseudo-Jew" mean exactly? If someone who rejects Rabbinical authority is a Pseudo-Jew, where does that put the Reform Reconstructionist and Conservative (who reject a lot of their writings) such? Where is the line drawn in detail?

 

[JacobEzra.]

What would "Pseudo-Jew" mean exactly? If someone who rejects Rabbinical authority is a Pseudo-Jew, where does that put the Reform Reconstructionist and Conservative (who reject a lot of their writings) such? Where is the line drawn in detail?

I am not sure what a Pseudo-Jew would be. Though I am sure its suppose to be offensive, like the way "goy" is used.

 

[beenie]

**Mod Post**

Please refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic. It's fine to challenge ideas, but not to name-call or attack a person otherwise.​

1. Off-topic personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks are strictly prohibited either on the forums or by private messaging, frubal comments, signature lines and visitor messages. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling (Please note that these apply to PMs, signature lines, frubal comments, and visitor messages as well, if they are reported):
1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
2)posts that Target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

 

[TheKnight]

I have brought up the subject of what exactly the Messianic requirements are supposed to be and if they are supposed to be happening overnight or if there's a possibility they may be a series of unfolding events over a long time, no takers.

So then what exactly is your position (PM me). I'm interested in this.

If you believe that one cannot follow Torah without listening to Rabbinic opinion, that's your opinion (as well as Levite's and other Rabbinicists at that), a presumptive circular reasoning at that. I disagree. I could also say that one disobeys Torah by going with what Rabbis say.

I think, at most, you could prove that what some/many Rabbis have said is incorrect. That we disobey Torah by going with their opinions? I don't believe you could prove that. Say it yes, prove it no.

He scribed what he was straight told from Heaven, what you heard is probably some Midrash or something about him arguing with the Angels. The point of the comment though is that anyone who says my views are "insulting to Judaism" rejecting Rabbinical authority while themselves reject Mosaic authorship of the Torah has a bit of a conundrum going on.

Judaism is more concerned with practice than belief. While it is unfortunate that someone doesn't believe Moses wrote the Torah, it is between them and God. What is important to Judaism as a religion that is centered around community is practice. One needn't believe that Moses wrote the Torah to obey it.

If one rejects Rabbinic authority entirely, one's practice is sure to be vastly different than what is considered appropriate observance of Torah. Rejection of Rabbinic authority isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of practice.

Different, even contradictory, beliefs are commonplace in Judaism. Even different practices are commonplace. However, these differences in practice result within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism.

The Rabbis and the oral tradition are not some contiguous overlording body that seeks to control our behavior. The oral tradition is a compilation of the wisdom of those who came before us, who sought to practice Torah and who conveyed their wisdom on certain matters to their students via communally accepted and established framework for doing so. You're not just rejecting a particular practice, your rejecting the entire framework that the community has decided will govern how it determines legitimate practice.

Maybe, philosophically, the framework is incorrect. In fact, I think many would agree that the current Rabbinic system isn't ideal (I think many of us would prefer to see the temple standing with the Sanhedrin sitting therein). But practically speaking you shouldn't consider yourself part of a community based on practice when you reject what the community uses to determine legitimate practice.

 

[Levite]

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.

The notion that the parameters of identity for a group are defined by what the majority of that group so define is hardly controversial or surprising. To dismiss it as a "straw man" is merely denial.

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

They are struggling with the commandments, it is true. But at least they believe in one, indivisible God, and they consciously align themselves with Rabbinic Judaism, and not with Christianity.

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?

The parameters of halachah were in flux through much of the Tannaitic period, but the foundations of it, especially concerning identity, seem to have been set quite early. The Tzedokim (Saducees), Isim (Essenes), Hellenicized Jews, and Shomronim (Samaritans) were all considered heretics from the get-go. And Jewish Gnostics, who claimed Jewish observance, but syncretized their beliefs with a theology of two godheads, were considered outright apostates.

As for Rabbi Akiva, he considered that Bar Kokhba might be the mashiach when Bar Kokhba rose up against the Romans-- taking, by the way, Rabbis as his spiritual advisors, and rejecting heretics-- but when Bar Kokhba failed, Rabbi Akiva acknowledged that he had not, in fact, been the mashiach, because the mashiach will free our people from foreign subjugation and restore the House of David to the throne...which Bar Kokhba had not done.

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.

It does violate the Torah, in that it is forbidden worship; and with any movement, heretical or orthodox, the issue is not on whether each and every commandment is taught to be obeyed, but which commandments are violated. Most teachings which verge on heresy are given lattitude; some heresies are rejected but their practitioners are not put in cherem (excommunication); only those which lead to either assimilation with the non-Jewish community or avodah zarah (forbidden worship) are rejected utterly, without quarter.

Anything associated with Jesus is the product of non-Jews practicing avodah zarah. There is not a single extant document which is reliably able to be called an actual record of what Jesus the man truly said and taught. If there were, learning from it might be merely Jewish heresy, and not apostatic in nature. But since there is not, and all materials concerning Jesus and his teachings are the products of non-Jews and apostates, we reject everything associated with him. Not to mention, of course, that the Rabbis explicitly proscribe everything to do with Christianity, and thus its practice violates the Torah, as Oral Torah is just as much Torah as Written Torah.

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

The word is used all through the Tanakh in both senses, I don't have time to write out every verse here. And I have no idea what you mean by the statement about the classical Biblical commentators.

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.

I can and will when there is nothing of the original left, and the gentile texts and traditions are all that remain.

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?

If people want to believe in Jesus, fine. I would say that is Christianity, but if that's a label those people feel uncomfortable with, great. Let them call their beliefs whatever they like, so long as it is not Judaism. I may think that the idea of trying to revive dead quasi-religious cultures from two millennia ago like Ebionites and Nazarenes is silly, but I will not speak out against anyone claiming those names.

But you have your right to your opinion, but what do we call the beliefs of the Jews before the Rabbis and Talmudists?

"Ancient Israelite religion," is the usual phrase, I believe.

I wonder what Levite would say about one who denies Moses writing the Torah calling his religion "judaism".

Who did the physical authoring of the text is infinitely less important than whether one follows the mitzvot and accepts the covenant and respects the interpretive authority of the Rabbis.

I personally do not subscribe to the literal doctrine of Torah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (Torah given to Moses on Sinai): I think if there was a historical Moshe, he was one of many authors who were prophetically inspired. Whether there was one historical Moshe, and one revelation at Sinai, or there were many authors and several revelations, the point remains the same: the covenant of Torah.

Perhaps Levite can explain what this passage from the Talmud means, Baba Mezia 114b:4-5, this is not one of those fake verses from those anti-Jew sites, this is an actual verse that says "Only ye are men", in comparison of Jews to gentiles.

Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 114
" only ye are designated 'men'."

What's that all about? Is that a mistranslation? What's the meaning? Is this a misunderstanding of Ezekiel 34:31?

It is essentially a mistranslation. The Talmud is extremely terse, and sentences are often structured so that the clear grammatical and literary implications of the Rabbis are often left unwritten, with the meaning being clear through the context of the sugiya (pericope) as a whole; with the unfortunate result that one making a literal translation will not include them. But while the sugiya in Bava Metzia is oblique, there is a parallel sugiya in Yevamot 61a, which explains a bit better that the issue is not that ovdei avodah zarah (practitioners of forbidden worship) are literally not people, but that in practicing false worship, they are debasing themselves spiritually, becoming like animals in their practices. Ramban (Nachmanides) and a couple of other commentators clarify that in this case, the avodah zarah is polytheism; and the Meiri says that the passage refers only to Jews who practice avodah zarah, thus cutting themselves off from their people.

Considering that Ruth completely clashes with the ending of Ezra (strangely no one wants to discuss the ending of Ezra, multiple dodges on that one so far, strangely), there's no way of proving that Ruth is describing the true lineage of David except for.....Rabbinical tradition. Meanwhile, you have no problem denying that Moses wrote the Torah, but you'll assume Ruth should be indisputably canonical and considered true without question.

Ruth doesn't clash with the ending of Ezra. In Ezra, the men married non-Jewish women. Ruth converted. Her declaration of conversion is still considered the original model for all such declarations in Jewish law.

The book of Ruth has as much claim to canonical veracity as anything else in the Torah. And whether she was the literal, historical ancestress of David or not, the teaching point is still quite clear: she converted, and she is at least credited with being the ancestor of the messiah, and therefore we praise and support converts, and do not reject them.

Further, a religion proclaiming privelege ( literally 'private law') or any kind of superiority based on genetics is the very definition of racism.

That is not what chosenness mean. It does not mean we are better than non-Jews. It means that the covenant between God and Israel is unique. But that is not exclusive language. Presumably the relationships or covenants God may have with other nations are also unique. And just as those ways are for them and not for us, so our ways are for us and not for them.

 

[Shermana]

The notion that the parameters of identity for a group are defined by what the majority of that group so define is hardly controversial or surprising. To dismiss it as a "straw man" is merely denial.

What's "denial" here is when you say that because the majority says something that it suddenly became the case originally.

They are struggling with the commandments, it is true. But at least they believe in one, indivisible God, and they consciously align themselves with Rabbinic Judaism, and not with Christianity.

So if you deny the Trinity you also align yourself with Rabbinic Judaism by this logic. By the way, once again, I deny the Trinity, and the original 1st century Ebionites and Nazarenes had no idea about it. Not every Christian group believes in the Trinity. So I agree that Trinitarians deny the Oneness of the Most high god, but you can't group EVERY Christian in that. THAT would be denial if you did.

The parameters of halachah were in flux through much of the Tannaitic period, but the foundations of it, especially concerning identity, seem to have been set quite early. The Tzedokim (Saducees), Isim (Essenes), Hellenicized Jews, and Shomronim (Samaritans) were all considered heretics from the get-go. And Jewish Gnostics, who claimed Jewish observance, but syncretized their beliefs with a theology of two godheads, were considered outright apostates.

Considered heretics by who? The majority? What makes the Essenes heretics exactly? Why are today's Reform much different than the Hellenized Jews?

As for Rabbi Akiva, he considered that Bar Kokhba might be the mashiach when Bar Kokhba rose up against the Romans-- taking, by the way, Rabbis as his spiritual advisors, and rejecting heretics-- but when Bar Kokhba failed, Rabbi Akiva acknowledged that he had not, in fact, been the mashiach, because the mashiach will free our people from foreign subjugation and restore the House of David to the throne...which Bar Kokhba had not done.

Can you get a site that says Akiva agreed that Bar Kokhba was not the Moshiach? As for your idea that the Jews will be free from foreign subjugation....how does that not apply today? Last I checked Israel is pretty independent with perhaps some ATTEMPTS to influence it from abroad.

I

t does violate the Torah, in that it is forbidden worship;

Define forbidden worship in consideration of the Non-Trinitarian beliefs.

and with any movement, heretical or orthodox, the issue is not on whether each and every commandment is taught to be obeyed, but which commandments are violated.

So which teachings would a Nazarene be violating?

Most teachings which verge on heresy are given lattitude; some heresies are rejected but their practitioners are not put in cherem (excommunication); only those which lead to either assimilation with the non-Jewish community or avodah zarah (forbidden worship) are rejected utterly, without quarter.

So once again, what exactly is "Forbidden worship" and how would it apply to a non-Trinitarian? Where is the line drawn between which heresies are put one in Cherem in detail?

Anything associated with Jesus is the product of non-Jews practicing avodah zarah.

That's a false statement. Back it up.

There is not a single extant document which is reliably able to be called an actual record of what Jesus the man truly said and taught.

The same could be said for Moses by this logic. And Samuel. And Ezra. Are you prepared to put them to the same standard? Define "reliable".

If there were, learning from it might be merely Jewish heresy, and not apostatic in nature

Define your criteria of what would make the record reliable. I agree that the Gospels have been tampered with and are interpolated, but at what point do you toss out the whole thing as totally unreliable as if the later witnesses (like the author of Clement and Justin Martyr and such) with quotes aren't reliable either?

. But since there is not, and all materials concerning Jesus and his teachings are the products of non-Jews and apostates, we reject everything associated with him. Not to mention, of course, that the Rabbis explicitly proscribe everything to do with Christianity, and thus its practice violates the Torah, as Oral Torah is just as much Torah as Written Torah.

There is no proof that Matthew and Mark are entirely the product of non-Jews and most scholars agree that Matthew originally was a Jewish-Christian product, from "Gospel to the Hebrews", and that 1 John and James were written by Jews. Please back up your claim.

The word is used all through the Tanakh in both senses, I don't have time to write out every verse here. And I have no idea what you mean by the statement about the classical Biblical commentators.

So that's a refusal to back your claim with the excuse of "not enough time". You said that there were Classical Biblical Commentators who agreed that the "Worshipped the LORD and David" was a different use of the word "Worship".

If people want to believe in Jesus, fine. I would say that is Christianity, but if that's a label those people feel uncomfortable with, great. Let them call their beliefs whatever they like, so long as it is not Judaism. I may think that the idea of trying to revive dead quasi-religious cultures from two millennia ago like Ebionites and Nazarenes is silly, but I will not speak out against anyone claiming those names.

Okay, maybe I should change my religious title to "Nazarene".

"Ancient Israelite religion," is the usual phrase, I believe.

Maybe I should put "Messianic Ancient Israelite" instead.

Who did the physical authoring of the text is infinitely less important than whether one follows the mitzvot and accepts the covenant and respects the interpretive authority of the Rabbis.

There's a difference between following the commandments in the Scripture and following the Rabbinical commentary.

I personally do not subscribe to the literal doctrine of Torah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (Torah given to Moses on Sinai): I think if there was a historical Moshe, he was one of many authors who were prophetically inspired. Whether there was one historical Moshe, and one revelation at Sinai, or there were many authors and several revelations, the point remains the same: the covenant of Torah.

Even Yashua supposedly says that the Torah was scribed by Moshe. Is this standard Rabbinical opinion to deny that Moshe scribed it? If you don't believe Moshe scribed the Torah, on what basis do you give them inspiration exactly? Can you point to a Talmudic tractate that goes into detail of how to regard this?

It is essentially a mistranslation. The Talmud is extremely terse, and sentences are often structured so that the clear grammatical and literary implications of the Rabbis are often left unwritten, with the meaning being clear through the context of the sugiya (pericope) as a whole; with the unfortunate result that one making a literal translation will not include them. But while the sugiya in Bava Metzia is oblique, there is a parallel sugiya in Yevamot 61a, which explains a bit better that the issue is not that ovdei avodah zarah (practitioners of forbidden worship) are literally not people, but that in practicing false worship, they are debasing themselves spiritually, becoming like animals in their practices. Ramban (Nachmanides) and a couple of other commentators clarify that in this case, the avodah zarah is polytheism; and the Meiri says that the passage refers only to Jews who practice avodah zarah, thus cutting themselves off from their people.

That's one opinion, but I'd say the gist of the context says otherwise, since the Priest felt no problem with being in a gentile cemetary.

Ruth doesn't clash with the ending of Ezra. In Ezra, the men married non-Jewish women. Ruth converted. Her declaration of conversion is still considered the original model for all such declarations in Jewish law.

So NONE of the thousands of women in Ezra wanted to convert? There are numerous scholars who believe Ruth was written as a reaction to this, but I'll leave that for another issue.

The book of Ruth has as much claim to canonical veracity as anything else in the Torah.

I doubt that, considering it specifically says "Do not let your sons marry their daughters", but hey, we can ignore the parts of the Torah that clash right? There's nothing that implies that the wives of the men in Ezra REFUSED to convert.

And whether she was the literal, historical ancestress of David or not, the teaching point is still quite clear: she converted, and she is at least credited with being the ancestor of the messiah, and therefore we praise and support converts, and do not reject them.

So perhaps the Torah commandment should have said "Do not let your sons marry their daughters unless they convert".

That is not what chosenness mean. It does not mean we are better than non-Jews. It means that the covenant between God and Israel is unique. But that is not exclusive language. Presumably the relationships or covenants God may have with other nations are also unique. And just as those ways are for them and not for us, so our ways are for us and not for them.

[/quote]

We Israelites are....

Deuteronomy 14:2, "For you are a holy people to The LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."

And this...

Isaiah 40
15Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
they are regarded as dust on the scales;
he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

 

[JacobEzra.]

So, "Messianic Judaism" is offensive to orthodox (in the sense of rabbinic Judaism) Jews.

Is a Jew who believes in Christ, whether nontrinitarian or trinitarian, offensive?

 

[Levite]

So, "Messianic Judaism" is offensive to orthodox (in the sense of rabbinic Judaism) Jews.

Is a Jew who believes in Christ, whether nontrinitarian or trinitarian, offensive?

Yes, but not in the same way. I will ask anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who believes in Jesus not to call that Judaism, because it isn't.

But if they call it something else, I will keep silent about it, because I believe in tolerance, and I will not force anyone to try and believe and practice something other than what they feel motivated to do.

The truth is that Jews have a responsibility to be Jewish, and not anything else. Apostasy is a betrayal of the tradition, the covenant, our ancestors, and our descendants. It is offensive to me as a Jew, and I hope it would be equally offensive to any observant Jew.

Yet that doesn't mean I would go around giving people crap for their religious choices. We in the Jewish community can try to help everyone remain true to the covenant and feel good about that life; if some fail and apostasize, the only thing we can do is mourn the loss and make sure they know that it is never too late to come home. Anything more than that becomes compulsion and aggression, and is to be shunned.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Yes, but not in the same way. I will ask anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who believes in Jesus not to call that Judaism, because it isn't.

Understandable.

But if they call it something else, I will keep silent about it, because I believe in tolerance, and I will not force anyone to try and believe and practice something other than what they feel motivated to do.

The truth is that Jews have a responsibility to be Jewish, and not anything else. Apostasy is a betrayal of the tradition, the covenant, our ancestors, and our descendants. It is offensive to me as a Jew, and I hope it would be equally offensive to any observant Jew.

Yet that doesn't mean I would go around giving people crap for their religious choices. We in the Jewish community can try to help everyone remain true to the covenant and feel good about that life; if some fail and apostasize, the only thing we can do is mourn the loss and make sure they know that it is never too late to come home. Anything more than that becomes compulsion and aggression, and is to be shunned

Is it as offensive as an atheist and secular Jew? Or is the completely different?

Would you have advice for someone who is technically Jewish, but who's parent (or grandparents) committed apostasy?

\

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Considering that Ruth completely clashes with the ending of Ezra (strangely no one wants to discuss the ending of Ezra, multiple dodges on that one so far, strangely), there's no way of proving that Ruth is describing the true lineage of David except for.....Rabbinical tradition. Meanwhile, you have no problem denying that Moses wrote the Torah, but you'll assume Ruth should be indisputably canonical and considered true without question.

You know that Ruth is written, IN THE TANAKH, to be the grandmother of David, right?
And while you're writing people off(Ruth, David, Solomon), why not consider the validity of someone who claims descent through those? How about Yoshke? How valid is he if you will write off his ancestors as invalid due to "corruption of blood"?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Understandable.

Is it as offensive as an atheist and secular Jew? Or is the completely different?

Would you have advice for someone who is technically Jewish, but who's parent (or grandparents) committed apostasy?

\

One who is atheist or secular has not thrown aside Judaism for a "god your fathers did not worship, and a faith your fathers did not know", per se, so their actions are actually less offensive. The child of an apostate is generally encouraged to undergo conversion, at the least to remove question as to one's Jewishness, and to a greater degree, to give the person a solid background of Jewish thought.

 

[Shermana]

You know that Ruth is written, IN THE TANAKH, to be the grandmother of David, right?
And while you're writing people off(Ruth, David, Solomon), why not consider the validity of someone who claims descent through those? How about Yoshke? How valid is he if you will write off his ancestors as invalid due to "corruption of blood"?

That has nothing to do with its authenticity or the scholarly disputes about its origins. You don't need the book of Ruth for David to exist, all it is, is an account by an Anonymous author (some say Samuel) of who they think was his lineage. How valid is the entire line of Davidic kings if there's corruption of the blood? Either way, this does not square its total clash with the ending of Ezra, or the fact that the commandment specifically says to not let your sins marry their daughters.

 

[Levite]

Considered heretics by who? The majority? What makes the Essenes heretics exactly? Why are today's Reform much different than the Hellenized Jews?

Considered heretics by the Rabbis. They and their successors decide who is and is not heretical. As for the Reform movement, yes, part of the problems that halachic Judaism has with it are akin to the issues that were had long ago with the Hellenics. But at least the Reform leadership is working on the issues, and trying to arrive back at a place anchored in Rabbinic tradition, and not cut themselves off from the Oral Torah and its fruits.

Can you get a site that says Akiva agreed that Bar Kokhba was not the Moshiach?

Gittin 57a.

As for your idea that the Jews will be free from foreign subjugation....how does that not apply today? Last I checked Israel is pretty independent with perhaps some ATTEMPTS to influence it from abroad.

All Jews, everywhere; and that also includes throughout the ancient borders of the Land of Israel. Free of foreign subjugation and at peace with ourselves and the world.

Define forbidden worship in consideration of the Non-Trinitarian beliefs.
So which teachings would a Nazarene be violating?

Even for non-trinitarians, Jesus is still the prophet of a proscribed religion.

Where is the line drawn between which heresies are put one in Cherem in detail?

That is often discussed in halachic literature, and is usually up to the rabbis of the day; but all are clear that heresies that endanger the welfare and survival of the Jewish People are beyond the pale, including those which promote apostasy.

That's a false statement. Back it up. Define your criteria of what would make the record reliable. I agree that the Gospels have been tampered with and are interpolated, but at what point do you toss out the whole thing as totally unreliable as if the later witnesses (like the author of Clement and Justin Martyr and such) with quotes aren't reliable either?

There is nothing from the era of Jesus' life, written in Hebrew or Aramaic, recording his words without pretension to divinity, addressed only to Jews and not to non-Jews-- since it is unlikely in the utmost extreme that Jesus would have taught to non-Jews. If there were, as I said, it would still likely be heretical, but it might not be apostatic.

The same could be said for Moses by this logic. And Samuel. And Ezra. Are you prepared to put them to the same standard? Define "reliable".

The Torah had been canonized for 500 years by the time Jesus showed up. I don't need to defend its reliability: Ezra did that for us. Likewise, I need not defend the rest of the canon of the Tanakh. The entire rest of the Jewish People accept its reliability, beginning with the Rabbis of the Talmud. It is the texts of a heretical preacher, adopted into the canons of another religion, that must be subject to skepticism.

There is no proof that Matthew and Mark are entirely the product of non-Jews and most scholars agree that Matthew originally was a Jewish-Christian product, from "Gospel to the Hebrews", and that 1 John and James were written by Jews. Please back up your claim.

Unless a draft is found in which Jesus does not make pretensions to divinity, and does not teach Torah to non-Jews, accepting them as followers, and other such things no Jewish teacher of the time would have done, then even if the authors of the gospels were Jewish by birth, they were still apostates.

So that's a refusal to back your claim with the excuse of "not enough time".

Give me a break....

You said that there were Classical Biblical Commentators who agreed that the "Worshipped the LORD and David" was a different use of the word "Worship".

Yes. Plenty. Any copy of Mikraot Gedolot will get you some, and some can even be found in the Bar Ilan database. But I don't have time to translate: perhaps, like other serious scholars of the text and its commentaries, you might want to learn Hebrew and Aramaic to read them.

Okay, maybe I should change my religious title to "Nazarene".
Maybe I should put "Messianic Ancient Israelite" instead.

Either would do.

There's a difference between following the commandments in the Scripture and following the Rabbinical commentary.

No, there isn't. Torah is Torah. It includes the Written and the Oral Torahs both in one. They are indivisible, two halves of a whole.

Even Yashua supposedly says that the Torah was scribed by Moshe. Is this standard Rabbinical opinion to deny that Moshe scribed it? If you don't believe Moshe scribed the Torah, on what basis do you give them inspiration exactly? Can you point to a Talmudic tractate that goes into detail of how to regard this?

No, that's a modern opinion. I give them inspiration because they are clearly holy words. If you're looking for modern theology on this, I recommend reading Rabbi Elliot Dorff.

That's one opinion, but I'd say the gist of the context says otherwise, since the Priest felt no problem with being in a gentile cemetary.

You might want to actually read the commentaries, or at least the original text, before deciding what it means.

So NONE of the thousands of women in Ezra wanted to convert? ...There's nothing that implies that the wives of the men in Ezra REFUSED to convert....

It stands to reason: if they had converted, there would be no problem. It shouldn't be surprising: intermarriage is a problem today, too: apparently none of the thousands of women and men involved in those today want to convert, either. So clearly...it happens.

So perhaps the Torah commandment should have said "Do not let your sons marry their daughters unless they convert".

That is the implication of the verse, yes.

We Israelites are....

Deuteronomy 14:2, "For you are a holy people to The LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."

And this...

Isaiah 40:15
Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
they are regarded as dust on the scales;
he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

First of all, that is not what am segulah means in Deuteronomy. It means "a nation set apart [i.e., for a purpose]." And the verse in Isaiah has nothing to do with anything. It's part of a series of verses that proclaim God's uniqueness and supremacy: we are included in "the nations," lest we think we are His equal.

 

[Levite]

Is it as offensive as an atheist and secular Jew? Or is the completely different?

More so, because an atheist is not choosing another religion: he is simply under the erroneous presumption that there is no God at all. Hopefully, he will encounter the numinous at some point, and realize his error.

The secular Jew just needs education. I don't blame him for this: I blame his parents, who did not educate him adequately.

Both these cases are unfortunate, but ultimately, are mistakes. But the apostate is deliberate. Under halachah, secularism and atheism are considered chata'ei bi'sh'gagah (errors); but apostasy is oveir l'hach'is (a deliberate transgression done to spite the covenant).

Would you have advice for someone who is technically Jewish, but who's parent (or grandparents) committed apostasy?

If someone's parents were apostates, but their mother was technically Jewish, I would hope that they would consider ceasing to practice other religions and learning how to practice the way that is their true inheritance properly. If their grandparents were the apostates, I might recommend going through the legal forms of conversion, also, just to remove any doubt. But even if not, I would hope they would take up their inheritance.

They are not to blame for the mistakes or misdeeds of their progenitors.

If they didn't-- having, I suppose been brought up their whole lives believing they should do something else, should be something else-- I guess I would understand: it wouldn't offend me, like someone actually choosing apostasy. But it would probably make me sad.