This is one of the most difficult things for Christians to understand as in their world religious affiliation is about belief.  Judaism involves belief, but is not necessarily defined by it, nor are Jews. A central aspect of Judaism, like Zen Buddhism, is practice, hence the question many Jews will ask is, "Is he (or she) "Observant".  The degree of "observance" tends more to define the "type" of Jew we are talking about, but not the fact that he or she is a Jew.  It is common to have Jews today who are completely non-observant and non-affiliated who are considered Jews both by themselves and others.

Be well.

Lula, If we were to anthropomorphize, I suppose He would be unhappy, but belief is not a part of the covenant. Moreover, God does not define Israel, Israel defines Israel and Israel enters into the covenant with God.  

Leauki posts: #714


Leauki posts:



Can we agree that the term Jew was unknown in the days of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses?

Can we agree that it came into use as a "nickname" about the time of the captivity of the Ten Tribes in the 6th century before Christ? That it is here when Jew designated being a member of the tribe of Judah being later identified with Mosaic religious belief.

According to Jewish law Jew signified a person who believes in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, even though he's not as faithful to its mandates as he should be. THis would be in accordance with Numbers 15:30, which says that any soul born of Israel, or a "stranger" (proselyte) who violates the Law through pride, who is unrepentant, "shall be cut off from among his people". The religous ban called "cherem" caused Jews to be cursed, punished, isolated from the community for transgressions that are unrepented. In other words, they ceased to be Jews.

It seems to me Orthodox Jews would agree with this.

Leauki posts:

To be a Jew according to Jewish law meant to be not only a member of the tribe of Judah but also be identified with the Mosaic religious belief.

So, therefore if a Jew stops believing in God, let alone stops keep the Mosaic religious belief, how can they rightfully still be considered a Jew?




I'm not confused any longer. What I've come to learn is that a Jew is a person who calls himself a Jew.

However your statement that modern Jewry identifies as a nation as did ancient Jewry, and that "when a Jew stops believing, he will still be a Jew (a child of Israel)" is still very baffling. My question (rhetorical at this point): Will Almighty God consider the unbelieving Jew a "child of Israel"?

Leauki posts:

I don't see Jews as a race in the ethnolocigal sense of the term, but as a distinctive cultural group.

Yes, we can agree; but it is inconsequential. As I have said before, a "Jew" is a meber of the tribe of Yehuda and almost all Israelites alive today are Jews. The terms are pretty much redundant.




I don't identify a Jew as a follower of a certain belief. I know many Jews who are atheists.




Don't use other words. Read it literally.

The whole thing was also explained earlier in this discussion.




That would surprise me.

If you travel to Israel you will find lots of Hassidic Jews on the streets in the Old City of Jerusalem asking random strangers if they are Jewish. If they say they are not, they are left alone (Judaism doesn't evangelise); and if they say they are, the Hassidic Jew tries to help them to find their way back to the faith.

The reason for that is simply that religious Jews believe that Jews have, by birth, an obligation to follow Jewish law (an obligation that other people/peoples do not have).

The Hassidic Jew in Jerusalem here described is not trying to convert strangers but to re-integrate Jews who were cut off. (But he does not treat them as cursed or banished.)

Some Reform communities have begun to see Judaism more like a religion than a people, but Orthodox Jews would never change the traditional law like that.

Can we just agree that you do not know Jewish law?

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Incidentally, you should not just add "(proselyte)" after "stranger" as if they were the same. They are most specifically not.

"This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish."

When the Bible refers to the "strangers living among you", it does NOT refer to proselytes.




Which Jewish law are you reading?

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox."




That's interesting given that there are actual laws about it.

Can you not simply accept the normal legal definition "a Jew is a person whose mother was Jewish or who converted to Judaism"? Why is that so difficult?

German law, until a few years ago, said that a German is someone whose father was German. (Now a maternal connection is also accepted.)

I believe some Indian tribes in North-America have a way for a stranger to become a member of the tribe via a process of conversion.

A "race" they are not, merely a "people".

(Although in English the word "race" can really mean anything.)

Scientifically, Jews are a "non-exclusive ethnic group", i.e. an ethnic group that allows integration of outsiders.

If it were, would it still be belief?

"If I don’t have the freedom to disbelieve, I cannot believe"
- Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im (http://people.law.emory.edu/~aannaim/)

Lula posts: #724



I think you'll find upon further study and understanding of Scripture that in saying this you are not in command of the whole story, SoDaiho.   

Let's discuss what Hebrew means.

Most people today would say a Hebrew (and Israelite for that matter) is a Jew. To me, using these 3 terms interchangeably means losing a distinctive character.

Why? Becasue it doesn't inform us whether he is a believer in Mosaic principles and practices as the term Hebrew did 4 or more centuries before the Christian era.

Now, KFC who knows the OT far better than I, may want to jump in here....for as far as I can tell, I'm correct in saying that Abraham is the first Hebrew recorded in the OT and he was not a Jew.

I expect that there will be differences of opinion as to the origin of the term Hebrew. The book, Introduction to Hebrew Scriptures, has been very helpful in my understanding.

According to it, Hebrew refers to the people who lived before the Covenant was made in the desert about 1250 BC. Israelite refers to the people who made a covenant with God in the desert after their escape from slavery in Egypt and who formed a religious nation. It include those who tried to live out the COvenant in the long history until their return from exile in Babylon about 539 BC.

(While some may disagree, to me, Israelite is the people of original Israel and not the people of present day Israel a state formed in Palestine in 1948,called Israelis.)

While some may disagree, to me, the expression Jewish people or Jew applies to the people of Israel who lived after the return from Babylon and includes the Jewish people living today.

Back to the origin of the term Hebrew....it was connected with Hebher, the region beyond the Euphrates. The Septuagint renders it Perates--a stranger from a foreign land. In Genesis, 40:15, Joseph said, "I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." meaning his people in the land of Canaan.

Based upon Genesis 11:1, Hebrew is claimed by Jews and Christians to be the original language of man: "the whole earth was of one tongue and of the same speech." It is one of Semitic family of languages the one spoken by the people of Canaan befor ethe Jews wrested the land from the Canaanites and other tribes, under the leadership of Joshua. Isaias calls it "the language of Canaan" 19:18 and also the "Jews' language" 36:11.

Hebrew wasn't spoken by a majority of the Jews in the days of St.Luke. That's why he made a distinction between Jews who spoke Hebrew and those who spoke Greek saying that "there was a murmuring among the Greeks against the Hebrews." Acts.6:1. This is enforced by the fact that of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. they were Christians, converts from the Synagague to the Chruch who spoke Hebrew whom St.Paul endeavored to keep steadfast to their adopted faith, fearing that they might be seduced or persecuted back to Judaism.

Hebrew was the forgotten language in Alexandria in the 3rd century before Christ. That was why the High Priest Eleaser (Jerusalem) caused the Old Testament to be translated from Hebrew into Greek, the Septuagint.



You call Jews who convert and baptized into Christianity apostates, I call them on their hopeful way to eternal salvation!!!

Lula posts:

I agree. "Race" is man's construct that has caused nothing but division imo.

Under God, we are all part of the human "race".

LULA POSTS:

See my post # 733....

Why is it inconsequential and the terms rendered redundant? When did it become inconsequential and redundant. Who rendered these inconsequential and redundant?

LULA POSTS:

YOu say Judaism involves belief, yet somewhere, I think # 575, Leauki claims the contrary....that Judaism doesn't see itself as a religion or Jews don't have to believe (in God, I presume he means).

The Christian religious sense is about knowing, believing and serving God and following His Holy Will (His Plan) for our eternal salvation.

Today, Rabbis as a whole designate persons as Jews who are disbelievers in the Torah and openly proclaim their disbelief...Leauki says they need believe nothing to be a "child of Israel"!

What then is salvific about modern Talmidic or Rabbinic Judaism? Nothing!

Is a Jew saved just becasue his mother is a Jew?

Yes, its a challenge.  We are not an "either/or" people. Involves belief does not mean requires belief.

Yes, I am aware of this, but this is not our way at all.  Jewish religious sense is about the practices of prayer/meditation, study, and deeds of loving-kindness.  Moreover, a Jew does not have to do any of these to be still considered a Jew.

Lula, you just don't understand, but I cannot fault you for this lack of undertstanding.  Rabbis can designate all they want and it would not make a wit of real difference. There is NO central authority.  Not even rabbinic councils like the Central Conference of American Rabbis have a say that extends beyond themselves.  Congregations are free to accept or reject their decisions.  Belief has nothing to do with whether a person is a Jew. 

Judaism does not have a salvific mentality.  Its closest approximation might be tikkun olam, a kabbalistic notion (gone mainstream) of being God's partner in repairing the world. Judaism does not believe human beings need redemption, as they are not lost in the first place.  There is no original sin, no fall from grace.  We are each born just fine and perfect in God's eye. So, you could say a Jew does not ever need to be redeemed or saved as he was never lost in the first place.

This is a place where different cultural and religious world views are so important to be undertstood. Our world view: no fall from grace, no need of salvation. Christian world view: fall from grace, need salvation. These are essentially paradigms worlds apart from each other so while we share a common language, the various meanings of those languages are often very far apart.

I hope this helps.

See ya.

From what I've read over the years "Jews" was a word that came into general use during the period after the Babylonian Exile after 586 BC. Judah, was part of the Southern Kingdom along with Benjamen. The Hebrews split after the days of Solomon with a southern kingdom and a Northern Kingdom.

The Northern Kingdom which included the other 10 tribes were taken into exile earlier by the Assyrians and where the Samaritans got there name. They were half breeds, Hebrews with the Assyrians and detested by the full blooded Jews.

Before all this they were referred to as the Israelites, descendants of Israel.

If you want to go back further before Abraham, you'd go to Noah's son Shem. That's where the word "Semite" comes from. He was the father of the Semitic nations. If you go to the NT book Luke 3:36 you'll see Sem (Gentile name) listed in Christ's geneology. Pretty interesting.

no he's just deemed a Jew because his mother is a Jew. Basically meaning that while you can't be sure where the father came from, you can know the mother since she's the one carrying the child.



Paul called them fulfilled Jews. They are the true Jews from a Christian perspective. I understand how non Christian Jews could see their fellow Jews as apostasying but for all that do, I would love them to read the book of Hebrews to maybe understand the reason behind these Jews converting. The book was written to those believers who had Jewish background to show them that Jesus had replaced the OT ceremonial law and sacrificial system. The book (Chap 11) ends with an appeal to believers to remember the great heroes of the faith from the OT. These Jewish believers from the OT looked forward to their day.

Thank you SoDaiho, it does help.

Yet......



Hebraic Judaism with the Temple and Aaronic priesthood to offer the Mosaic bloody oblations (sacrifices) definitely had a salvific mentality though.



This denies Genesis....which is part of the God inspired Torah, the first Book of Moses. It also denies Old Testament prophecy becasue in Judaism there was the promise, Christ, from the tribe of Judah, the house of David, of a Virgin, in the village of Bethlehem.


"as they are not lost in the first place".....?????????????????? :NOTSURE: 



I'd never say this becasue I don't believe it it's true.

What I believe is what I read in Scripture...and that is that Christ at His First Coming came precisely to save the Jews. Almost 10,000 of them, along with some Gentiles, were saved within a few weeks time according to the Book of Acts 2:41; 4:4. For those Jews who have accepted His invitation, He has thus saved in the same way for the last 2,000 or so years.

Lula posts:



Ya, St.Paul said it better and he knew what he was talking about way better than I.



I agree.



Perhaps you will consider writing a series of articles on Hebrews similiar to the way you did the Book of Revelation a while ago.   

It does not because the original sin is a Christian invention. Jews do not believe it.

As for Adam, one Jewish explanation is that Adam was the first man created in G-d's image, the first man with a soul. There existed other men before and at the same time. (Adam's descendants did marry lots of women, after all.)

Adam is also not a name, but a word. It's part of a root system:

אדמה ('DMH, "adama") = "earth" (the material)

אדם ('DM, "adam") = "man" (built from the material, just remove the He)

אדום ('DVM, "adom") = "red" (colour of the material)

דם (DM, "dam") = "blood" (something red found inside man, just remove the Aleph)

It's a rather sophisticated word game based on a Sumerian legend that explains how the law is to be followed.

Jews (i.e. the Children of Israel) are supposed to follow the law AS IF the world had started with Adam.

English common law also has such a definition. It's called "time immemorial" and it means, legally, "a time before legal history, and beyond legal memory". In a legal sense it means that anything that happened before that time is immaterial (no souls) and everything that is held true for that point in time is held to have been true forever.

It's a logical part of any legal system, including the Israelite legal system.

Grammatically, "adam" is the masculine form of "adama". Also note that "adam" doesn't mean "man" as in "not woman", but "man" as in "mankind".

Hebrew for "man" and "woman" is "ish" ('YW, "W" is a /sh/ sound) and "isha" ('YWH).

SODAIHO POSTS:

Lula posts:

It doesn't matter whether or not Jews believe in the doctrine of OS, ....it doesn't change the fact that Almighty God created us and gave us a choice to love and obey Him...



And rightly so! for they too, inherited the guilt and stain of sin from Adam, who was the origin and head of all mankind, Jews included who are part of the human race.

Some heeded God's plan to restore fallen mankind through a good man named Abraham.

Nobody "inherits" sin. Maybe Catholics do, if the believe it hard enough.

Exactly.




Exactly. And hence Samaritans today have Israeli citizenship but are not Jews.

Samaritans were detested by everyone, that's why Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan (to make the point that they can be good) and that's why the Samaritans under Muslim rule asked the Jews to speak for them.




Right.




That's where it gets misty. We can track it to Abraham. But when it comes to Sumerian legends retold in the Bible (we have earlier texts of the Sumerian versions of those legends) it becomes more complicated.

The Sumerian legends were included in the Tora for a reason. The assumption that they are true (more or less) is not good enough, because there are many other true stories that are not in the Bible, so truth is not the only factor.

As Leauki and I have pointed out, Christians and Jews have very different understandings of Bereshit (Genesis).  BTW, an orthodox Jew wpould not say the Torah was "inspired" by God, but actually written and delivered to Moses directly by God. The promises you Christians keep holding onto for dear life were not about a Jesus, period.  That's Christian spin.  They were about a person or persons, sometimes about a nation itself,  who would bring an end to the suffering of the people.  We have completely different understandings of a messiah and what a messiah is.  I accept that you have a right to your belief, I am sure it is true for you.  I believe that there will be no messiah as has been commonly understood, but rather that we will develop a messianic age (unless we kill ourselves off first) wherein the lion will indeed lay down with the lamb.

God requires our help.  His promise requires human beings to gather together and work for a common cause, the welfare of the planet and its inhabitants.  Its not about salvation after death, Lula, its about salvation and redemption in this life. 

There is no inherited guilt, no stain, and the Torah doesn't say there is.  While I understand your need to believe your church's world view, I feel sorry that it is what it is, as it itself has caused enormous psychological and emotional suffering. 

Be well.

 

LULA POSTS:

Correct, there is nothing in Scriputre about others forgiving Saul's persecution of them, all we are told is that Almighty God accepted Stephen's forgiveness and answered his prayer by calling Saul into His service. I'm not about questioning God's decision to convert Saul.

Lula posts:

NIghtshades, honestly, this is the last time for me on this one....Jesus is Christ, Jesus is the Christ; Jesus is God; Jesus Christ is God, ........


With Jesus, you'd be wise to forget this "self" business....Jesus was always a Divine Person, yet human in everyway except sin. It's a mystery that must be believed by supernatural faith.

LUla posts:


The men saw the light but not in the same way that Saul saw it.He saw the Light with a heavenly vision. Acts 26:19 We understand this vision is Jesus because Saul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?"

So, yes, we know the men with Saul saw the light 22:9, but did not see anyone 9:7, meaning they did not see the glorified Jesus, the Risen Christ....they heard a voice 9:7, but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to Saul 22:9, that is they didn't understand what the voice said.



I said this because Saul was not hoping and praying for conversion...you might say it's the last thing he was thinking about for he was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians....

The beauty of it is is that Saul when he saw the light and heard the voice responded to Jesus' call and to His grace...the Divine voice ordered him to get up from the ground and he obeyed immediately. This was the first grace he received...his getting up is a kind of a symbol of the spiritual uplift his soul is given by God's call....Saul changed to St.Paul...Saul changed from hating Jesus to Saint Paul dying for Him. St.Paul's conversion and subsequent life as a disciple of Christ is an example of what Divine grace and Divine assistance can effect in a person's heart.



These are 3 different men with the same name, Ananias. Ananias who helped St.Paul was a Jewish convert and disciple of Christ who lived in Damascus. He was a holy man for he layed hands on Saul and cured him for blindness.

Acts 5 Ananias and wife Sappira were punished with death for lying and fraud of the Christian community of Jerusalem. Peter didn't have anything to do with killing them, God struck them dead.

The third Ananias was a High Priest before whom St. Paul appeared and who later again accused St.Paul before the Roman procurator Felix.




Acts 23:1-5, "And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, "brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day." 2 And the High Priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God shall strke you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?" 4 Those who stood by said, "would you revile God's High Priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I did not know brethren that he was the high priest; for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."

Nightshades, please note that you have it backwards...Acts 23:2-3 clearly shows that it's Ananias who orders that St.paul be struck, undoubetedly becasue he cannot answer what St.Paul says or becasue he feels personally offended. Josephus, the famous Jewish historian tells us that Ananais was an arrogant and hot-tempered man. Jewish Antiquities XX, 199.

Verse 1 is St.Paul responding to the Jews' accusations and he sums up his defense by this statement. Having an upright conscience is a central point which comes up in his letters, see 1Cor.4:4; 2COr.1:12, 1Tim. 1:5, 19 and 2Tim. 1:3. It's also bourne out by his own conduct even when he persecuted the Church, he thought he was doing to do his best to serve God. His zeal was misdirected but his sincerety was never in question.

Verse 3 has St.Paul saying harsh words but not due to his annoyance at being unjustly treated. Yes, some might expect that he would have imitated Jesus by remaining silent, however, St.Paul thinks it's the right thing to do is speaking out. It turns out his words are a deliberate prophecy of the fate that awaits Ananias.

In v. 5 St.Paul realizes that he his words may have scandalized some of those present and he wants to make it clear that he respects Jewish institutions and the commandments of the Law.

Okay, perhaps inherit was a poor choice of words.

Let's start over by agreeing as SoDaiho pointed out that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and how they abused their freedom, disobeyed God's command and were punished comes directly from God. So we know it's true.

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendents, all mankind? The whole human race, including Jews, is through Adam. By the unity of the human race, we are all implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. We know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself, but for all of human nature. By sinning against God, they committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It's a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

So, in short, we are all born,our human nature in a state deprived of original holiness and justice.

Do Jews get sick, have pain, suffer, age and die? Are they inclined to sin? If this is so, then they too were born in a state of Original Sin.

St.Paul explains how all men are implicated in Adam's sin in Romans 5:12, 19. "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men becasue all men sinned..."and then v. 18, contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ, "Then as one man's tresspass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

  

SoDaoho Posts:

Here again, is a prime example of you sincerity in your truth, that the OT prophecies "were not about a Jesus, period"....and my truth that says they were and Jesus was indeed the Messias.

They are opposite, so we can't both have the truth for it's certain that Almighty God, the Supreme Truth, could not have revealed contradictory teachings.

I know for a fact Lula that the Christ is not THE I AM. I also know for a fact that he was a man, and as such was just like the rest of us born with a sense of self. If he weren't, if you or any one of us weren't, we would not even know that we exist. It is self that makes us know that we are alive. It is self that gives us our awareness.

I have repeatedly asked you how you would explain the difference between the words of Jesus and his behaviour, and the words and behaviour of Paul of Tarsus. You haven't answered at all. Personally I don't think that you can explain it, and since you can't you choose to ignore it all together, as if the question hadn't been repeatedly asked.

I have quoted you example after example of the difference between the two, words of Paul's that constantly contradict his prior words. Rather than even try to explain it, or simply say "I don't know" you come back with more quotes of scripture from Acts, Corinthians, and St. Timothy amongst others. You do not however come back with quotes of Jesus's own words from the Apostles. Why might that be? Who is it that you truly follow, Paul of Tarsus or Jesus?


As for Paul and Ananias, you are supposing that they are different people. I am telling you that they aren't. Jesus did not apologize to the Pharisees, and he did not consider them his rulers either. He had only one ruler.........GOD. When he said give over to Caesar that which is Caesars and over to God that which is God's, he wasn't speaking of obeying men. He was speaking of giving over the the physical or the earth, that which is the earths, and to God that which is God's, our obedience to God, ourselves to God. God is the only thing that we should obey.

Jesus did not defend himself before his accusers, he didn't have to. Paul constantly defends himself. Jesus did not work for a living, nor did the apostles after Jesus called them, God provided. Paul worked for his living, and says so. Jesus did not try to save his own life, Paul uses everything but the kitchen sink to do so. He talks a lot about the "Way" but he didn't have a clue as to what the "Way" was, because if he did he would have been able to accomplish exactly what Jesus accomplished. That was to have death pass him by. It didn't, and it didn't pass by all the apostles either. St. Stephen did see it and death did pass him by. That is why it is said that "he fell asleep". Not "die" mind you but "fell asleep".

Why do you think that Jesus spoke of the "eye"? Why do you think Jesus told his apostles the parable about the lilies of the field? Because he wanted to flap his gums? Or maybe because he had time to kill? Why do you think that he told them the parable of the Faithful Servant?

Instead of learning how to "see" you are busy trying to convert the world. You will never convert anyone, certainly not the jewish nation. The only hope that you or any of us have is to do what Jesus did. Learn to "see", give over self to God, and fight our sense of self importance with everything we have. And there is no guarantee of sucess either. We do it simply because we must, because there is no other way.

We humans act like death is somewhere off in the vague distant future. It isn't. It's standing right behind us looking over our shoulder. An aware person knows this and acts accordingly, as though it were the last act that they shall ever take, because it may very well be the last. An aware person knows that death is right there watching all the time. It's their worst enemy, because once it claims them they have no more chances to act, and it's also their best councilor. When one includes death in the equation things change radically.


I tell you truly that Jesus is standing right before you right now, and that the kingdom of heaven is also right before you and all around you. I'm not speaking metaphorically either. I am indeed speaking literally. I know this for a fact. If you could see, you also would know this was true.


If you decided not to ignore me because you thought you could convert me, or that I was ignorant of the truth, and you were going to enlighten me, you are indeed wasting your time. And will be sadly disappointed I'm afraid. I can "see" Lula. I do know what I am speaking of. I'm not guessing, or supposing, and I need no one to explain to me the truth about Jesus and what he taught and the purpose of his teachings. I already know it, because I have experienced it.

You can too, anyone can. If you don't believe me, ask God. Jesus said ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened. Those words weren't metaphors either. They also were literal. So ask God, what have you to lose?