<p>Just wanted to add that the idea of matrilineal descent was not codified until at least a century after Jesus’ death. Old Testament rules are unclear; however, the emphasis on patrilineal descent is not easy to miss. (Just look at David/Bathsheba/Solomon as one of multiple examples, prophecies of Isaiah, etc.)</p>
<p>“Aren’t you speaking somewhat anachronistically, though? The Temple (and along with it the sacrificial system) was destroyed in 70CE.”</p>
<p>No, on the contrary, Jesus would have been ruled by the pre-Talmudic, Temple-based sacrificial system if he was Jewish and not a mamzer. (And yes, there were many scholars whose work became part of the codified Talmud in Jesus time and before, i.e. Hillel). </p>
<p>“doesn’t make him non-Jewish, it makes him a revolutionary, in both the spiritual and political senses.”</p>
<p>No, it would make him a mamzer, operating within the confines of the Jewish community, yet forbidden from the central core of Jewish practices.</p>
<p>A story about a man named Yeshu can be found in the Talmud. There is debate whether this Yeshu in the Talmud is the same Jesus who later became a Christian divinity.</p>
<p>According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. “Betrothed” means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him. The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira, a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a “mamzer” (■■■■■■■), a product of an adulterous relationship. The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish “Supreme Court”) ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics. </p>
<p>While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. The main inconsistency between the Talmudic and Christian story is that during the time that Jesus was killed, the Romans ruled and the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty. Thus, some Jews believe that today’s popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus’ writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans." (from "About Judaism)</p>
<p>The best scholarly account of Jesus as mamzer comes from Bruce Chilton at Bard College.</p>
<p>Another born-again, liberal-minded Christian here. Attend Methodist Church every Sunday. Share my faith gently with those who ask me about it. Sometimes invite people who just look like they need a friend to join me at my very loving multi-cultural church.</p>
<p>Interesting postings! I was raised Catholic but am “lapsed.” I hate the mingling of politics and religion and was quite disgusted when a “voters” guide was distributed during the last President election. I understand that religions have guidelines and laws but I do have a problem with these rules being presented in a “voters guide” which supposedly was objective but that not so subtly suggesting who I should vote for. That said I still identify with Catholicism as it is the religion of my ancestors and part of the formation of who I am today. I had a solid foundation in ethics and morals and loved religion class in school. I don’t need to agree with all the details and accept that I will never have all of the answers in this lifetime or the next…assuming there is one — (I do believe there is one!)</p>
<p>I strongly support separation of Church and State. We need to preserve religious freedom in this country. I have no problem with a moment of silence given at school…I think moments of reflection and silence are good…but not if it’s just a vehicle to push through specific religious objectives. </p>
<p>All of the scriptures quoting reminds me of a voters guide and instantly causes me to tune out. It may be effective for others who are possibly more willing to become “saved” but it would never work for me. Actions always speak louder than words.</p>
<p>Texasmomma–I’m curious about your self-description as born again and Methodist. I am Methodist myself, and I never knew them to follow a “born again” doctrine. Learn something every day. :)</p>
<p>Liberal Presbyterian here, although sometimes I feel like the Worst Christian Ever (oftern skeptical, sometimes short-tempered, and darkly grumpy when trapped behind a bad driver.) Has anyone ever read Anne Lamott’s books on her own conversion to Christianity? In one of her essays she says she’s more “Christian-ish than Christian” because she frequently feels like an inadequate disciple. I can relate…</p>
<p>I hate the mingling of politics and religion, too, but it seems unavoidable. For example, the death penalty. It seem really hard to discuss that without bringing in religious arguments about why it might be wrong. But in many other cases, too, you have to bring in some really strong moral reasons why it might be OK to use the coercive power of the state to enforce behaviors.</p>
<p>For that reason, I don’t think the ideal of completely secular politics is achievable.</p>
<p>I, too find it curious that the OP thinks Christianity and conservatism necessarily go together. Some of the most rousing (but also most respectful) political discussions I’ve had have been within Christian groups.</p>
Just because I want to run away doesn’t mean that I fault them for it. Their intent is not to annoy me; their intent is to bring good to me…kind of like the nice lady at the office who brings in a plate of fresh cookies when you are on a diet. </p>
<p>
Of course I understand that. But I am not calling the followers of those other religions (many if not most of which also teach that their truth is the only truth) insulting names.</p>
<p>
I respect that; I think I made that clear in my first post. I’m talking about the people who do not respect my beliefs and indulge in name calling about members of my faith.</p>
<p>
This passage from the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament is also a call to turn to the God of Israel.</p>
<p>Isaiah 55:1-7
Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.</p>
<p>Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.</p>
<p>Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.</p>
<p>See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander of the peoples.</p>
<p>Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor.”</p>
<p>Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.</p>
<p>Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.</p>
<p>
My pastor addressed this very thing in his sermon this week. He said that as Christians, we need to remember that America is not the biblical “Kingdom of God” and that while it’s fine to elect Christian politicians and to support passage of laws that are consistent with our beliefs, we should not make the mistake of thinking that those things would somehow usher in the Kingdom of God. Also, there are two distinct dangers in Christians losing perspective on the Kingdom of God vs. the government of the United States of America. The first is what some of you here have touched upon - that when Christians put their focus on changing the government, they distract from their real message. Secondly, even if they are wildly successful in changing the government, there is the risk of ushering in “moralism”, a belief that being moral is the goal rather than knowing and serving God.</p>
<p>That said, everyone has a right to try to have their beliefs enshrined in law. That’s how our democracy works. We elect representatives who we think will vote as we would vote…someone who most closely shares our beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is an example from the New Testament of Jesus discriminating. Granted, most Christian scholars believe that Jesus was using this incident to teach his disciples that the gift of God was not only for the Jews, but if you just look at the surface, Jesus initially said that he came for the Jews but not for the Gentiles.</p>
<p>Matthew 22:15-28 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon–possession.”</p>
<p>Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”</p>
<p>He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”</p>
<p>The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.</p>
<p>He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”</p>
<p>“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. </p>
<p>
Many, many organizations put out voters guides. Most religious organizations are very careful to stay within the law on voters guides. They typically will list the positions each candidate has taken on some of the major issues. Yes, if you are familiar with that organization, it is likely obvious which candidate that organization hopes you will vote for, but as long as they are just telling us where the candidates stand, I don’t see why that is disgusting.</p>
<p>
Me, too, Scout. I like that verse that says: “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”</p>
<p>^^^What do you mean, Consolation? If someone believes no one should own guns, for instance, then of course he would want to elect someone who would vote for gun control.</p>
<p>Maybe you thought I meant having their <em>religious</em> belief enshrined in law. Sorry, I was not clear. I did not mean that. Anyway, due to the separation of power between our 3 branches of government, I don’t think there is much risk of that happening, as it is clearly prohibited by our constitution.</p>
<p>Of course we have our beliefs enshrined in law:</p>
<p>I believe you shouldn’t steal.
I believe people should be free to own property.
I believe we are stewards of the earth and shouldn’t pollute.</p>
<p>Many other people believe these same things and therefore they have become our laws. Where else would laws come from but our beliefs? There is no other way to generate them.</p>
<p>The way I believe these things has more similarity to the way I believe in God than the way I believe in gravity.</p>
<p>re #92; yes, I thought you meant our “religious” beliefs. Regarding the following post, one’s “beliefs” can be engendered by religion or by ethics. Many religious people seem to believe that it is impossible for “beliefs” or “morals” or “ethics” to spring from any source that does not involve religion or belief in a supreme being. Many highly ethical atheists and humanists would beg to differ. The father of the current president opined at one point that an atheist could not be truly ethical. I know that he was wrong. In fact, I think that the absolute REVERSE is true.</p>
The difference between your interpretation of the call to prostelytize and ours is that you seek converts. We do not. We read Isaiah as preaching to the Israelites, not to the gentiles. Our tradition does not call for seeking converts, but to call Jews to behave as we believe.</p>
<p>I do understand that the Jewish faith was never a proselytizing one. However, what do you make of this part of the Isaiah passage:
“Surely you will summon nations you know not,”? I’m not trying to be argumentative. It’s hard to get your tone across in a forum, but I genuinely am curious. </p>
<p>This passage does not seem to be a command to summon nations but rather a prediction that they (the Jewish people) will…which so far has not been the case; I think we would agree on that.</p>
<p>There is another passage I’m thinking of concerning calling non-Jews to Him, but it’s still skirting around the outskirts of my brain, and I can’t come up with it right now. If I can think of it later, I’ll post it. Clearly, it’s not a large theme of the Old Testament as it is of the New Testament, but still, since Christians believe that both testaments concern the same God, it is important to understand how the two fit together. I enjoy hearing the Jewish perspective on the Scriptures.</p>
<p>I really am not educated enough to interpret specific chapters of the Prophets; I wish I were. The verse that you quote, however, seems to foreshadow the Diaspora by saying “nations you know not” rather than “nations that know you not” - very different concepts. Jewish interpretation requires that every word be given a meaning, that none are superfluous, so it is unlikely that “nations you know not” and “nations that know you not” would be interpreted in the same way.</p>
<p>Most of the Jewish interpretations of the Prophets that I’ve read relate to exhorting Jews to be better Jews, and thereby will the knowledge of God be transmitted to the world - not by words, but by deeds. In Judaism, what you do is much more important than what you believe.</p>
<p>(I also will not vouchsafe that the translations of Isaiah in your version of the Bible is the same translation in Jewish translations of the Bible - I know that there are many, many differences in translations of the Old Testament based on whether it’s followed by the New or stands on its own.)</p>
<p>I didn’t read through the thread, but I’m a Christian, but most definitely not a Bible-thumper. My beliefs are a personal decision, and I don’t go around yelling at those who aren’t Christians condemning them to Hell for their “evil ways” :] If someone spoke to me like that [because of their beliefs] I’d ignore them too, call them a hypocrite, and discredit their beliefs.</p>
<p>Whiiich is why Bible-thumping is ridiculous.</p>
<p>“The difference between your interpretation of the call to prostelytize and ours is that you seek converts. We do not.” </p>
<p>Just a question…does Judaism accept converts or is it a religion only passed through a bloodline? I’m fairly certain that one can convert to the Jewish faith…I just don’t know.</p>
<p>Yes, Judaism accepts converts; it just doesn’t actively seek them. Once an individual converts to Judaism, he or she is considered the same as one who was born Jewish. There is only one legal differentiation: the tribe to which the convert belongs. </p>
<p>Now, this gets a little picky. There are 3 major segments of the Jewish people: the Cohanim, who are the priests and considered descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses; the Levites, who are those who served the priests at the temple and considered descendants of Levi, son of Jacob; and Israel, who are everyone else. There are some ritualistic and liturgical responsibilities reserved to Cohanim and Levites. All converts are considered Israel, even if adopted by a Jewish father of another tribe upon conversion.</p>