Doug Shaver

And therefore, someone who speaks no English and is ignorant of British history might be just as qualified as any of us to explain what Shakespeare meant? I don't think so.

I am no Shakespearean scholar. Nobody would be well advised to trust anything I say about the meaning of Richard III. But they would be very well advised to suppose that I would be a better source than a Chinese peasant who knew no English and nothing about the history of the British monarchy.

The average Christian trying to interpret the Jewish scriptures is like that Chinese peasant. Anything that any Jew has to say on the subject would be more authoritative.

angelo

''yeah, I learned that from Monty Python.''

And where did Monty get it from?

Doug Shaver

Assuming that there were any traditions at all, there were at least oral traditions. I've never seen it suggested that any written tradition ever existed before there was an oral tradition.

He seems to be. I think it unlikely that he would call them memoirs otherwise.

sschlichter

perhaps it is a matter of degrees removed from the source. I would suggest that worldview (such as that of a non-theist) might also effect ones understanding.

since Jews differ on the subject, which Jews (liberal, moderate, orthodox, messianic, atheist) are you suggesting are least removed and how do you gauge?

~Steve

Doug Shaver

That certainly has to be taken into account. And in many relevant respects, modern-day Jews and Christians are about equally removed from the culture in which the Jewish scriptures were written.

But continuity matters, too. Sometime in the late first or early second century, Christians in effect repudiated their Jewish roots. Of course they said they were not doing that, but such a claim just wasn't consistent with everything else they were saying then and have been saying ever since then.

Sure. But . . . .

Two people are reading Richard III. One has the worldview of modern China, which historically has had only sporadic and peripheral contact with England. Another has the worldview of modern America, which is a direct historical descendant of Elizabethan England. Which one is more likely to correctly understand what Shakespeare was writing about?

Two people are reading Isaiah. One has the worldview of Christianity, which historically has persecuted the religion embraced by that document's author. The other embraces some version of modern Judaism, a religion that has descended, directly and continuously, from the author's religion. Which one is more likely to correctly understand what that author was writing about?

For all their other differences, Jews do not differ on whether the New Testament writers told the truth every time they said, "Jesus did X, and the prophet Y foretold that he would do it." The only exception I'm aware of would be the sect called Jews for Jesus, but I don't consider it a Jewish sect. I consider it a Christian sect whose members all happen to be converts from Judaism.

sschlichter

Jews for Jesus is a christian organization comprised mostly (I imagine) of Jews. I am not sure sect is a good characterization. they are no less Christian than the Pope and no less jewish because of it. It sounds like you are saying that Jews carry the most weight in interpretation of Scripture until they accept Christ as the fulfillment of that Scripture at which point their unique perspective is lost. Why would that be? They remain Jewish. Christianity has no nationality. Being Christian does not keep me from being German. Why would it keep a Jew from being as Jewish as he was before Christ.

How is it that orthodox, traditional, and secular Jews all have such varied views if they are not removed from their Jewish roots. 2 out of 3 of them must be farther removed from those roots than the others. Is it farther than Palestinian Christians of today? Is it farther from Catholics in America? You cannot measure it.

~Steve

James Brown

Just some interesting links I found researching Jews for Jesus:

Used for Jesus otherwise known as Ex-Jews for Jesus:
I find it very curious that there are support groups for former Jews for Jesus staff.

Outreach Judaism, a site that represents an international organization that responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults, by exploring Judaism in contradistinction to fundamentalist Christianity.

(Cults like Jews for Jesus, based on several articles on their website.)

Why Jews do not believe in Jesus

sschlichter

Why would you find that curious? Think of any group and google it with an ex in front of it. ex-atheist for example. I am assuming it has the report of some disgruntled ex-atheist forum moderator who feels he or she was mis-treated. However, I am not going to bother reading it because it is irrelevant to me.

~Steve

ChristMyth

Maybe you should start reading the websites before you post links to them, Steve. Otherwise, your just embarrassing yourself even more than you already have.

Christmyth

Doug Shaver

Every subdivision of Christianity is a sect as far as I'm concerned -- Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, whatever -- but I should have remembered that as far as most of you are concerned, it's not a sect as long as it doesn't teach any heresy.

Yep. Now tell me what is erroneous about that reasoning.

I did a brief search trying to find out how many members Jews for Jesus claims. The best guess I could come up with was a few thousand. Let's assume 5,000 is a decent ballpark figure. Then let's revise it to 15,000 for the sake of both generosity and easy calculation. There are perhaps 15 million Jews worldwide. So, one out of a thousand Jews -- a tenth of 1 percent -- belongs to Jews for Jesus. Why should I or anyone else believe that of all the Jews in the world, only 0.01 percent correctly understand their scriptures?

Yes, I know, sometimes the minority, even a tiny minority, is right. But I need a logical reason to believe that the majority has made a big mistake. In this case, there is no reason for believing that, other than circular arguments presupposing the truth of Christianity.

The word Jew has a variety of definitions. In this context, I am defining a Jew as someone who practices, or at least believes in, the religion known as Judaism.

However, since I have long insisted that a Christian is anyone who calls themself a Christian, I probably should concede that if Jews for Jesus call themselves Jews, then they are Jews. But I will also note that many non-Christian Jews call them apostates. With, it seems to me, good reason.

I didn't say they are not removed. I said Christians are farther removed.

No. It has noting to do with geography and everything to do with history.

I can't put it number on it, but I can measure it better than you can deny it.