Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 12-09-2003, 06:15 PM

I use to tease a Jewish friend who insisted there is only "one" Jewish religion. "What about 'Conservative,' and 'Reformed?'" She claimed they were just "interpretations." At least she never claimed that her brand was "true" and everyone else was not Jewish. She did note that some Orthodox rabbis stated you were not a converted Jew if you had not been converted by an Orthodox rabbi . . . or something like that.

As for "Jews for Jesus" she would get particularly angry, "THEY ARE NOT JEWS!!"

So I investigated a bit . . . and . . . indeed . . . the ones passing out the pamphlets where girls from the Christian Fellowship.

Anyways, one can call himself whatever he wants and proclaim it "truth." It does not make it so.

--J.D.

Apikorus · 12-09-2003, 07:07 PM

Many Jewish authorities would say that worship of a man-god is idolatry, hence Jesus worship is contrary to the core theology of Judaism. It is avodah zarah, in rabbinic parlance. Also the notion that any later text could supersede - or even be considered on a par with - the Torah is extremely problematic, to say the least.

As far as Christianity disallowing the worship of other gods, I suppose this depends on what one calls "Christianity". If being a Christian is merely to follow in a way some of the alleged teachings of Jesus as described in the New Testament (or perhaps other noncanonical texts, as was the case with various early Christian groups), then accepting other deities may be completely consistent with such a life of devotion to Jesus. Can you explain whether or not Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians? They identify themselves as such, and they regard the New Testament as "scripture".

Halakhically one's Jewishness is simply determined by whether one's mother was a Jew, or whether one converted according to a recognized rabbinic authority. One can, therefore, be an atheist Jew, a Christian Jew, a Buddhist Jew, a socialist Jew, a homosexual Jew, or even (shudder) a neoconservative Jew. One should not confuse Jewishness with the practice of Judaism.

sharon45 · 12-09-2003, 09:06 PM

A accepted Jew is anyone who is either born from a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism. A Jew does not have to believe in G-d, a Jew does not have to follow Judaism.

A Jew that accepts another religion other than Judaism, gives up being considered a Jew.

Christianity is a false belief using the beliefs of an accepted belief. Jesus is clearly not G-d, not a real son of G-d, and not accepted by G-d. This is all clear enough when all of the NT is studied, one does not even have find corrections using either the OT or Tanach. The NT itself is its own undoing, does not matter if there are around 2 billion believers or not.

No one needs to walk christians through the problems with the NT, because they will not listen, they are blinded by what was used earlier, "fear and greed". You can try as you like debating with christians, that is your choice, and I really respect that, have fun, but be very prepared for finding yourself either going in circles, or feeling like you are only talking to yourself.

the_cave · 12-09-2003, 09:07 PM

I'm not sure why, but somehow I feel compelled to get involved in this debate:

Quote:

Originally posted by Opera Nut
3) The Hebrew word �HaMashiach� (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible.
....
The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance.

Well...gee, if the Messiah isn't even in the Bible, what does it matter that his return isn't mentioned either???

Quote:

According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21). The Gospel of Luke 1:17 tries to get around this problem by claiming that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. However...Malachi predicted that Elijah himself would return, and not just someone coming in his spirit...When asked about his identity, John the Baptist didn�t claim to have come in the spirit of Elijah - he claimed no association with Elijah at all...The prophesy about the return of Elijah says that he would restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. There is no evidence that John the Baptist accomplished this.

I don't see why this can't refer to the Second Coming (and why would the predicion of the Second Coming be any more "desperate" that the prediction of the Messiah in the first place?) For that matter, many modern theologians lean towards a perpetual, spiritual return of Christ, so that the prophecies aren't mean to be understood in a literal sense. I'll get back to that notion in my final comment.

Quote:

There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph�s genealogy, not Mary�s.

You're right. It's a complete assumption based on tradition. I grant you that.

Quote:

Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn�t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

What about the instances where daughters inherited from their fathers? Or even where adopted sons inherited from their adoptive fathers?

As for Numbers 23:17, there are different ways to interpret it. For one thing, perhaps God in this context refers to God the Father. Perhaps it only refers to men who don't also happen to be incarnations of God. Perhaps it only refers to men with original sin (I'm passing over the different ways that Judaism interprets original sin.) And so on and so forth.

Look, all I'm really saying is, if Reform Jews can dispense with a literal following of the Torah, why can't Christianity?

Soul Invictus · 12-09-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Opera Nut
That seems to be right. I think he's the senior or emeritus rabbi. That sermon's not on their website anymore.

How'd you know him?

I'm cool like that.

No seriously, I just did a little due diligence. I'm kind of like a data miner. When there's something I want, I usually will find it, or know someone who can. Based on the info you gave me, I did a google, got their webpage, and cc'ed the four or five rabbis that had emails listed on the site.

I commenced to cut/paste and your synopsis of the sermon and I reworded it a bit, and asked if they could point me in the right direction.

I'm assuming one of them forwarded my request to him, because he said he'd send it to me in the mail! He says that he'd mail to me the College Letters he sends to their college students. So it's on its way!

Not bad huh?

Opera Nut · 12-09-2003, 10:06 PM

Excellent, Soul!

I'm impressed, and I'm glad you contacted them. They have a pretty good website.

BTW, I am not a member of that congregation, or any Jewish congregation. I've been there a few times and was impressed by the quality of their cantor and music.

Why, you may ask? Well, I'm not Jewish, but I probably should be, if I was going to be a theist. I have hung out with Jews a lot in the past, my first husband in the "starter marriage" was a Jew, and I admire their pursuit of scholarship and excellence in many fields. In fact, I came within an inch of converting a couple of times.

Religion was not the problem in the marraige, but his parents tried their best to make it a problem. I was not a Christian either and could NOT convince them of that!! Anyway, it was over soon and I moved on.

As I said, if you are going to take any part of the Bible seriously, IMHO, you can only take the Pentateuch seriously and you must throw out what contradicts it which comes later -- like Christianity. Although raised as a lax Protestant (what mom called a backsliding Presbyterian), I have always had insurmountable problems with Christianity, that didn't get any easier when I confronted them and tried to understand Christianity.

I tend to be interested in Judaism, Buddhism & Hinduism.

Too much info, probably....

sharon45 · 12-09-2003, 11:08 PM

Sorry, but I'm sitting this thread out, have fun

Kilgore Trout · 12-10-2003, 08:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by theophilus

Quote:

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout
First of all Paul claims he is an apostle of Christ so that proves nothing. The only "evidence" that Paul has any authority is he claims to have had a vision and that vision claimed to be Jesus. Anybody can say that. So what I said about Paul having no proof that he's not a false prophet stands.

"First of all, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hoseah, Joel, Amos, etc. claimed that they were prophets of YHWH so that proves nothing. The only "evidence" that they have any authority is they claim to have had visions and those visions claimed to be YHWH. Anybody can say that. So, what I said about them having no proof that they're not false prophets stands."

and your point is???????

Since I am an atheist, I already know that those prophets didn't talk to god. I base my arguments on the idea that the NT would be obviously false if the OT was false. Jesus claims the entire law is true forever, so in order to prove the NT false I assume the OT is true as a sort of "devils advocate" approach.

Your argument doesn't work because if the OT prophets are invalid then the NT is automatically invalid because the NT relies on them for it's authenticity. If Isaiah is a false prophet, then so is jesus, because jesus claims he is the servant written about in Isaiah. The NT quotes most, if not all of the major prophets so they would look pretty stupid quoting false prophets. At least the OT prophets stayed within the boundaries of the Torah. Paul, with his radical ant-law ideas would have to provide great evidence that he is a "true" prophet, but he doesn't.

Theophilus, after I quoted a threatening line from Hebrews you said that was a bizarre argument and proceeded to quote lots of fire-and-brimstone lines form the OT. I already know the whole bible is based on fear. That is one of the many reasons I'm an atheist. Christians think the OT is written by god as well as the NT, so telling me the OT has lots of "fear" in it just adds to my argument that christianity is based on a long tradition of using fear as an argument.

I said:

Quote:

The book of Hebrews claims "the blood of bulls can never take away sins." So it is calling god a liar. The Torah is full of instructions for sin offerings. All the offerings required in the Torah are very specific and NO deviance from the rules is tolerated by god. That's why Hebrews 9:13-14 is completely wrong when it claims to the effect that since the blood of bulls and goats make good sacrifices, imagine what a great sacrifice the blood of Jesus makes. If god says in the Torah he wants a goat or a bull for a sacrifice thats all he wants. A god-man or whatever you think Jesus is, is not a "better" sacrifice. He is an illegal sacrifice. When you find the part of the Torah that says a god/man would make a cool sacrifice be sure to show it to me.

Theophilus said

Quote:

I'm a little curious about your insistence on the enduring command for animal sacrifices. When was the last time you (or you Rabbi) offered any of the prescribed sacrifices?

You are right. they can't do animal sacrifices anymore. I believe that sharon45 explained already that they don't need to. Anytime there is no temple they are considered in exile. Even if you could argue that they still "need" to do sacrifices, that is not relevant to the issue. The whole point is that if you perform a sacrifice it better agree with the laws that they have in the Torah. Just because they can't do sacrifices now, that is no excuse to claim jesus is a valid sacrifice. It's a very weak argument suggesting the Jews should worship jesus, who they know is a false prophet, just because they can't perform sacrifices. Also as Sharon45 pointed out, sacrifices are only for unintentional sins so jesus doesn't work for their purposes anyway.

If you are going to claim that somehow the law is no longer valid due to a certain sacrifice then that sacrifice better be valid under the law, and jesus was not.

Angrillori · 12-10-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I get that incessantly on this board. Despite being born a Jew under the blood line of Abraham, being circumsized under the convenant of God, studying the Torah and Hebrew since I was five, participating in all the feasts and holidays, I'm not a Jew because I believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Irritates me to no end, but ignorance and hate is abundant I guess.

Me too. I mean sheesh, despite being born a Catholic, baptized into the Catholic faith, studying the bible and Catholic doctrine since I was five, participating in all the holy days of obligation, and being confirmed, I'm not a Catholic because I don't believe in god or jesus. Irritates me to no end, but ignorance and hate is abundant I guess.

Errrr.....wait a minute. I guess I was a Catholic, but now believe something different, so now I'm not a Catholic. I guess the people calling me an atheist didn't hate me at all! Nor were they ignorant! They were just......drumroll......telling the truth!

On another note, wasn't it in 1895 that the Niagara Convention spelled out what it meant to be a fundamentalist xian? They defined it with 5 points, since 'Fundamentalist' as a label was just being invented.

I have the list in a book at home, I'll post ASAP!

theophilus · 12-10-2003, 10:13 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Angrillori
Me too. I mean sheesh, despite being born a Catholic, baptized into the Catholic faith, studying the bible and Catholic doctrine since I was five, participating in all the holy days of obligation, and being confirmed, I'm not a Catholic because I don't believe in god or jesus. Irritates me to no end, but ignorance and hate is abundant I guess.

As my wife used to say to our kids, "cute, but not appropriate."

Your status as an atheist did not flow out of your Catholocism (except perhapns in a negative way). A Jew, OTOH, who accepts Christ (or any Messiah) is expressing a fundamental element of Jewish belief.

On another note, wasn't it in 1895 that the Niagara Convention spelled out what it meant to be a fundamentalist xian? They defined it with 5 points, since 'Fundamentalist' as a label was just being invented.

I have the list in a book at home, I'll post ASAP!

The term Fundamentalist has taken on a completely direction, i.e., extremeism tinged with violence. Thus Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists are classed together. Never mind that violence comprises no part of Christian theology while it does for Islam.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2003, 06:15 PM	#81
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I use to tease a Jewish friend who insisted there is only "one" Jewish religion. "What about 'Conservative,' and 'Reformed?'" She claimed they were just "interpretations." At least she never claimed that her brand was "true" and everyone else was not Jewish. She did note that some Orthodox rabbis stated you were not a converted Jew if you had not been converted by an Orthodox rabbi . . . or something like that. As for "Jews for Jesus" she would get particularly angry, "THEY ARE NOT JEWS!!" So I investigated a bit . . . and . . . indeed . . . the ones passing out the pamphlets where girls from the Christian Fellowship. Anyways, one can call himself whatever he wants and proclaim it "truth." It does not make it so. --J.D.

12-09-2003, 07:07 PM	#82
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Many Jewish authorities would say that worship of a man-god is idolatry, hence Jesus worship is contrary to the core theology of Judaism. It is avodah zarah, in rabbinic parlance. Also the notion that any later text could supersede - or even be considered on a par with - the Torah is extremely problematic, to say the least. As far as Christianity disallowing the worship of other gods, I suppose this depends on what one calls "Christianity". If being a Christian is merely to follow in a way some of the alleged teachings of Jesus as described in the New Testament (or perhaps other noncanonical texts, as was the case with various early Christian groups), then accepting other deities may be completely consistent with such a life of devotion to Jesus. Can you explain whether or not Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians? They identify themselves as such, and they regard the New Testament as "scripture". Halakhically one's Jewishness is simply determined by whether one's mother was a Jew, or whether one converted according to a recognized rabbinic authority. One can, therefore, be an atheist Jew, a Christian Jew, a Buddhist Jew, a socialist Jew, a homosexual Jew, or even (shudder) a neoconservative Jew. One should not confuse Jewishness with the practice of Judaism.

12-09-2003, 09:06 PM	#83
sharon45 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southwest, US Posts: 8,759	A accepted Jew is anyone who is either born from a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism. A Jew does not have to believe in G-d, a Jew does not have to follow Judaism. A Jew that accepts another religion other than Judaism, gives up being considered a Jew. Christianity is a false belief using the beliefs of an accepted belief. Jesus is clearly not G-d, not a real son of G-d, and not accepted by G-d. This is all clear enough when all of the NT is studied, one does not even have find corrections using either the OT or Tanach. The NT itself is its own undoing, does not matter if there are around 2 billion believers or not. No one needs to walk christians through the problems with the NT, because they will not listen, they are blinded by what was used earlier, "fear and greed". You can try as you like debating with christians, that is your choice, and I really respect that, have fun, but be very prepared for finding yourself either going in circles, or feeling like you are only talking to yourself.

12-09-2003, 10:06 PM	#86
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	Excellent, Soul! I'm impressed, and I'm glad you contacted them. They have a pretty good website. BTW, I am not a member of that congregation, or any Jewish congregation. I've been there a few times and was impressed by the quality of their cantor and music. Why, you may ask? Well, I'm not Jewish, but I probably should be, if I was going to be a theist. I have hung out with Jews a lot in the past, my first husband in the "starter marriage" was a Jew, and I admire their pursuit of scholarship and excellence in many fields. In fact, I came within an inch of converting a couple of times. Religion was not the problem in the marraige, but his parents tried their best to make it a problem. I was not a Christian either and could NOT convince them of that!! Anyway, it was over soon and I moved on. As I said, if you are going to take any part of the Bible seriously, IMHO, you can only take the Pentateuch seriously and you must throw out what contradicts it which comes later -- like Christianity. Although raised as a lax Protestant (what mom called a backsliding Presbyterian), I have always had insurmountable problems with Christianity, that didn't get any easier when I confronted them and tried to understand Christianity. I tend to be interested in Judaism, Buddhism & Hinduism. Too much info, probably....

12-09-2003, 11:08 PM	#87
sharon45 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southwest, US Posts: 8,759	Sorry, but I'm sitting this thread out, have fun

12-10-2003, 10:13 AM	#90
theophilus Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,945	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Angrillori Me too. I mean sheesh, despite being born a Catholic, baptized into the Catholic faith, studying the bible and Catholic doctrine since I was five, participating in all the holy days of obligation, and being confirmed, I'm not a Catholic because I don't believe in god or jesus. Irritates me to no end, but ignorance and hate is abundant I guess. As my wife used to say to our kids, "cute, but not appropriate." Your status as an atheist did not flow out of your Catholocism (except perhapns in a negative way). A Jew, OTOH, who accepts Christ (or any Messiah) is expressing a fundamental element of Jewish belief. On another note, wasn't it in 1895 that the Niagara Convention spelled out what it meant to be a fundamentalist xian? They defined it with 5 points, since 'Fundamentalist' as a label was just being invented. I have the list in a book at home, I'll post ASAP! The term Fundamentalist has taken on a completely direction, i.e., extremeism tinged with violence. Thus Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists are classed together. Never mind that violence comprises no part of Christian theology while it does for Islam.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.