Since Elana is here, I decided to open a thread for the discussion of Judaism.

LOL I was wondering how long it would take. I'm willing to try to answer any questions you have, I'm not orthodox myself but I did go to an orthodox school when I was younger so I know the basics.

Yeah, we used to have a Jewish participant, so I already thought we had a thread on Judaism.  But I checked quickly through and didn't see one.

One of my best work friends at work was Jewish, and whenever we'd go to lunch together (in Tokyo, mind you), we had to work around his dietary restrictions (kosher AND vegetarian) and mine (no tea, coffee, etc.).  His were much harder to comply with in Tokyo, especially given the prevalence of pork and shellfish in the Japanese diet.  With me, I could always just get water.

I bet he ate a lot of salads but it must have been very expensive for him in Tokyo, I've heard that fruit and veg there can be shockingly expensive.

Its funny here in Israel you really have to go out of your way to eat non Kosher, all the meat here is automaticly Koshered unless you get it before the butcher has koshered it, you can't even get a cheese burger from most Mcdonalds and not at all from Burger King. When i lived in Dublin it was impossible for me to keep kosher but I didn't eat pork or shellfish which believe me is a difficult thing to do as the predominant meat seemed to be pork. Have you ever heard of a fry up? Well the Irish would often get something like that in a roll with black sausage <shudder> but even worst was white sausage, until this day I have no idea what is in white sausage, and noone I asked could tell me what it was either, how can a person eat something that they don't know what it is? Yeash Anyway being full on ultra orthodox basicly means you need two kitchens, one where meat is prepared and the other where dairy is used, and then come Passover you need to use different cutlery and appliances because the usual ones have bread crumbs, sure you can clean, but those that can change everything over to a special set that is only used at that time of year. It's a real hassle.

This message was deleted by the player at 21:46, Thu 03 Jan 2008.

Actually, salad is not eaten much in Japan.  We usually ended up at a Thai restaurant or a few dedicated "favorites."

I was thinking about something the other day that I thought I'd run by people here.  It's more about the christian (particularly evangelical) view of jews, rather than about jews themselves, but this seemed like the best thread to put it in.

Anyway, so according to the bible, the jews are God's "chosen people" (I'll leave the question of why a god that is supposed to love everyone would even have a "chosen" people at all for another time), and the first commandment on the list of commandments God gave them is "you shall have no other gods before me."  So far so good.

Later comes Jesus, who we're told is God, but at the same time different (the whole trinitarian mystery thing).  In particular, you've got the "no one comes to the father but through me" line.  To me, that sounds like it's saying that you can't get into heaven by believing in/praying to/worshiping/confessing your sins to/asking forgiveness from/etc. God the father, you've got to do all that to Jesus.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the Jews?  Well, praying to/asking forgiveness from/worshipping/etc. Jesus seems like it would violate the first commandment of having another god before God.  If you say "well, they're the same guy, so it's fine," then you run into Jesus' line about not getting to the father except through him.  If they're the same guy, you could just pray to God instead of to Jesus (and ask for God's forgiveness instead of Jesus', etc.).  No need to deal with the Son, just go straight to the Big Guy.  It's all good because they're the same guy.  Also, if you can just pray straight to God instead of going through Jesus, it would seem that Muslims are in too, since they worship the same God of Abraham as the Jews and Christians (though they think He has different qualities than the others think He has).

So where does that leave an observant Jew, in the christian view point?  It seems Jews have to accept that God isn't enough, which would seem to violate the first commandment.  To a degree, it seems like (under the christian belief system) that God sort of abandoned his 'chosen people,' or at least put them in a situation where they would have to violate His own instructions in order to stay in His good graces.

I'm sure it doesn't seem that way to christians, though, so I'm curious to hear how others view the situation.  Where do Jews that don't become christians fit into christian theology (or theologies, I suppose, as I imagine there will be more than one view here).  Will Jews be punished for sticking with their original religion rather than accepting a new God into the mix?

To add to that, look into Messianic Jews and Nazarite Christians.

A brief and not too helpful description of each:

Messianic Jews believe that Yeshua was the Messiah and follow some of his teachings.

Nazarite Christians feel that the Church (particularly Western iterations like Catholicism and Protestantism) have deviated away from Jesus' original teachings, that he was, after all, a Jew. They try to stick with some Jewish traditions, but usually as interpreted with some doctrinal differences.

Some interesting ideas, but basicly Jews don't think of Jesus as the massiah, the massiah hasn't come yet and even when he does we would still pray to G-d. To be honest i have always been a touch confused by the whole Jesus = G-d thing myself, why pray to a secondary individual instead of the main 'man'? My understanding of the Christian faith isn't 100% so if i offend anyone it isn't intentional. Now my understanding of the New Testiment is that it is composted of different stories by various disiples of Jesus, it is stories about Jesus as told by his followers correct?

In reply to Elana (msg #9):

Yes, most Jews don't see Messianics as being quite Jewish any longer. I'm fairly sure that Israel sees them, officially and legally, as Christian. Most Christians would likely also see them as Christian since they believe that Yeshua was the Messiah, but their adherence to some Jewish traditions puts them outside mainstream Christianity.



Here, you delve into some doctrinal issues that are going to vary depending upon denomination, Tycho.
Jesus line that no one comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6 by the way) is, as are most texts, open to interpretation. That Jesus and Christianity (which arguably did not even exist at the time of Jesus) is the "only" way is rather exclusive. Even saying that the only way to achieve heaven is through a life that follows his examples and teachings, though perhaps broad enough to encompass Judaism and Islam as well as others, is still somewhat excluding.
That whole line, however could be (and has been) interpreted as John's way of unifying Jesus with the Logos (or Word of God). Doesn't exactly help to open up things to all faiths but does move closer to including all of the Abrahamic faiths.



Fundamentalist Christians would likely argue that with the arrival of Jesus, the Jews were given a choice to follow/fulfill the prophecies and accept G-d's new Law (which only adds to, but should not supercede the old Law). By rejecting the Christ, they in essence rejected G-d. They would likely argue that it was the Jews who abandoned G-d, and not the other way around.

Not being a Fundamentalist Christian, I'd personally take some affront from such a claim, but it is what it is.

To be more specific, the Jews are born under the Abrahamic covenant.  God gave a special covenant to Abraham (AKA "Israel") and his posterity, making them a chosen people.  But that doesn't mean there can't be other "chosen people" too. (The LDS belief, for example, is that you are adopted into the Abrahamic covenant through baptism (though you might be born in it too).)  There is a spiritual as well as a physical aspect to "chosen people."  Thus, the Israelites often fail through falling away but are quickly forgiven.  The spiritual aspect is the important one for getting into heaven, obviously.

The God of the Old Testament is Jesus (according to Christians), or as Jesus and God speaking as one (in the same manner as husband and wife being "one" -- the same Hebrew word is used in both accounts for "one," which does not indicate a singular personage necessarily but is more symbolic).

Note that the trinitarian belief arose a couple hundred years after Christ's death through Christian philosophers rationalizing how to reconcile certain biblical issues.


Jesus is saying he is the savior who has taken upon him our sins if we repent.  So no one can be purified of sin except through repentence, in which case we pass by Jesus as our arbiter to get to God the Father who allows no clean thing to get into heaven.  I don't think this would be affected by a trinitarian belief.

Typically, the word used for "God" in Hebrew in the Old Testament is plural in nature.  So you could just as easily insert the word "us" or "we."  It is also fairly clear that the Jews (or, more appropriately, "Israelites") understood that they, as the chosen people, were receiving a little truth at a time, as they could handle it.  Thus, they had prophets.  So there may be altering of those truths as they could understand better and proved themselves.  This is also what partly led into the problem of ending up with too many rules that Jesus criticized of the pharisees and sadducees.

This is a key problem with those who believe the Bible is one complete tome instead of many tomes that were developed through careful and deliberate revelation over time.  Thus, when they are worshipping Baal, they are told only to worship God and no other gods.  Well, at that time, there was no need to distinguish Jesus from God or go into a detailed history of the intellectual and philosophical and metaphysical differences.  They simply had to stop worshipping false gods and concentrate on the true God.


Regardless of belief of one person or not, Jesus as a god or aspect of God is the one who took upon himself the sins and as a metaphysical examination, there's no problem here.

I think you also have a basic misunderstanding.  All prayer is to God the father, but the prayer is through Jesus Christ.  That's why they say the prayer "in the name of Jesus Christ."  Jesus (as the Messiah or Savior or what have you) acts as the mediator and advocate for us before the Father.


No, because the Muslims don't believe Jesus took upon him their sins and thus would not receive the forgiveness of sins required to enter heaven.


I really don't see a violation at all.


No.  If Jesus is the Messiah and they don't recognize that, then either they are not ready or they need to accept him (through baptism), and then they will not only be the physical chosen people, but the spiritual ones as well, just as all those who were adopted into the Abrahamic covenant through baptism.


It's not about punishment.  It's about advancement.  Baptism is a "saving ordinance" required for salvation, so it is one step forward they need to take, either in this life or the next.

I think Jews today probably think the same thing, except they are thinking that the Messiah has not yet come, and when he does, then they will need to follow him, but different Jews hold different beliefs.

A limitation to your argument is the assumption that everything must happen within this lifetime.

Does either the first commandment or Jesus' line about "no one comes to the father but through me" indicate a possible plural?  I was under the impression that "me" in each case was singular.  If that is not the case, that would be a rather important point which I don't think most mainstream christians are aware of.


See the comment above.  Is the "me" in the first commandment plural?  Is it justified to state it as "you shall have no other god before us" based just on the text itself (as opposed to other theological arguments, such as trinitarianism)?


Is there anything in the old testament to indicate that God would change the rules over time?  At least, in the way of invalidating (or at least relaxing) old rules, rather than just adding new ones?  Were there any examples of things in the OT that were formally disallowed but which God said "this isn't wrong anymore?"  If so, could one say that the ten commandments aren't...er...set in stone, and could change in the future?


But Jews don't say "in the name of Jesus Christ" when they pray (excepting some examples such as Silveroak mentioned).  They're going straight to the big guy, assuming they've got no need to use Jesus as a mediator.  Is that fine, since Jesus is just the same guy, or is recognition of Jesus as a different concept than God the Father necessary?


And neither do Jews, so it seems like if Muslims not believing Jesus took their sins keeps them out, the same would apply for Jews, no?



If praying to a god other than God is a violation of the first commandment, it would seem that praying to Jesus would be a violation (or at least putting another god before God).  I'll grant that if the 1st commandment is actually better translated as "you shall have no other god before us" than that wouldn't be the case.


I don't think Jews today think that the Messiah will be the same guy as God, though (people can correct me on that if I'm wrong, though), nor that he'll be a gate keeper to heaven, or anything like that.  I was under the impression (and everyone should correct me if I'm wrong here), that Jews tend to view the messiah as more of a worldly person, who helps with their problems on earth, rather than one who gets them into heaven.


This is true, but I think that's an assumption shared by most mainstream and evangelical christians, which is more what I what I had in mind when I was noodling on this.  I will accept that if people are allowed to change their ways/beliefs after death and make it into heaven based on those changes, that makes a very large difference in the line of reasoning.