Questions on Jewish & Christian Beliefs

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Questions on Jewish & Christian Beliefs

Originally posted by Darius871
2) If someone were to believe that Jesus was indeed a human manifestation of the supreme being (in other words god's spirit inside a human body, or even a thorough 'blend' of the two) as opposed to a "son" that is a distinct entity within a trinity, is/was there a certain sect of Christianity - likely considered heretical by anyone adhering to rulings of past ecumenical councils - into which this person could be classified?

*ducks*

What you're talking about sounds like Nestorianism; it was condemned as heresy at the Council of Ephesus, but there are still Nestorian Christian sects, largely in the Middle East.

[Barnabas]

"Assyrians" are a predominantly nestorian ethnic group, altough there are catholics too

[Darius871]

Thanks guys, I'm aware of Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism but none of them really matched up with what I had in mind.

To clarify further, I refer to the hypothetical belief that the human manifestation of god was not an existing entity before Jesus' birth, and furthermore ceased to exist upon Jesus' [supposed] ascent into heaven after the [supposed] Resurrection.

Nestorianism and Monophysitism may differ with orthodoxy on the "essence" or "nature" of Jesus but seem to generally agree that the essences/natures to which they ascribe exist eternally. Arianism's a tad closer since it contends that Jesus was created at some point, but still differs by believing in pre-incarnate creation and eternal existence thereafter.

I had forgotten about Sabellianism/modalism, which is probably the closest known sect but not exactly the same since they apparently believe that the human "mode" of god somehow continues to exist despite this mode's not being currently manifest. How the hell can a human mode exist without being human?

[lord of the mark]

Re: Questions on Jewish & Christian Beliefs

Originally posted by Darius871
To start, this isn't an invitation for subjective theological mudslinging, it's an inquiry about the actual historical record in Europe and the pre-Islamic Near East.

1) If someone of non-Hebrew ethnicity were to believe that the Tanakh was a product of divinely inspired prophets but that Jesus and Muhammad were false prophets, could this person be accurately classified as Jewish?

Only if they convert to Judaism according to a proper Jewish conversion ceremony. In which case, according to "normative" Judaism (IE Ortho and Conservative, mainly) they would be subject to Halacha, IE the full corpus of Jewish religious law would be binding.

However if they beleived what you stated, but did not want to become Jews, for any of a variety of reasons (not really identifying with the Jews as a people, not wanting to be subject to Jewish Halacha - "mmm, pork is tasty" - or even fear of antisemitism would all be understandable reasons) they could become "noachides" who accept the truth of Judaism but dont want to become Jewish, and who follow the 7 commandments given to Noah, and even look to rabbis for interpretations of those laws. There are communities of Noachides in this country, and rabbis who work with them.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=noachides&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Darius871


No offense, but that common knowledge doesn't begin to answer the question...




To take this a step further, do ethno-religious Jews accept (by and large) non-ethnic converts like Davis as "Jews," and thereby members of God's "chosen people"? Or are they more often snickered at as wannabes? Can this be clearly delineated as a mere reform vs. orthodox debate? (LOTM, I'm looking in your direction )

In theory ALL jewish denominations accept converts as full Jews, and discriminating against a convert is a sin. In fact we dont even call them converts anymore - the PC word is "Jew by Choice". But of course humans being all too human, there are undoubtedly plenty of ordinary "Jews by birth" in our congregations who dont really accept Jews by choice, and subtly discriminate. Thats recognized as a problem however, and generally the more seriously people take their Judaism (of whatever variety) the less likely they are to discriminate IMHO.

Probably a bigger challenge is making black Jews by Choice feel comfortable, to avoid staring, etc. I think things are rather easier for folks who dont stand out physically.


I had a friend in Baltimore who was a Jew by choice - a big Irishman (no one was going to think HE was a Jew by birth) He went on to become a Reform Rabbi. Many of our closest friends are Jews by Choice.


Its sometimes been noted that Jews by Choice are more observant of Jewish law than Jews by birth, esp in Reform and Cons congregations where many of the Jews by birth are more Jewish by culture than by religion. This can create tension - its certainly helpful for Jews by Choice to delve into some area of "secular jewishness" = but of course we want Jews by birth to take these models and be more religiously Jewish as well.

http://www.beliefnet.com/study_groups/studygroup_discussion_list.asp?studyGroupID=7392

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Read my definition of jew in my post above yours

btw

My jewish friend refuses to accept Madonna as a jew

apparently Madonna, though studying Kabbalah for years, and following some Jewish practices, has never converted.

These folks however did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism

I find this guy interesting:

http://www.natangamedze.com/

[Darius871]

Thanks LOTM; after doing some searches it looks like the Noachides/Ger Toshav are exactly what I was looking for, and I had no idea they were numerous enough to have sizable communities. Fascinating insights on Jews by Choice also - it's good to know discrimination is becoming less acceptable.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Darius871
To clarify further, I refer to the hypothetical belief that the human manifestation of god was not an existing entity before Jesus' birth, and furthermore ceased to exist upon Jesus' [supposed] ascent into heaven after the [supposed] Resurrection.

What would the point of such a belief be? It's hard to get excited about a divine placeholder that's created and then thrown away like a tool. The new, EZ-Cleen Disposable Messiah or something. At least, I don't see how it's interesting. Most Christians tend to be attracted to the person of Jesus, and wouldn't like to think of Golem-Jesus.

[Kuciwalker]

It makes sense to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Darius871
To clarify further, I refer to the hypothetical belief that the human manifestation of god was not an existing entity before Jesus' birth, and furthermore ceased to exist upon Jesus' [supposed] ascent into heaven after the [supposed] Resurrection.

How would that fit in with Christ's promise to go and prepare a place for his followers? If He ceases to exist He can't pepare anything can He?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
What would the point of such a belief be? It's hard to get excited about a divine placeholder that's created and then thrown away like a tool. The new, EZ-Cleen Disposable Messiah or something. At least, I don't see how it's interesting. Most Christians tend to be attracted to the person of Jesus, and wouldn't like to think of Golem-Jesus.

Maybe God just wanted to demonstrate to us that it was possible for even a lowly human to live a life free from sin, and a human manifestation of himself was the perfect way to achieve this objective. That wouldn't require creating an eternal deity.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How would that fit in with Christ's promise to go and prepare a place for his followers? If He ceases to exist He can't prepare anything can He?

This entire premise ultimately relies on belief in the bible's inerrancy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Darius871
Maybe God just wanted to demonstrate to us that it was possible for even a lowly human to live a life free from sin, and a human manifestation of himself was the perfect way to achieve this objective. That wouldn't require creating an eternal deity.

Yes, but Christians believe in Christ. It's hard to believe in something while simultaneously believing that it has ceased to exist. That would require substantial doublethink. It's also unnerving to think that one is seeking to emulate the one perfect human in history...who was rewarded for perfection by being annihilated.

[Straybow]

It's kinda like drinking sugar free, caffein free soda. What's the point?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, but Christians believe in Christ.

Who said anything about Christians as a group?

Originally posted by Elok
It's hard to believe in something while simultaneously believing that it has ceased to exist. That would require substantial doublethink.

I didn't bring up the notions of "believing in Christ"; you did. I'm talking about believing in one God, who happened to give us an example to live by. That's not doublethink - it's straight monotheism.

Originally posted by Elok
It's also unnerving to think that one is seeking to emulate the one perfect human in history...who was rewarded for perfection by being annihilated.

Again, I never said anything about him being "annihilated"; that would be very different from merely ceasing to have a purpose.

Originally posted by Straybow
It's kinda like drinking sugar free, caffein free soda. What's the point?

How is there no point to monotheism? You might as well tell me all Jews and Muslims are all wasting their time.

[Straybow]

Monotheism as a concept has no intrinsic value. Whom you worship is more important than how many.

The issue is not "Is there a God?" but rather "Does God reveal Himself to man?" Look at the oh-so-clever IPU and FSM rhetorics of some anti-theists. They don't mock whether a God exists, but how that God is revealed.