Jews for Jesus

[Cerin]

Hal, I don't think denying that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is an attack on Christianity.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he was saying that others are saying that if we say we think Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (and as hal said, it doesn't make sense to think of him as any other Messiah), then we are invalidating their beliefs.

You can't reasonably expect someone of a different faith to accept fundamental beliefs of your own faith, or accuse them of attacking you if they do not.

I don't think that's been done. I think what's happening is that Jn is saying that believing what we believe is attacking (invalidating) her religion.

"My faith is the fulfillment of the promise of Christianity. Only people in my faith are true Christians; my faith replaces what you call Christianity. You don't know what Christianity is, and if you call yourself a Christian, you're wrong."

I don't think anyone has said that. That man who was quoted, he made sure to say that it was what he believed. He did not say that only people of his ilk were true Jews, he didn't say they didn't know what Judaism was. He just spoke of his own beliefs and experience. That shouldn't be taken as an attack on someone else's beliefs, just as the fact that I believe Jesus is the only way to God can't be taken as an attack on someone else's beliefs.

Prim, this is parallel to what upset you when we were considered (in a later exchange in the Hell thread) as attacking other faiths simply by believing what we believe.

I mean, who is this person to tell you what your lifelong faith is and what it means? Who is this person to claim that she knows what that faith is and you do not—to tell you that you are not Christian?

I don't believe anyone has done this, Prim. That quote did not represent that kind of statement. The man spoke of no one but himself. Just as when I state that I believe Jesus is the only way to the Father, I am not attacking anyone else's beliefs.

Here is the hypothetical quote of a Mormon you provided:

"My faith is the fulfillment of the promise of Christianity. Only people in my faith are true Christians; my faith replaces what you call Christianity. You don't know what Christianity is, and if you call yourself a Christian, you're wrong."

Here is the quote Imp provided:

A lot of Christians automatically ask me, ‘When did you become a Christian?’ But I’m not a Christian. I’m a Jew and will always remain a Jew. I’ve become a Jewish follower of a Jewish Messiah. I’m a fulfilled Jew, a completed Jew. My Judaism has become far more complete. Love has been added. Jesus added love to Judaism. I am sure if you had asked Paul he would have said the same. Jesus helped fulfil his Judaism. He made it more complete. I don’t think Jesus talked about setting up a new religion.

I think you will see that they are not similar in character. If a Mormon said this:

"I'm a fulfilled Christian, a completed Christian. My Christianity has become far more complete. I'm sure if you had asked Martin Luther he would have said the same. Joseph Smith helped fulfill his Christianity. He made it more complete. I don't think he talked about setting up a new religion."

I would think them pathetic and deluded, I would hate the fact that these (what I consider) blasphemous words were uttered, but I could not fault them for expressing their faith. They have not disparaged anyone else's faith, they have not invalidated anyone else's faith. It cannot be that simply by expressing what we believe, that we can be seen as attacking and invalidating other faiths. I will not accept it.

[halplm]

Hal, may I be theoretical? Suppose a Mormon came to you and said, "My faith is the fulfillment of the promise of Christianity. Only people in my faith are true Christians; my faith replaces what you call Christianity. You don't know what Christianity is, and if you call yourself a Christian, you're wrong."

Honestly, wouldn't you hate that, even if you didn't accept the validity of any of those points? I mean, who is this person to tell you what your lifelong faith is and what it means? Who is this person to claim that she knows what that faith is and you do not—to tell you that you are not Christian?

And if that's what was being said here, i would agree. It is not. I'm not saying only Christians are true Jews. That's nonsensical. I'm not saying Christianity replaces Judaism, that nonsense as well. I'm not saying any Jewish person doesn't know what Judaism is, and I'm not saying Judaism is wrong in it's beliefs, except in the one instance of not believing Jesus was the messiah. It's an important instance, of course, but it is a belief, and one we do not share. It is not fact with proof that must be acknowledged or not.

If people reading this thread have though I'm saying what I'm not, then obviously I've miscommunicated badly, for which I apologize.

If we agree that Christianity is a branch off of Judaism, then it seems only natural that each of us would believ our own branch was the correct one, otherwise, why would we be onl that branch? I still dont' see where the offense lies...

[Whistler]

If a group of Christians decided to revere Mohammad as the third and final prophet (the first being Moses and Jesus) and decided to call themselves Christians for Mohammad, I would of course dismiss the term as nonsensical and self-contradictory. That is because Christianity, as I observe it, rejects the notion of placing any name alongside (let alone above) that of Christ.

Yet these people would be quite correct in using the name, from their own perspective, because by embracing Islam they would have to redefine Christianity. The term itself would become meaningless for discourse between the two groups.

And what would I think of such a group annexing the name "Christian?" Of course I would hate it, as the Jews here object to the annexing of the name "Jew" by Christians. But I would begrudgingly admit that these Muslims (for that is what they would always be, to me) could lay claim to the term from a purely intellectual point of view, and from their own (wrong!) theological perspective.

In short, I'd snarl for a minute and then move on.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In short, I'd snarl for a minute and then move on.

And I'd pay good money to watch.



In all seriousness, I think that Faramond had it right when he said that there a fundamental differences in our belief systems that are simply so contradictory that they are offensive by nature. Even as a non-religious Jew I find much that I have seen here offensive, particularly quite frankly what you have written, Cerin. I don't deny that you have the right to believe what you believe, but I believe that you have revealed a fundamental lack of understanding of Judiasm. Not that I pretend to understand it much better.

But I still love you, nonetheless.

[Cerin]

And yet, I don't think what I've said varies substantively from what Faramond and Whistler have expressed. So I wonder why I am the one who offends.

It would really help me, Voronwë, if you could cite or explain why I am the one giving offense. But of course if you would rather not, that is your prerogative.

I'm glad you love me nonetheless, as I do you!

[Whistler]

Folks, let's cut to the chase.

It is impossible to believe certain things without deeply offending people who believe certain other things.

At the same time, none of us is obliged to abandon or revise any of his deepest beliefs for the sake of avoiding that offense.

So, what shall we do? Have a war, an inquisition, a crusade?

No. All we can do is acknowledge that things are as they are.

If I offend you, I am genuinely sorry. And if you offend me, I can handle it.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much to be said.

[yovargas]

I still dont' see where the offense lies...

Yeah, I don't think I'm getting it either.

edit to say to Whistler that I think understanding each other will help things along a lot.

[Whistler]

Ah, Yov! Understanding is always a thing to strive for.

But to "understand" does not mean to require somebody to justify himself. Sometimes that cannot, and should not, be attempted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whistler is wise.

Cerin, I would like to answer you. I think you deserve an answer. But I don't have one.

Sorry.

[Primula Baggins]

I apologize for my misunderstanding of what has been said.

I am prickly as all heck these days and probably ought to stick to posting Far Side cartoons until I cheer up.

Nevertheless, I love you all, and I am grateful that you'll tell me when I'm wrong about something.

[halplm]

See, i don't think that beliefs should lead to being offended. I don't consider the fact that someone believes differently to be offensive.

If somone says It's foolish to believe something I believe, THAT is something I get offended by. But if someone says, "I don't believe like you do, i believe like this..." then I will disagree, but I will not get offended.

I'm honestly trying to understand how MY beliefs can be OFFENSIVE to others.

I understand them being different. I understand disagreeing with them. I understand wishing I agreed with you rather than disagreeing. I do not understand me being offensive.

[Cerin]

Cerin, I would like to answer you. I think you deserve an answer. But I don't have one.

Sorry.

That leaves me in a very awkward position, Voronwë.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That leaves me in a very awkward position, Voronwë.

Me too. I should have kept quiet in the first place.

The thing is, it is a gut reaction more then an intellectual one, which is very difficult to put into words. You have very admirably tried to explain yourself in as much detail as you can (as you always do), but that simply provides more fodder for the gut reaction. The idea that you believe in the "Hebrew God" as well as the "Christian God" just seems so bizarre to me because to my thinking they are simply not compatible.

But then, I don't believe in either the "Hebrew God" or the "Christian God" I just believe in God. So none of this makes much sense.

[yovargas]

Even if we can't understand why any of it is offensive, I still think we should be able to understand what, specifically, it is that is offending. No?

[Cerin]

The idea that you believe in the "Hebrew God" as well as the "Christian God" just seems so bizarre to me because to my thinking they are simply not compatible.

All Christians (within a mainstream definition - not meaning to speak for anyone) believe that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the new Testament are the same God.


Thanks for trying anyway.

[Jnyusa]

Cerin, some of the things I said earlier led to a misunderstanding which I'd like to clarify briefly.

I don't know what the shema is, but I believe that I believe in the God of the Hebrew scriptures, and I also believe in the God of Christianity, whom I believe has revealed Himself and interacted with humanity in three different aspects of His being, and I do not believe that is contradictory.

I was not talking about your beliefs at that point but about the claims of this Harold Vallins. When I asked Imp whether the JFJ services are traditional Jewish services, she answered that they say the shema, which is the Jewish expression of faith that God is one. Vallins then claims that he believes in the three-in-one God of Christianity. One cannot make both these claims simultaneously because they are mutually exclusive, unless one redefines all the words in the sentence.

I am not lying. My understanding is different from yours. If you insist that I must be lying because no one can believe what I believe

No, it is not you who is lying. It is Harold Vallins who is lying when he says he believes two contradictory things simultaneously. Either he believes one and not the other, and therefore lies when he says he believes both, or he has changed the meaning of the Hebrew word 'akhad', in which case he has rendered communication meaningless.

You can say he has the right to give Jewish words any meaning he wishes, but then who will be able to talk with him?

I said: "unless one first denies that Judaism exists at all as something in its own right."
And you answered: "No, I would say, unless one first denies that your precise definition and undestanding of Judaism is the one that everyone must use."

If I stood alone having invented this definition then your statement would be true. But this is not just how I define Judaism, it is how all Jews define Judaism (other differences withstanding, none of us believe in Christian redemption). You cannot deny the self-definition of an entire People without implicitly denying their existence in the form in which they claim to exist.

I realize that you do not understand why I view it this way, and I'm not sure anything I could say would make it clearer, but for me the assertion that anyone can define Judaism any way they wish is an assertion that Judaism as it defines itself does not exist.

Jn

[Frelga]

I don't know what the shema is, but I believe that I believe in the God of the Hebrew scriptures, and I also believe in the God of Christianity, whom I believe has revealed Himself and interacted with humanity in three different aspects of His being, and I do not believe that is contradictory.

From your friendly TMI department. Disclaimer: The following is a Jewish view as I understand it. I'll say it now, so I don't have to put a disclaimer on every sentence.

Shema is the Jewish statement of faith. It translates as Hear, Israel, LORD is our God, LORD is one. Or in Hebrew, Shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad, something I sing to my son every night at bedtime. Some use Ha Shem, The Name, in place of Adonai, Lord, to emphasize that originally the statement included the God's True Name which is now considered lost (long story).

The contradiction that Jn referred to is two-fold, I think. First, since Shema refers to Our God by a specific name, it implies that no other God is the God of Israel. The God is One implies just that. One is not zero – God exists. One is not two – there is no Dark Lord, no anti-God, no Devil. And One is not Three.

So, in Jewish view, anyone who recites Shema and then claims that God is not One but Three is… I'll just say inconsistent.

Here's something I'm curious about as I am trying to understand the idea of Christians who considers themselves Jews (as opposed to JfJ, who are I think something else). You say that from your point of view there is no contradiction. Would you feel comfortable reciting Shema as the MAIN declaration of your faith?

The thing is, it is a gut reaction more then an intellectual one, which is very difficult to put into words.

To true.

all around, for Jn, Cerin, Hal and V (last but never the least)

And Hal, personally I don't think anything you said was meant to provoke or offend and I didn't take it that way.

Ooo, just had a small earthquake! Fun.

[Primula Baggins]

The Trinity is a horribly puzzling bit of Christian doctrine that makes experienced clergymen tear their hair (I have seen this ). But one thing it is not is a belief in three gods. It is a belief in three aspects of one God. The first words of the Apostles' Creed are "I believe in one God." Christians also accept the first of the Ten Commandments.

And no, I don't understand the Trinity, beyond the fact that there is still only one God. It's a mystery, literally.

[Alatar]

Speaking as a "not-exactly-lapsed-but-not-exactly-devout" Roman Catholic, I don't see the problem with "One God" and "Three-in-One God". According to RC belief, the three are one. The Holy Spirit, God the Father and God the Son are all different faces of the One God.

Personally, I don't care if you call him Jehovah, Abba or Allah, they're all one to me. Different names for the One God. But I digress.

The famous story of how St. Bridget described the Holy Trinity to a pagan king on his deathbed is a simple but effective one. She plucked a Shamrock and explained that while the Shamrock has three leaves, each is but a part of the whole. In my opinion Jews simply have a different name for the Shamrock. Again, I hope this causes no offense. I also believe that Muslims and Hindus and all other religions worship different faces of the one God. And that is why I believe there is redemption for all.

[halplm]

I would not have any problem saying that, Frelga, as I believe it.

The concept of the Trinity is not simple, and it is not understood even by most Christians, so I'm not surprised anyone finds it contradictory.

I believe, there is ONE God. Period. I believe God is Omnipresent. Everywhere, Infinite. When speaking of the Trinity, this is God the Father. I also belive God became a Man. An ACTUAL Man, while still being God. While some would find this a contradiction, that simply places a limitation on God, that he can't be a man, which makes no sense. God can be a man if he wants to. When speaking of the Trinity, this is God the Son, Jesus. And finally, I believe God is with each of us that believes in him, all the time, giving personal attention to us, and guiding us as we ask for guidance. When speaking of the Trinity, This is God the Holy Spirit. Why is this necessary if the Father is omnipresent... well, it's not necessary, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify how I view the Trinity, and if anyone else wants to correct me, feel free, but it is not believing there is any more than ONE God.