Jew by birth or training?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

in a simple way, i evaluate the seed by the fruit it produces.

Amen, or "of a truth." Colloquially, "ain't that the truth!" I do the same, it is nice to know there are others that think similarly.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bananabrain, and thank you once again for the thoughtful response!

well, don't be surprised. this is not a simple issue!
the suspension of sacrifice is just that; a suspension, rather than a change. from our perspective, G!D does not change objectives. what was required by the Divine is still required now - we are just fulfilling this requirement in a different way, but still staying within the brief.

Very well, I had thought Judaism to be more static. I guess that shows what I get for thinking.

that's how it started, as a jewish sect.

Alright. I hadn't ever considered the matter in such a light before, but it does make a kind of sense.

this is really a point about the *elasticity of labels*. how far can you stretch the label "judaism" until it is no longer recognisable? consensus within judaism varies - but all are agreed that recognising jesus as fulfilling messianic prophecies as well as dropping the observance of the Law puts you well outside the "fence", or snaps the elastic if you like. for some within orthodox judaism, changing one's attitude to the binding nature of halacha, or the dynamic of revelation, as the reform and conservative movements have done, does the same thing.

I can see how both recognizing Jesus and dropping observance of the Law could escape the "fence" of Judaism, would recognizing Jesus as Messiah and observing the Law bring one closer to the fence then?

i can't answer questions as technical as that. i use a jewish calendar. you'd have to consult a competent rabbi to understand the technique. sorry.

I guess we can't know everything. Thank you for trying.

ah, this one's easier. the omer (the name for this period) lasts 49 days, starting from the second "day" of Pesach, which is effectively the second night.

Thank you most sincerely for the clarification. How is Pentacost traditionally observed?

... on the relationship of commentators to each other, which i don't believe is the case with christian commentators, as they are all coming from different theological positions.

Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me Christian commentators generally are approaching the same theology, merely picking and choosing which arguments are most relevent in their personal views. Generally speaking, Christian denominations hold to certain basics, but differ (vehemently) on specifics and application. I understand Judaism to be similarly fragmented, and if I read you correctly, this seems not an unfair assessment. Judaism seems to me not as vehement in expressing those differences towards each other, and at least since the dispersion not so inclined towards genuine (read: force of arms) internal warfare to settle such differences.

i'm sorry if this is complicated and confusing but you're kind of asking me to summarise 2500 years of our interpretative tradition!

I do appreciate the effort, but frankly it went right over my head. I did take away that the role of commentators in Judaism have a long and respected tradition. I can appreciate that. Some among Christians are similarly inclined. In my personal view, there is enough internal conflict within Christianity with the Bible alone, that pitting commentators against each other only serves to muddy the water even more. Some of us lay people are more concerned with the nuts and bolts, nevermind what particular brand of axle grease is recommended. Just grease the darn thing and let's get on with it!

that's what it says in the NT, but obviously we don't actually know. there was a family of whom several "rabban gamaliels" are known, who were senior members of the sanhedrin, but which one paul is supposed to have been a disciple of is uncertain.

Thank you. While it does not clarify my question, it does give me something to go by.

the 613 commandments can be deduced and expounded from the ten, but this means that they are a good summary rather than anything else. they are not "more important" because they need to be expanded before their detail can be understood. they were originally read out on Shabbat, but this practice was stopped precisely because of heretical sects (christians included) who tried to reduce the Law to a mere observance of the ten.

OK. I think I understand what it is you are saying. Not casting any form of judgement, could this be said to be making a mountain out of a molehill? I believe you earlier commented that Hillel made a statement that coincided with the golden rule, followed by "all the rest is commentary, so now go and study." Or something to that effect. I recall hearing the same thing elsewhere. And even Jesus summarized the Ten into the two: Love your Father with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. I realize that expounding and exploring in depth the implications of these things is necessary for full application, and I expect this is the position commentators and teachers in general serve in guiding those who have no inclination toward such deep thought. One of my longstanding concerns with Christianity is that subordinating such thoughts into the hands of commentators has produced rituals, traditions and customs that are conflicting, extra-Biblical, and in some cases directly opposed to the gist of what I read in the texts. I am not making that assumption in a wholesale manner towards Judaism, but could it be said to exist to some degree? At least to those matters that are extra-Biblical? Is it not the spirit of the matter, rather than the express letter, especially when the letter is not directly in the texts?

oh, absolutely. this is precisely the purpose of a HoQ, to teach us our own limitations.

You lost me here. HoQ? Is this a rabbinical teacher or commentator?

i guess what i'm saying is that i see the gospels as historical documents and thus they are qualitatively different from Torah. i have no problem with using christian perspectives on them to understand christianity, but my interest them is not to contextualise my own religious outlook.

I believe I understand, and even agree. I even have some minor concerns about verification of some of the claims, considering the oldest extant texts are post-Catholic establishment, and subject to the Catholic cannonization process and what that entails. Even so, there is wisdom in the words. What I see exhibited within the pages of the New Testament is practical application of the Law (in spirit if not in letter), although I can see how from your point of view that may not seem to be the case. Ultimately, I hold to Christianity because that is the point of view I was born into and raised with. In my mind, this is where God placed me, so this is what I have become and what I believe. I suppose if I had been born a Jew, I would be an unapologetic Jew. Likewise, if I had been born Buddhist or otherwise. I look deeply into the path I have been set upon for wisdom and guidance, and I occasionally glean other bits of wisdom from other sources. That is my way of dealing with the matter of spirit and faith. If I am mistaken, I hope my sincerity will account for something.

well, i dare say, but i don't need to spend 20 years in prison to learn from nelson mandela.

Understood, but how is prison time to be equated with wisdom? Observing the example that my Messiah set in everyday life for dealing with my brothers and sisters is that which I implied. I have no desire to be crucified, nor could I expect that such an act on my part would serve any distinct purpose such as that he submitted to. I might be executed for my faith, and by doing so demonstrate my resolve to my Father, but I cannot begin to think I could take on the sin of any others, other than my own. Nor could I act as a surrogate sacrifice for that purpose.

oh, absolutely. this is being discussed in another thread i think.

Thank you for this clarification. I sometimes wondered, but not with any serious depth. I am beginning to think we share more than we differ. I suspected as much, but it is nice to find confirmation.

Thank you very much for your insights, I greatly value our discussion. I look forward to "hearing" from you again. Until then, Kindest Regards, and Shalom.

 

[achnai]

I too am sorry to derail the thread, but I feel obliged to comment on the subject as Brian put it.
It prefer to choose intellectually most chlallenging for the right words describing the training which makes oneself a religious jew.
currently I do my best to try to devolve the intricate and extremly sophisticated text of the Gemara (the Talmud), and to think that this is only the beginning to a more complicated learning of the commentators on the Gemara and the books of the Halacha.
It is my opinion that jews who dedicate themselves to the study of the Torah, day and night, give extra meaning to seemingly simple fact of merely being born a jew.
Therefore you may be a jew by birth but there is an extra quality to being a jew by training.

Spoken from a jew who is not religious.


a Kosher and Happy Passover

 

[jew-ish]

yea this is prolly off topic considering the discussions going on, but what do you feel of half-jewishness? i think i know the answer, but if you measure being jewish by maternal descent then that in itself is saying judaism is somewhat of a culture, so me, an agnostic kid whos dad is a secular jew and mom a secular catholic would indeed be culturally half jewish. i celebrate christiams and chanukkah and passover and easter and have both a confirmation and hebrew name and i am very proud of my jewish heritage. i just want to know what others feel about this.

 

[bananabrain]

this really depends on what one's perspective is. from the point of view of the media, popular culture - and anti-semites, people can be "half-jewish" or "a quarter jewish" or whatever. one jewish grandparent was enough to get you murdered under the nazis and the same standard is used to qualify for israeli citizenship under the 'law of return'.

the different jewish denominations have different religious standards for what they consider jewish, the more left-wing, the less strict. obviously, the standard required by halacha (jewish law) is for one to have a jewish mother or to have converted. each denomination regards its own standard for conversions as required.

it is not necessary, of course, to be jewish to be "proud" of one's jewish heritage. i'm not irish, but i don't hide the fact that one of my grandparents was (though fortunately not my mother's mother). this doesn't make me catholic and doesn't make me do anything catholic, though it is an excuse to get ayatollahed on march 17th. i also get a certain amount of amusement from the more-irish-than-thou strain of americans who claim to be irish although the nearest they've ever been to it is standing next to someone in a bar who was holding a pint of guinness.

in short, cultural identities can mix and match far more easily than religious ones, particularly those based on legal paradigms can.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

would recognizing Jesus as Messiah and observing the Law bring one closer to the fence then?

well, i guess, it still doesn't really make sense without the obligation to observe the Law and, surely, recognising jesus as the messiah turns the Law into something else? it just seems paradoxical to me. we don't rank people on how close they are to the fence!

How is Pentecost traditionally observed?

http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayc.htm (basic)
http://www.ou.org/chagim/shavuot/ (intermediate)
http://www.midrash.org/halakha/shabuoth.html (advanced)

Generally speaking, Christian denominations hold to certain basics, but differ (vehemently) on specifics and application. I understand Judaism to be similarly fragmented, and if I read you correctly, this seems not an unfair assessment. Judaism seems to me not as vehement in expressing those differences towards each other, and at least since the dispersion not so inclined towards genuine (read: force of arms) internal warfare to settle such differences.

normative rabbinic judaism is unified by its adherence to halacha. it's not fundamentally fragmented - we all keep kosher, observe shabbat and the holidays, pray three times a day and marry and try to bring our kids up jewish. we preserve the opinions of the minority, but follow those of the majority. where there is disagreement it is not on the basic interpretation of the Law, it will be on the precise size of weights and measures (such as how much of something you have to eat before it counts as you having fulfilled a commandment to eat it) or the more technical, nit-picky bits, not arguments which have been settled hundreds of years ago to general satisfaction. we do differ culturally and in our customs, which are distinct from Law in that they are not obligations. for example, as a sephardic jew, it is permissible for me to eat beans and pulses on passover, but it is not considered permissible for an ashkenazi jew to do this. there are not many examples of this kind of difference in interpretation.

Some of us lay people are more concerned with the nuts and bolts, nevermind what particular brand of axle grease is recommended. Just grease the darn thing and let's get on with it!

for some people, detail is how they show how much they care. for others, it is done in other ways like prayer. are you familiar with howard gardner's "seven types of intelligence"? there are many different ways for people to channel their spirituality. also, we don't have much of a concept of "this law is more important than that" - this is only really shown by the punishment for breaking the law. thus we see that non-observance of Shabbat is actually more serious than, say, homosexuality, which a lot of people are starting to point out, not before time imho.

I realize that expounding and exploring in depth the implications of these things is necessary for full application, and I expect this is the position commentators and teachers in general serve in guiding those who have no inclination toward such deep thought.

oh, i absolutely agree.

One of my longstanding concerns with Christianity is that subordinating such thoughts into the hands of commentators has produced rituals, traditions and customs that are conflicting, extra-Biblical, and in some cases directly opposed to the gist of what I read in the texts.

this is because the detail was chucked out "letter of the Law" as opposed to "spirit". this created a vacuum within the Text which was filled by other beliefs, often influenced by greek thought. it's a bit like communism. they abolished religion and then ended up turning the state and the party into an object of idol worship with its own dogma and obsessive attention to detail. in judaism there have been periodic attempts to "get back to basics" and this has always created more problems than it has solved - examples include the sadducees, the karaites, the kabbalistic false messiahs, the reform movement and, to a certain extent, chasidism.

a HoQ is a law that cannot be rationalised - a "because G!D Said so" law.

Understood, but how is prison time to be equated with wisdom?

perhaps i'm being flippant. what i mean is that nelson mandela could have figured out what he needed to figure out without having spent twenty years locked up.

Observing the example that my Messiah set in everyday life for dealing with my brothers and sisters is that which I implied. I have no desire to be crucified, nor could I expect that such an act on my part would serve any distinct purpose such as that he submitted to.

oh, right. i think i've misunderstood possibly. my mistake.

I prefer to choose intellectually more challenging for the right words describing the training which makes oneself a religious jew.

i see what you mean, but i'd also add emotionally, physically, politically and spiritually challenging. intellect alone is not the answer.

b'shalom

bananabrain