Who Or What Is Israel?

[YoursTrue]

Brit milah ritualizes a reality. Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ in a singular birth that's the transcendental signifier concerning all genuine religious thought.



John

Play as some will, I'm getting confused, and... rightfully so. I think.

 

[YoursTrue]

Brit milah ritualizes a reality. Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ in a singular birth that's the transcendental signifier concerning all genuine religious thought.



John

So...which of the 613 laws says in order for a child to be considered a Jew he must have been born from a Jewish woman. @metis please also.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis thank you for your answer. After all, Abraham was supposed to be the forerunner. I had a brief conversation with a Muslim man today, he was helping me in a store and I asked him if he knew if the koran spoke about Moses. He is a very bright young man. I've met him before. He said he hadn't read the entire koran but was working on it. Then he said that it spoke of the Jews coming out of Egypt or something like that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Judaism includes more than just what's in the Tanakh, as Jewish commentary, such as what we read in the Talmud, is very important because not everything is spelled out in what you call the OT.

He has been told this MANY times. He's just not so good at listening.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis thank you for your answer. After all, Abraham was supposed to be the forerunner. I had a brief conversation with a Muslim man today, he was helping me in a store and I asked him if he knew if the koran spoke about Moses. He is a very bright young man. I've met him before. He said he hadn't read the entire koran but was working on it. Then he said that it spoke of the Jews coming out of Egypt or something like that.

So there is no law in the mosaic law that says to be a Jew depends on the mother's religion.

 

[Eli G]

Because the modern Jewish religion is very different from the Judaism practiced by God's ancient people, I (someone interested in worshiping the God of the Bible) have no interest in how they practice that modern religion.

To me it is exactly the same as saying that modern Christendom with all its sects has absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity that Jesus taught.

Therefore, both modern Judaism and modern Christendom do not bring anyone closer to the God who was worshiped in Israel and of whom Jesus was his Messiah and his Son.

PS: I hope no one is offended, but my interest is worshiping God with his current people, not in favoring religions that have deviated from their origins.

 

[YoursTrue]

So there is no law in the mosaic law that says to be a Jew depends on the mother's religion.

@metis - and of course dear @IndigoChild5559 if she's reading this:
from "my Jewish learning" website, some VERY VERY INTERESTING INFO. Now not everyone of course would agree with this, but there are some remarkable statements made here -- (By the way, my relative claims to be a Levitical priest, gets messages from beyond, and is living without marriage to his girlfriend of many years, lol)

Who Is a Jew: Matrilineal Descent | My Jewish Learning

Why is Judaism passed down through the mother?

www.myjewishlearning.com

 

[John D. Brey]

@metis - and of course dear @IndigoChild5559 if she's reading this:
from "my Jewish learning" website, some VERY VERY INTERESTING INFO. Now not everyone of course would agree with this, but there are some remarkable statements made here -- (By the way, my relative claims to be a Levitical priest, gets messages from beyond, and is living without marriage to his girlfriend of many years, lol)

Who Is a Jew: Matrilineal Descent | My Jewish Learning

Why is Judaism passed down through the mother?

www.myjewishlearning.com

Some people say that Judaism goes by matrilineal descent because we always know who a person’s mother is, and we don’t always know who a person’s father is. However, a person’s status as a priest, Levite, or Israelite is passed down from the father, and such distinctions were of utmost importance in biblical and Rabbinic times (and still, to a certain degree, today). If priesthood can be passed down via one’s father, why not Jewish identity?​

​

My Jewish Learning.​

As noted earlier in the thread, Judaism makes a profound distinction between a Jewish father's firstborn lanahalah לנחלה, versus a Jewish mother's firstborn ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן. The Hebrew word describing a father's firstborn ---- lanahalah לנחלה----- speaks literally of "inheritance of property," such that the Jewish father transfers temporal property to his sons (the firstborn getting a double portion of the father's tangible property), while, ironically, the Hebrew word describing the mother's firstborn ----ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן---- speaks, literally, of the "son of the priesthood," since "kohen" כהל is the word for priesthood. The mother's firstborn is a priest such that if the firstborn male has a Jewish mother he must be purchased out of the service to the temple-priesthood, which redemption from the priesthood is done symbolically/ritually even today by the ritual of pidyon haben פדיון הבן.

But why is the mother's firstborn related the the priesthood לכהן when the right to be a priest is inherited through the father? Shouldn't that make the father's firstborn the "son of the priesthood" ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן? Similarly odd, as noted in the essay quoted above (from My Jewish Learning), why, if the priesthood is inherited from the father, is Jewish identity inherited from the mother? If possessions and right to the priesthood are inherited from the father, then why wouldn't Jewish identity be inherited from the father too.

Naturally, the system revealed in the Jewish laws of inheritance separates earthly possessions, even the right to the priesthood, from Jewish identity, which (Jewish identity) is thus not reckoned an earthly possession that can be transferred by a father. This doesn't answer the question why only earthly possessions can be transferred by the father, while something not considered an earthly possession, Jewish identity, must be inherited from a mother alone?




John

 

[Elihoenai]

In my view, Israel includes all those who believe in the message of Abraham of one God but Israel is not defined by the descendant of Jacob or by the Genetic inheritance.

Deuteronomy 7:6

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.


I'm in Total Agreement. It's All About Total Obedience to the Message and Nothing to do with Genetic Inheritance. Elohim/God has made it this way, otherwise so-called Israel can be Atheists and Apostates. Elohim/God has Given an Incomparable Moral Standard that Defines and Produces Israel Separating from Gentiles.

 

[Elihoenai]

When you say Israel keeps all the commandments, exactly what are you referring to when you say Israel? Do you mean Jews? Or the nation of Israel? which is it?

Exodus 1:1-5

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,

3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin,

4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.


Jews/Judah are one of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Israel includes Jews/Judah and Judah/Jews is Israel.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people say that Judaism goes by matrilineal descent because we always know who a person’s mother is, and we don’t always know who a person’s father is. However, a person’s status as a priest, Levite, or Israelite is passed down from the father, and such distinctions were of utmost importance in biblical and Rabbinic times (and still, to a certain degree, today). If priesthood can be passed down via one’s father, why not Jewish identity?​

​

My Jewish Learning.​

As noted earlier in the thread, Judaism makes a profound distinction between a Jewish father's firstborn lanahalah לנחלה, versus a Jewish mother's firstborn ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן. The Hebrew word describing a father's firstborn ---- lanahalah לנחלה----- speaks literally of "inheritance of property," such that the Jewish father transfers temporal property to his sons (the firstborn getting a double portion of the father's tangible property), while, ironically, the Hebrew word describing the mother's firstborn ----ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן---- speaks, literally, of the "son of the priesthood," since "kohen" כהל is the word for priesthood. The mother's firstborn is a priest such that if the firstborn male has a Jewish mother he must be purchased out of the service to the temple-priesthood, which redemption from the priesthood is done symbolically/ritually even today by the ritual of pidyon haben פדיון הבן.

But why is the mother's firstborn related the the priesthood לכהן when the right to be a priest is inherited through the father? Shouldn't that make the father's firstborn the "son of the priesthood" ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן? Similarly odd, as noted in the essay quoted above (from My Jewish Learning), why, if the priesthood is inherited from the father, is Jewish identity inherited from the mother? If possessions and right to the priesthood are inherited from the father, then why wouldn't Jewish identity be inherited from the father too.

Naturally, the system revealed in the Jewish laws of inheritance separate earthly possessions, even the right to the priesthood, from Jewish identity, which (Jewish identity) is thus not reckoned an earthly possession that can be transferred by a father. This doesn't answer the question why only earthly possessions can be transferred by the father, while something not considered an earthly possession, Jewish identity, must be inherited from a mother alone?




John

Maybe I missed something but my relative says his father was of the priestly lineage. Therefore he claims also to be a priest. I don't think he even goes to synagogue or celebrates the Jewish holidays. Maybe that's ok, too. It's almost like anything goes. No proof other than word of mouth. Plus he is not the firstborn of his mother. Claims father was of that line. Naturally the records were (conveniently) destroyed I think when the temple was ransacked by the Romans in the first century.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 1:1-5

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,

3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin,

4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.


Jews/Judah are one of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Israel includes Jews/Judah and Judah/Jews is Israel.

And so? Maybe @metis can add something. Or @IndigoChild5559 even though she's not talking to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Deuteronomy 7:6

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.


I'm in Total Agreement. It's All About Total Obedience to the Message and Nothing to do with Genetic Inheritance. Elohim/God has made it this way, otherwise so-called Israel can be Atheists and Apostates. Elohim/God has Given an Incomparable Moral Standard that Defines and Produces Israel Separating from Gentiles.

What laws by the way? What's the message? Total obedience? So then not all called Jews are...

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people say that Judaism goes by matrilineal descent because we always know who a person’s mother is, and we don’t always know who a person’s father is. However, a person’s status as a priest, Levite, or Israelite is passed down from the father, and such distinctions were of utmost importance in biblical and Rabbinic times (and still, to a certain degree, today). If priesthood can be passed down via one’s father, why not Jewish identity?​

​

My Jewish Learning.​

As noted earlier in the thread, Judaism makes a profound distinction between a Jewish father's firstborn lanahalah לנחלה, versus a Jewish mother's firstborn ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן. The Hebrew word describing a father's firstborn ---- lanahalah לנחלה----- speaks literally of "inheritance of property," such that the Jewish father transfers temporal property to his sons (the firstborn getting a double portion of the father's tangible property), while, ironically, the Hebrew word describing the mother's firstborn ----ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן---- speaks, literally, of the "son of the priesthood," since "kohen" כהל is the word for priesthood. The mother's firstborn is a priest such that if the firstborn male has a Jewish mother he must be purchased out of the service to the temple-priesthood, which redemption from the priesthood is done symbolically/ritually even today by the ritual of pidyon haben פדיון הבן.

But why is the mother's firstborn related the the priesthood לכהן when the right to be a priest is inherited through the father? Shouldn't that make the father's firstborn the "son of the priesthood" ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן? Similarly odd, as noted in the essay quoted above (from My Jewish Learning), why, if the priesthood is inherited from the father, is Jewish identity inherited from the mother? If possessions and right to the priesthood are inherited from the father, then why wouldn't Jewish identity be inherited from the father too.

Naturally, the system revealed in the Jewish laws of inheritance separate earthly possessions, even the right to the priesthood, from Jewish identity, which (Jewish identity) is thus not reckoned an earthly possession that can be transferred by a father. This doesn't answer the question why only earthly possessions can be transferred by the father, while something not considered an earthly possession, Jewish identity, must be inherited from a mother alone?




John

Since Mary's virginity or moral character was called into question, it makes sense that God spoke to Joseph in a dream. Yet Joseph loved her anyway and didn't want to hurt her. Kind man.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 1:1-5

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,

3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin,

4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.


Jews/Judah are one of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Israel includes Jews/Judah and Judah/Jews is Israel.

Are you saying the tribes other than those from Judah were not Jews?

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people say that Judaism goes by matrilineal descent because we always know who a person’s mother is, and we don’t always know who a person’s father is. However, a person’s status as a priest, Levite, or Israelite is passed down from the father, and such distinctions were of utmost importance in biblical and Rabbinic times (and still, to a certain degree, today). If priesthood can be passed down via one’s father, why not Jewish identity?​

​

My Jewish Learning.​

As noted earlier in the thread, Judaism makes a profound distinction between a Jewish father's firstborn lanahalah לנחלה, versus a Jewish mother's firstborn ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן. The Hebrew word describing a father's firstborn ---- lanahalah לנחלה----- speaks literally of "inheritance of property," such that the Jewish father transfers temporal property to his sons (the firstborn getting a double portion of the father's tangible property), while, ironically, the Hebrew word describing the mother's firstborn ----ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן---- speaks, literally, of the "son of the priesthood," since "kohen" כהל is the word for priesthood. The mother's firstborn is a priest such that if the firstborn male has a Jewish mother he must be purchased out of the service to the temple-priesthood, which redemption from the priesthood is done symbolically/ritually even today by the ritual of pidyon haben פדיון הבן.

But why is the mother's firstborn related the the priesthood לכהן when the right to be a priest is inherited through the father? Shouldn't that make the father's firstborn the "son of the priesthood" ben lakohen ב׳ לכהן? Similarly odd, as noted in the essay quoted above (from My Jewish Learning), why, if the priesthood is inherited from the father, is Jewish identity inherited from the mother? If possessions and right to the priesthood are inherited from the father, then why wouldn't Jewish identity be inherited from the father too.

Naturally, the system revealed in the Jewish laws of inheritance separate earthly possessions, even the right to the priesthood, from Jewish identity, which (Jewish identity) is thus not reckoned an earthly possession that can be transferred by a father. This doesn't answer the question why only earthly possessions can be transferred by the father, while something not considered an earthly possession, Jewish identity, must be inherited from a mother alone?




John

As far as your last sentence, true. Which does bring to mind the incident with Isaac and Esau. Poor Esau mourned his loss and Rebecca knew which brother truly deserved the birthright even though she personally couldn't transfer it. Very very interesting account at Genesis 27. I'm going over it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Because the modern Jewish religion is very different from the Judaism practiced by God's ancient people, I (someone interested in worshiping the God of the Bible) have no interest in how they practice that modern religion.

To me it is exactly the same as saying that modern Christendom with all its sects has absolutely nothing to do with the Christianity that Jesus taught.

Therefore, both modern Judaism and modern Christendom do not bring anyone closer to the God who was worshiped in Israel and of whom Jesus was his Messiah and his Son.

PS: I hope no one is offended, but my interest is worshiping God with his current people, not in favoring religions that have deviated from their origins.

I do understand and appreciate your point. However, I think the significance you are giving it is unreasonable. All religions evolve. All of them. You cannot stop this from happening. This is because the world changes, cultures change. New problems arise that have to be considered.

For example, Judaism has had to adjust for the absence of the temple twice now, first with the destruction of Solomon's temple by the Babylonians, and then again after the Roman's destroyed the second temple. Unless you want to insist that Daniel was not practicing the faith of his fathers in Babylon, you have no case.

If you think you are practicing the religion of the first Christians, think again. The believers in Jerusalem, all of them Jews, continued to make sacrifices at the temple. There is no temple today, so you are out of luck.

 

[metis]

I completely reject your premise. I don't believe genuine faith is established by its adherents so much as they're moved, by faith and revelation, to accept absolute categories that non-believers tend to trivialize and relativize by believing there are no absolutes.

IMO, that's not logical or scriptural as Judaism and Christianity evolved even during biblical times and ever since. Jesus' revelations did not take place all at once, especially when we consider Paul's concepts that permeate much of the NT.

 

[metis]

Brit milah ritualizes a reality.

I know as it was done to me when I was around 50.

Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ in a singular conception/birth that's the transcendental signifier concerning all genuine religious thought.

No, it simply does not "eliminate the organ". Nor does it involve "removing a slice" if one was circumcised previously-- it's a prick.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Brit milah ritualizes a reality. Removing a slice, and some blood, is a "sign" אות of the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination of that organ

Nonsense. The removal of the foreskin does not mean the "actual," absolute, utter, elimination" of the penis. You get the prize this morning for the silliest remark.