New Posts  All Forums:
 

Genesis 3:22 - Page 2

post #21 of 45
2/17/09 at 4:43pm
Jews who believe in Jesus and the trinity may be Jews by birth, but I would never consider their practice acceptable to Judaism or indicative of what Judaism believes. So it's not calling them "not real" jews, just "not practicing" - and I wouldn't judge Judaism by Jews who aren't practicing Judaism.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?...374&Itemid=234

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #22 of 45
2/17/09 at 5:23pm
Yes to Chavi.

The concept of a trinity or of more than one (c'v's) god has never been mainstream Jewish thought.

If it exists outside the mainstream, even if it exists within Jews, fine, but it's not "Jewish thought."
post #23 of 45
2/17/09 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavelamomela View Post
Jews who believe in Jesus and the trinity may be Jews by birth, but I would never consider their practice acceptable to Judaism or indicative of what Judaism believes. So it's not calling them "not real" jews, just "not practicing" - and I wouldn't judge Judaism by Jews who aren't practicing Judaism.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?...374&Itemid=234
I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but if so, that's not what I meant at all! I also wouldn't suggest looking at non-Jewish Jews to understand Judaism.

I only mentioned that the first Christians were Jews because I was trying to give a historical context, and suggest that they would be interpreting their new Christian ideas in light of their understanding of Judaism at that point in the history of Christianity. But the Trinity was not a Jewish idea; by the time the Christians had worked it out they were quite separate from Judaism and in some ways less influenced by it.

Now, in my other post I did say that I thought it was incorrect to say that all Jewish scholarship rejects textual criticism. I have heard some Jewish people say that those Jews who accept it don't count, because they are "not really Jewish." Which seems to me to be begging the question.
post #24 of 45
2/17/09 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
That is quite untrue, if you mean that textual criticism in unaccepted. There is lots of discussion using textual criticism within Judaism,by Jewish scholars. Just like in Christianity there are those who reject it completely. Those people do have a tendency to look down on the ones who do, but to simply say that it is not accepted begins the discussion by assuming those people are wrong. It's like saying they don't count because they "aren't really Jewish/Christian."
I'm not sure which textual criticism you are refering to. I was simply stating that the idea expressed above is not accepted by traditional or common Jewish belief.
post #25 of 45
2/17/09 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
Now, in my other post I did say that I thought it was incorrect to say that all Jewish scholarship rejects textual criticism.
Please see my subsequent post. It was a response to the exact idea expressed. I hope that clarifies. If not, please let me know. I was posting throughout the day in between tending to my children so I wrote everything briefly.
post #26 of 45
2/18/09 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraFR View Post
Please see my subsequent post. It was a response to the exact idea expressed. I hope that clarifies. If not, please let me know. I was posting throughout the day in between tending to my children so I wrote everything briefly.
Yes, I see what you mean. Since the poster you were answering asked if it was accepted by "Jewish scholars" those are the people I was thinking about. I also meant there are Jewish scholars that accept the methods of textual criticism in general; I have no idea what the conclusions the have drawn from it are.

As far as which Jewish scholars, I am pretty sure textual critisism is NOT accepted by the very orthodox. I know that some modern orthodox and neo-orthodox do accept it, and I believe a fair number or even many reform scholars use the methods of textual criticism
post #27 of 45
2/18/09 at 10:50am
Thank you for the explanation. I'll be sure to ask my friend about this next time I see his family in a few weeks. I do know they consider themselves Jewish.
post #28 of 45
2/18/09 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
Yes, I see what you mean. Since the poster you were answering asked if it was accepted by "Jewish scholars" those are the people I was thinking about. I also meant there are Jewish scholars that accept the methods of textual criticism in general; I have no idea what the conclusions the have drawn from it are.

As far as which Jewish scholars, I am pretty sure textual critisism is NOT accepted by the very orthodox. I know that some modern orthodox and neo-orthodox do accept it, and I believe a fair number or even many reform scholars use the methods of textual criticism
Textual criticism as a topic would be way too vague for me to agree or disagree to with 5 words. Even what "textual criticism" means has many meanings. I appreciate you giving me the chance to clarify what I meant above. It was simply the idea stated in THAT post that I could give a 5 (give or take) word response.
post #29 of 45
2/18/09 at 12:14pm
I think textual criticism would only be even REMOTELY considered by the very Reform (aka classical Reform - not even mainstream Reform). And probably not even them. Even among many of the Reform Jews, there is still the hard-held belief that Torah was given to us complete at Sinai, and that any "errors" are things that G-d put in for us to struggle with.
post #30 of 45
2/18/09 at 12:53pm
If you mean "textual criticism" to mean a scholarly analysis of the texts, then sure, many Orthodox scholars use those (and other) methods to analyze the texts. But if you mean "bibilical crit" in the sense that "this part was written by x-group, while the next verse was inserted centuries later by y-group" then no, that is rejected in traditional Orthodox (and other) circles, as we believe the torah was written by God, not men, and not a composite of other ancient texts.
post #31 of 45
2/18/09 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavelamomela View Post
If you mean "textual criticism" to mean a scholarly analysis of the texts, then sure, many Orthodox scholars use those (and other) methods to analyze the texts. But if you mean "bibilical crit" in the sense that "this part was written by x-group, while the next verse was inserted centuries later by y-group" then no, that is rejected in traditional Orthodox (and other) circles, as we believe the torah was written by God, not men, and not a composite of other ancient texts.
Yes, that is what I meant. I realize how my words could have been misunderstood (should I stop posting during the day when it's rushed?). Thank you.
post #32 of 45
2/18/09 at 3:46pm
This is textual criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
post #33 of 45
2/18/09 at 4:47pm
One of the beautiful things about the torah is that even through the centuries, and comparing the sifrei torah (books of the torah) from Jewish communities across the globe (i.e. ashkenazi communities vs sefardi communities) is that the torah is the SAME!!! it has survived for centuries & millenium in the same format, even though our customs may vary from community to community.
post #34 of 45
2/20/09 at 1:01pm
:
post #35 of 45
3/10/09 at 8:55pm
:
post #36 of 45
3/11/09 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by krankedyann View Post
The Jews I know believe there is a messiah, just not the NT Jesus as the messiah. They're still waiting on him to appear. So I'm not sure why the concept of the 'Trinity' wouldn't apply to the Jews, at least in two parts instead of three, which would give a 'we.'

I also thought even Jews accepted Malchesidec as the OT representation of a savior.
The G-d of Judaism has no partners, no plural, is ONE in every sense of the word. This is an idea we have died to uphold. And been killed by christianity for doing so. The trinity fits into Judaism nowhere.

Moshiach is in no way a god. He is a person, a leader, a king. Like Moshe, Shlomo, Dovid.
post #37 of 45
3/11/09 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird View Post
The G-d of Judaism has no partners, no plural, is ONE in every sense of the word. This is an idea we have died to uphold. And been killed by christianity for doing so. The trinity fits into Judaism nowhere.

Moshiach is in no way a god. He is a person, a leader, a king. Like Moshe, Shlomo, Dovid.
Yes, others in the thread have already pointed that out.

I have yet to see the family I know who believes this way so that I can ask them about the differences- I've been too ill to leave my home except for Drs apts for quite a few weeks.
post #38 of 45
3/11/09 at 11:30am
It doesn't matter what they say- their beliefs aren't Judaism.
If someone says I'm a Christian but I believe Jesus wasn't god or the messiah just a really nice guy who said nice stuff their beliefs are simply not Chistianity. Even if they claim they are they can't chang th doctrine of a religion.

I hope you feel better/
post #39 of 45
3/11/09 at 11:49am
Yes, I understand. A multitude has informed me of that both on this thread and via e-mail/PM.
post #40 of 45
3/11/09 at 12:28pm
There are groups called Messianic Jews, who might be what your friends are. Strictly speaking, they are actually Christians, but they are ethnically Jewish (usually) and believe that they are meant to continue Jewish observances, so their worship is very close to Judaism. But they believe Jesus was the messiah and the basic Christian doctrines. Some of them point to where St Paul says that Jews should continue to observe the Law, even if they are followers of Christ.

I think it can be easy for someone to confuse the two groups, especially since many Messianic Jews identify culturally with Judaism more, and they really see themselves as a continuation/fulfillment of Judaism (as do Christians in many ways.) But there are distinct and deep doctrinal differences with regular Judaism..

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby