This could unite the two major religions :)

  • Thread starter Thread starter truthquester
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComplineSanFran said:
I agree that any faith community has a right to self-definition, which includes who they consider to be members. So… just to expand that point. Do Catholics get to define other Christian denominations? Presbyterians are Christians? And their baptism is valid? Yes, I believe that is fine. What about Mormons? I believe not so much. Yet Mormons self define as Christians, complete with Baptism.
Click to expand...
In any case, as far as the subject of the thread is concerned, I don’t see any possibility of uniting Catholicism with Judaism. The two groups can work together in mutually cooperative enterprises, but the two religions are incompatible, IMHO.
If you are going to say that a Jew who converts to Catholicism is still a Jew and that unity could occur that way, that seems to me to be just playing with semantics. You might consider a Christianized Jew to be Jewish, but that is not how a rabbi would feel about it. The rabbi would say that after his Christian conversion he is no longer a Jew.
 
Tomdstone said:
The rabbi would say that after his Christian conversion he is no longer a Jew.
Click to expand...
Why then, are some of my Jewish relatives who have left Judaism and become New Age believers in many gods still considered Jews?

I have German Lutheran and Reformed, plus Welsh Quakers, on my mother’s side of the family. My dad’s side is all Jewish. Out of deference to the Rabbinic matrilineal definition, I have never once referred to myself as Jewish in my life. Indeed, I feel as much kinship with my mom’s side as with my dad’s, so when asked, I say I’m Pennsylvania German/Welsh and “my dad’s family is Jewish.”

However, out of my dad’s six other siblings, one married a lovely Irish Catholic woman =children are New Agers or non-religious; one (beside my dad) married an Evangelical Christian=children are all practicing Christians; the four others married Jews, and all their offspring have left Judaism for either New Age religions or no religion at all.
 
In the case of people like my dad, who had all Jewish ancestors and was raised Jewish, when he became a Methodist, by Rabbinic definition he was no longer a Jew.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
Why are you equating ‘Jews’ with Catholics?
Why not ‘Jews’ with christians?

The ‘Jews’ who you talk about are Rabbinic Jews.
There are different kind of Jews you know,
So it’s Rabbinic Jews saying what is Jewish and what isn’t.

The Rabbinic Jews have the right to decide who is a Rabbinic Jew ofcourse. But they can’t judge for the entirety of Judaism.

That is pretty much like if the Catholic church decides who is christian and who isn’t.
And Muslims would be like: The Mormons aren’t christians because the catholic church said so.
Click to expand...
How do you define Rabbinic Jews? In Judaism, there is no such thing as Rabbinic Jews. IOW, what you call “Rabbinic” Jews are Jews who happen to be more orthodox than other Jews and who follow the Written Torah and Oral Torah as in ancient times. Further, so-called Rabbinic Jews do NOT reject other, “non-Rabbinic” Jews as not being Jewish, and no Rabbinic (Orthodox) rabbi will reject ANY Jew, Rabbinic or not. Some Orthodox rabbis (certainly not most) have some harsh words to say about the non-orthodox movements in Judaism (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) and their rabbis, but NOT about the members of these movements and congregations themselves. One final point: even within Orthodox Judaism, there are differences of opinion: for example Traditional Orthodox and Hasidic Orthodox, which itself has several subdivisions.

Please study up on the structure and tenets of Judaism more before you use the term “Rabbinic” Judaism.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
Well when the Jewish groups are decided based on who is the father like in the Karaite Jews, the Kaifeng Jews and more. They are pretty hesistant. They are pretty hesistant about Jews who don’t follow Rabbinic Judaism. Wether they believe or not that’s true. But an atheist Subbotnik or an atheist Kaifeng Jew would not be regarded as a Jew for sure, while an atheist Rabbinic Jew would be. Why this distinction?

The Rabbinic Jews often ask them to formally convert to Judaism to be regarded as a Jew. But they are already Jews. An Israeli Tv-Hostess had to formally convert to Judaism, because she was of ‘disputed Jewish origin’ (Non-Rabbinic Judaism) they would only want to ‘convert’ her if she resigned from her Tv-work. (this seems like bullying right)

Many Jews that are non-rabbinic even have to leave the country to marry a mainstream Rabbinic Jew. As they can’t have Jewish marriage in Israel, because they aren’t seen as Jewish.

The Nazerene Jews are extinct for ages, but if there are currently Nazarene Jews they surely are a modern re-invention right?

In short:
They don’t tend to accept Jews who are not from mainstream matrilineal Rabbinic Judaism. And they often ask for a formal conversion to Judaism.
Click to expand...
There are formal conversions within Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism as well as within Orthodox Judaism. Your example is a specific case that does not pertain to Orthodox Judaism in general. The Nazarene Jews still exist today and do not claim to be a reinvention. Atheist Jews are still accepted as Jews worldwide, even among Orthodox Jews.

Please refer to my prior post and study the tenets of Judaism before using the term Rabbinic Judaism so freely.
 
meltzerboy said:
How do you define Rabbinic Jews? In Judaism, there is no such thing as Rabbinic Jews. IOW, what you call “Rabbinic” Jews are Jews who happen to be more orthodox than other Jews and who follow the Written Torah and Oral Torah as in ancient times. Further, so-called Rabbinic Jews do NOT reject other, “non-Rabbinic” Jews as not being Jewish, and no Rabbinic (Orthodox) rabbi will reject ANY Jew, Rabbinic or not. Some Orthodox rabbis (certainly not most) have some harsh words to say about the non-orthodox movements in Judaism (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) and their rabbis, but NOT about the members of these movements and congregations themselves. One final point: even within Orthodox Judaism, there are differences of opinion: for example Traditional Orthodox and Hasidic Orthodox, which itself has several subdivisions.

Please study up on the structure and tenets of Judaism more before you use the term “Rabbinic” Judaism.
Click to expand...
Meltzerboy–

Here’s a Wiki entry on Rabbinic Judaism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism Speaking for myself, I’ve most often seen it used as a wider term than Orthodox Judaism, encompassing Conservative and possibly Reform Judaism too, considering them as descendants of the Judaism of the Pharisaic Rabbis in distinction to the Sadducees or other groups.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Meltzerboy–

Here’s a Wiki entry on Rabbinic Judaism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism Speaking for myself, I’ve most often seen it used as a wider term than Orthodox Judaism, encompassing Conservative and possibly Reform Judaism too, considering them as descendants of the Judaism of the Pharisaic Rabbis in distinction to the Sadducees or other groups.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link, AbideWithMe. It is true that most Jews today, whether more or less orthodox, do follow the Pharisaic tradition. However, it seems to me that the other poster is using the term Rabbinic Judaism in reference only to more orthodox Jews, who make the rules which they require all Jews to follow. This definition simply does not apply. Further, the term has also been applied to differentiate modern Judaism from ancient Judaism from the days of the Temple, as though there has been a dramatic shift initiated by post-Temple rabbis. This definition is also incorrect since modern Judaism attempts to follow the Law in the same way as their forbears, except that the rules concerning the Temple can no longer be practiced.
 
meltzerboy said:
Thank you for the link, AbideWithMe. It is true that most Jews today, whether more or less orthodox, do follow the Pharisaic tradition. However, it seems to me that the other poster is using the term Rabbinic Judaism in reference only to more orthodox Jews, who make the rules which they require all Jews to follow. This definition simply does not apply. Further, the term has also been applied to differentiate modern Judaism from ancient Judaism from the days of the Temple, as though there has been a dramatic shift initiated by post-Temple rabbis. This definition is also incorrect since modern Judaism attempts to follow the Law in the same way as their forbears, except that the rules concerning the Temple can no longer be practiced.
Click to expand...
Yes, I hear you on the two other (sometimes) implied meanings which you delineated here, and I suppose the previous poster can clear up what he means. I do think it’s a useful shorthand term, rather than saying “Orthodox/ Conservative/Reform in distinction to Sadducees/ Essenes/Karaites, etc.”, once people know why a particular person is using it.
 
meltzerboy said:
Apparently G-d preferred a variety of religions since there are over 4000 of them worldwide. Let us then be united in mutual love and respect. This, I think, is the worthy challenge that G-d created for us.
Click to expand...
That’s a beautiful statement 🙂
 
meltzerboy said:
Thank you for the link, AbideWithMe. It is true that most Jews today, whether more or less orthodox, do follow the Pharisaic tradition. However, it seems to me that the other poster is using the term Rabbinic Judaism in reference only to more orthodox Jews, who make the rules which they require all Jews to follow. This definition simply does not apply. Further, the term has also been applied to differentiate modern Judaism from ancient Judaism from the days of the Temple, as though there has been a dramatic shift initiated by post-Temple rabbis. This definition is also incorrect since modern Judaism attempts to follow the Law in the same way as their forbears, except that the rules concerning the Temple can no longer be practiced.
Click to expand...
No I wasn’t referring to the Orthodox, I meant the bigger group. The Jewish denominations that came down from the Pharisaic tradition after the temple fell. So I’m talking about the vast majority of the world’s current Jews.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
No I wasn’t referring to the Orthodox, I meant the bigger group. The Jewish denominations that came down from the Pharisaic tradition after the temple fell. So I’m talking about the vast majority of the world’s current Jews.
Click to expand...
OK, Young Ludovicus. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
DelsonJacobs said:
I agree, Kaninchen.

I was just talking yesterday to a Catholic friend who is of Jewish ancestry. He made a comment that is in line with this, saying that he understands and fully accepts when other Jews debate about whether he can or should still be considered a Jew or not.

“They can do that,” he said, “because they are Jews. But people who are not Jewish, secular or religious, who have not lost relatives in the Holocaust and whose ancestors were not expelled from Spain (he is of Sephardic/Crypto-Jew origin), that I draw the line at.”
Click to expand...
The thing is that we Jews are a “on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on yet another hand” people - it’s how it works, it’s who we are and one Beth Din will disagree with another Beth Din’s definitions, lengthily.

Now, the idea that deciding who is, or is not, a Jew should be the realm of other people other than Jews seems ludicrous but it’s not really when one considers why such a proposition might be put forward.

We’re a tiny proportion of the world’s population and it’s always been so but what to do with the pesky Jews has been a long-time obsession of so many people. We’ve been shunted around, expelled, walled-up, forcibly converted, slaughtered and nearly annihilated but, still, here we are.

I think it’s in that context that the idea of denying us the right of self-definition lies - if people can be convinced that pesky Jews are denying the right of people who, for example, think a bit of Judaica in their lives would be nice, to be considered Jews, then eventually we can be portrayed as really nasty deniers of the rights of others, leaving us to slowly disappear into being a kind of Amish relic in a context of a non-pesky, fully in line with Christianity but with a Menorah for Christmas, Jewishness.

The final solution to the Jewish problem.
 
meltzerboy said:
OK, Young Ludovicus. Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
It’s an easy word to make a distinction between other forms of Judaism like Karaites.
You could use it as an umbrella term.

Likewise you could use Apostolic Christianity to refer to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Church of the East. (Also Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and more small groups could be included)

When I use Apostolic Christianity I don’t include Lutherans, Anglicans etc. But to always say those four names (RC, EO, OO and CotE) is too much of a hassle if there is a good word for it.

Unfortunuately I can’t come up with a name for Sji’ism and Sunnism together.
 
Tomdstone said:
Why don’t you include Anglicans?
Click to expand...
Well, Anglicans.
Really aren’t in anyone’s boat.

Are they Catholic or Protestant?
Many Anglicans would say: Both. Some would say Catholic and others would say Protestant.

Likewise there are Anglican groups who have no apostolic succesion, some other groups see the entire Anglican church as lacking in apostolic succession.

I myself can’t see the ordinations in line with apostolic succession if they made female priests or if a female bishop did them.

So they’re a bit in the half-half camp for me. Just like the Lutherans, Moravians etc.

When I talk about Apostolic christianity I’m talking about the christian churches that came from the early days of christianity. (Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Syriac christianity.)
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
Well, Anglicans.
Really aren’t in anyone’s boat.

Are they Catholic or Protestant?
Many Anglicans would say: Both. Some would say Catholic and others would say Protestant.
Click to expand...
True. Plus, some say Neither, and still others say that some Anglicans are Catholic and some Anglicans are Protestant. (Of course you could see that as their interpretation of “both”.)
 
Kaninchen said:
The thing is that we Jews are a “on the one hand, while on the other hand, meanwhile on yet another hand” people - it’s how it works, it’s who we are and one Beth Din will disagree with another Beth Din’s definitions, lengthily.

Now, the idea that deciding who is, or is not, a Jew should be the realm of other people other than Jews seems ludicrous but it’s not really when one considers why such a proposition might be put forward.

We’re a tiny proportion of the world’s population and it’s always been so but what to do with the pesky Jews has been a long-time obsession of so many people. We’ve been shunted around, expelled, walled-up, forcibly converted, slaughtered and nearly annihilated but, still, here we are.

I think it’s in that context that the idea of denying us the right of self-definition lies - if people can be convinced that pesky Jews are denying the right of people who, for example, think a bit of Judaica in their lives would be nice, to be considered Jews, then eventually we can be portrayed as really nasty deniers of the rights of others, leaving us to slowly disappear into being a kind of Amish relic in a context of a non-pesky, fully in line with Christianity but with a Menorah for Christmas, Jewishness.

The final solution to the Jewish problem.
Click to expand...
Kaninchen—I think you’ve given a pretty shallow answer to a thorny question.
 
Tomdstone said:
I agreed with Kaninchen up to this point:

After that, I had difficulty with the argument.
Click to expand...
I think I understood her argument. I’ve seen it plenty of times before. Where I am specifically criticizing her post is with the disrespectful and ignorant mischaracterization of people who considered themselves Jews who believe God could (and did) humble Himself to take on our flesh—as Jesus—and who believe that belief need not be incompatible with being Jewish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top