quote:Originally posted by dkw: Um, I only know one reconstuctionist Jew and only found out yesterday that that is the "flavor" she is, but from what she's said about her beliefs she is certainly a theist and believes there will be a messiah. Is she an exception, or are you disputing something about reconstructionist beliefs that doesn't measure up to Orthodox standards for theism or messiah?
The more fringe the movement, Dana, the less they have in the way of any basic rules. So there could be a Reconstructionist Jew who holds the beliefs you describe. On the other hand, I'm not sure that she's using the words the way you or I would use them. For example, here's the definition of "God" as put forth by Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionism:
quote:God is a functional, rather than substantive, noun, thus denoting that power in the cosmos, including man, which makes for the salvation of men and nations.
Yeah... it brings to mind OSC's recent column about pseudo-intellectual babble.
A semi-humorous definition of Reconstructionism goes like this: "There is no God, and Mordechai Kaplan is his prophet". Kaplan wrote books like "Judaism without Superstition", and was very strongly against any supernatural anything in Reconstructionism. But the thing about starting a movement without rules is that you can't tell your followers that they can't believe in such things if they want to.
Hopefully, your friend will eventually wind up Orthodox.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could somebody explain to me how the Sabbath fell on Friday for Jews? It doesn't. It falls on Saturday. However, by Jewish law, days begin not at midnight or daybreak, but at sunset/full dark of the previous evening. So Shabbos begins Friday night, the beginning of the seventh day.
Who decided days begin at sunset?
Dude, have you been reading what we've written? Both Shmuel and I cited "and there was evening, and there was morning" from the first chapter of Genesis. God decided.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then how do Jews view Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16?
It doesn't say "virgin" in that verse. That's a mistranslation. The word is almah, which simply means "young woman". The word for virgin is betulah.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Isaiah 53 (the entire chapter) what could this chapter mean to most Jews? Are these prophecies not neccesarily about a person but are metaphorical?
The suffering servant is the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've read that there are rules to prophecying within Judaism and if one is not aquainted with it, its hard to understand but perhaps anybody could illuminate how Jews see these passages.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned.
I'm sure it would have been, had there been an actual person like JC. But look, even the genealogies in Luke and Matthew completely disagree.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
It may well have been. Just because it's not in your gospels doesn't mean it wasn't raised.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Paul, that was a direct quote from Emet V'Emunah. If you didn't read the link, here it is in full:
quote:Emet Ve-Emunah, the Conservative movement's statement of principles, states:
"Since no one can say for certain what will happen in the Messianic era each of us is free to fashion personal speculation. Some of us accept these speculations are literally true, while others understand them as elaborate metaphors... For the world community we dream of an age when warfare will be abolished, when justice and compassion will be axioms of all, as it is said in Isaiah 11: "...the land shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." For our people, we dream of the ingathering of all Jews to Zion where we can again be masters of our own destiny and express our distinctive genius in every area of our national life. We affirm Isaiah's prophecy (2:3) that "...Torah shall come forth from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
"We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic human figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world. Through the doctrine of a Messianic figure, Judaism teaches us that every individual human being must live as if he or she, individually, has the responsibility to bring about the messianic age. Beyond that, we echo the words of Maimonides based on the prophet Habakkuk (2:3) that though he may tarry, yet do we wait for him each day."
Don't argue with me; argue with your own movement.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Christians believe Jesus had no earthly father, correct? That means he could not have been descended from David through patrilineal descent.
[ November 06, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Luke and Matthew disagreeing means nothing to me personally. I personally believe there ARE mistakes within the entire Bible. Perhaps Jesus' geneologies have mistakes, perhaps they do not. I have seen quite convincing studies about the differences in the two gospels.
I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
I can be wrong, thats just my opinion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Well Christian's believe Jesus had no earthly father correct? That means was could not have been descended from David through patrilineal descent.
I honestly wan't to avoid if possible any extended debate on Jesus as a messiah.
But if we accept that Jesus in fact did not have a human father, and that it was God. Instead of Joseph being Christs de facto father, do we really want to claim that, "The son of God can't be the messiah because Joseph isn't his real father?"
Certainly the non believing Jews believed Jesus' real father was Joseph, "Is not this the son of Joseph the carpenter?" so either Jesus' real father is Joseph or God. In either case I'd argue it still keeps him within the limits of messianic status.
Seperate questions,
If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Are the laws concerning tribal adoption found within the oral/written Torah? Or do they precede Moses?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As usual, I should point out that, especially lisa, and rivka to some extent, should not be considered reliable sources on non-orthodox judaism, for exactly the same reasons that you shouldn't ask a catholic about protestantism.
Fair enough. I not only have never claimed to be, I try to only cite official movement positions (to the best of my knowledge).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
This is hardly a convincing argument to anyone who does not already accept the validity of the gospels.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. For sources, look at the daughters of Tzelofchad and the prophet Shmuel (Samuel) -- who was never considered a cohen, despite having been adopted and raised by one.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
I can be wrong, thats just my opinion.
I can't explain why the authors of the gospels included some things and didn't include other things. As you know, I think they're fiction from start to finish. But even if they weren't, I still couldn't answer for their literary choices.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was merely saying the gospel writers did not balk at pharises/sadducees calling Jesus, "A liar, a false prophet, a blasphemer, worthy of death, a deceiver, etc." They frequently reported when Jesus' claims were challenged, it was simply interesting that if his geneology was questioned I think the pharisee and sadducees would have jumped on that point. I think the weigh of evidence points that no charge was made, and not that the charge was made but the gospel writers failed to acknowledge it.
Well, think this through. The people challenging the claims wouldn't have believed Jesus was anything but Joseph's son, and therefore of Davidic descent. In order to disagree, they'd have to accept the virgin birth claim in the first place, which his detractors naturally wouldn't.
(And to answer a point in your later post, no, if he were somehow the son of God, that would not be good enough.)
At any rate, you're entitled to your opinion. Just... I'd love to be wrong about this, BlackBlade, but you're coming across less as being interested in Judaism per se and more about wanting to know why our own rules don't require us to accept Jesus, or something along those lines.
Bits like...
quote:With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
...aren't questions about Judaism; we don't accept the gospels in the first place. I'm also not sure why, if you're really not interested in getting into the question of Jesus as the messiah, you'd want to narrow down to technical questions about tribal affiliation when you're still having trouble getting down the basics.
I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul, that was a direct quote from Emet V'Emunah."
I am not arguing a specific point, I am alerting everyone to the fact that you do not accurately represent non-orthodox jews on many points.
"Don't argue with me; argue with your own movement."
I am not arguing with you. I refuse to engage... and I am not reconstructionist.
Damn, Paul, Emet V'Emunah is a Conservative document. It's what your movement issued as a statement of "principles" a few years back.
And your caveat is worth very little. I grew up Conservative. Well educated Conservative, at that. I went through 9 summers of Camp Ramah, from whence most Conservative leaders arrive, and I damn near went to JTS for college. I'm actually in a better position to speak about that movement than you are, regardless of who your mother is (knowledge isn't hereditary, or else I'd be a surgeon).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if we accept that Jesus in fact did not have a human father, and that it was God. Instead of Joseph being Christs de facto father, do we really want to claim that, "The son of God can't be the messiah because Joseph isn't his real father?"
Yup. Because we're all sons and daughters of God. And God Himself made it clear that the messiah was not some supernatural being, but rather a human being, descended from David. It actually says "his seed". That's as physical as it gets.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Certainly the non believing Jews believed Jesus' real father was Joseph, "Is not this the son of Joseph the carpenter?" so either Jesus' real father is Joseph or God. In either case I'd argue it still keeps him within the limits of messianic status.
Suit yourself. It doesn't in Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seperate questions,
If an Israelite several hundred years ago from say the tribe of Levi was adopted by a Danite would he always be listed as a Levite and never as a Danite?
Correct. Here's a joke that you probably won't get. You kind of have to be Jewish to get it.
A guy walks into the synagogue and asks to talk to the rabbi. When the rabbi meets with him, the man says he wants to donate a large sum to the synagogue.
The rabbi is happy, naturally. But the man says he has a condition. "I want you to make me a Kohen," he says.
(Note: A Kohen is an Aaronite priest. A direct male descendent of Aaron, Moses' brother.)
The rabbi is upset, and tries to explain to the man that he can't do that. The man says that's his condition, take it or leave it. So the rabbi, with regrets, tells him he's sorry, and the man leaves.
The next week, the man comes back, and offers twice the money. The rabbi tries to explain to him that it isn't a matter of the money. It just can't be done. The man offers a stunningly large sum, and the rabbi's resolve weakens. Feeling incredibly guilty about the deceit he's about to perpetrate, he tells the man he'll do it.
He puts together a ceremony and performs it. And he tells the man that he's now a Kohen.
The man is incredibly grateful. He thanks the rabbi with tears in his eyes. The rabbi sits him down and asks him, "Look. I really have to know. Why was it so important to you to be a Kohen?"
The man replies, "Well, rabbi. My father was a Kohen. His father was a Kohen. His father was Kohen. So I wanted to be a Kohen as well."
The joke here is that he already was. You're born that way, or you aren't. Adoption makes no difference.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are the laws concerning tribal adoption found within the oral/written Torah? Or do they precede Moses?
There are no laws concerning tribal adoption. It's a concept that doesn't even exist in Jewish law. Your biological parents are your parents. My daughter is my adopted daughter, so I'll well acquainted with the law. She owes me the respect due a parent, because I'm raising her, but technically, we're not related at all in the eyes of the Torah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, while it may be true that you grew up a well-educated conservative Jew, your remarks show you to be fairly well-distanced from the mainstream of the conservative movement of today.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me add, BlackBlade, that the fact that there's no such thing as tribal adoption is why the Torah warns us over and over to be good to converts. "And you shall love the stranger". "Stranger" is a bad translation for ger, which means "convert". A convert, or someone like Stephan, whose father wasn't Jewish, has no tribe. So we're warned by God to be particularly careful not to treat such people poorly, merely because they don't have a tribe. Back when tribal affiliation determined land ownership, this was overwhelmingly important.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: At any rate, you're entitled to your opinion. Just... I'd love to be wrong about this, BlackBlade, but you're coming across less as being interested in Judaism per se and more about wanting to know why our own rules don't require us to accept Jesus, or something along those lines.
Bits like...
quote:With the accurate keeping of genealogy amongst the Jews not once was Jesus' lineage to David questioned. Just thought I would point that out, it's surprising the charge of being of the wrong genealogy was never brought up.
...aren't questions about Judaism; we don't accept the gospels in the first place. I'm also not sure why, if you're really not interested in getting into the question of Jesus as the messiah, you'd want to narrow down to technical questions about tribal affiliation when you're still having trouble getting down the basics.
I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
I agree with Shmuel. And I mentioned this issue on Friday, but I'm not seeing much difference since you assured me that was not your intent.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: starLisa, while it may be true that you grew up a well-educated conservative Jew, your remarks show you to be fairly well-distanced from the mainstream of the conservative movement of today.
Well, sure, Ela. I certainly don't agree with it. But when I moved to Chicago in 2003, I went for a while to a Conservative congregation in the area (we were afraid that we'd be treated poorly by an Orthodox one). While we no longer go there, I can assure you that I'm quite up to date on the Conservative movement.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I mean, I respect your right to have your own opinion about the divinity of Jesus; I just don't see what it's doing in a thread in which you're asking for an unrelated perspective. (And it's certainly your right to derail your own thread; I'm just getting less inclined to answer.)
I agree with Shmuel. And I mentioned this issue on Friday, but I'm not seeing much difference since you assured me that was not your intent.
On the other hand, I'm both pessimistic and argumentative. Being pessimistic, I'm not at all surprised, and being argumentative, I actually enjoy these sorts of things.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to a Reconstructionist shul when I was in Indiana, and they certainly seemed to be theists. They seemed somewhere in between Reform and Conservative to me. They had BYOB and the Rabbi checked to make sure all of the wine was kosher.
I only went for the social event. I didn't actually daven there, so I could be mistaken.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your responses Lisa, Rivka, and Shmuel. Thank you to everyone else who participates.
Shmuel: If you do not wish to continue posting in the thread for ANY reason, its certainly your prerogative. I understand that I am completely at the mercy of others to answer my questions. If nobody chooses to participate in the thread then I am left with only that which you guys have already given me. Its quite a bit to be sure.
Please note that I said, "I honestly want to avoid if possible any extended debate on Jesus as a messiah." I meant that. Though there is no way to prove it, I was not going to press the issue any further, Rivka provided a link to a site stating Messianic requisites and how Jesus did not fulfill any of them. I was reminded of something I studied relating to Jesus. I don't intend for the topic to become the future of this thread.
Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
No problem. I'm glad you found it, and I hope it was helpful.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
Genesis 1:8: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day."
Genesis 1:13: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a third day."
Genesis 1:19: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."
Genesis 1:23: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day."
Genesis 1:31: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day."
See, evening precedes morning.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
I will, if necessary. But it's often not necessary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you can pick up a Bible (Christian or Hebrew); it is in Genesis where it is stated that the day starts at sundown. They mentioned it on page 3 or 4.
-Bok
Edit: err, what lisa said.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Somehow I missed 1 quite extended post of yours answering many of my questions from page 4, my apologies.
No problem. I'm glad you found it, and I hope it was helpful.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I cannot find where you and Shmuel indicated where its written that days begin at sundown. Is this simply an oral rule or is it written down? Don't mean to be frustratingly slow, I looked through the pages.
Genesis 1:5: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."
Genesis 1:8: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day."
Genesis 1:13: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a third day."
Genesis 1:19: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."
Genesis 1:23: "And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day."
Genesis 1:31: "And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day."
See, evening precedes morning.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I try and request where things are written down just so I can read it in text. I understand alot of the specifics of the law are not written down but are part of the Oral Torah. Feel free to simply throw at me, "In the Oral Torah, sorry can't help you."
I will, if necessary. But it's often not necessary.
Lol its funny because as soon as you said to the effect, "It's in YOUR bible too" I immediately thought of my King James Version of the bible and heard the words, "The evening and the morning were the third day." I thought, "oh hey yeah it does say that."
So used to being told, "Your English Old Testament botches everything up and you need the Hebrew version." that I didn't even think about the wording of the KJV of the bible when discussing the beginning and end of days.
Color me embarrassed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I get back to doctrinal questions, I had 2 miscellaneous questions dealing with Judaism.
How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
Clarinets in Jewish music. Whats the deal? I played clarinet for 7 years and one of my good friends from Israel sat next to me and played too. I've always wondered about it, yesterday new Simpsons Halloween episode brought it up again. They had a clay golem and every transition had a quick clarinet bar, much like Seinfeld and the slap bass.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
It's been claimed that one way we've dealt with millennia of oppression has been by developing a sense of humor about it. Whether that has any truth to it, I don't know. I doubt anybody knows for sure.
(Stop me if you've heard this one: Mr. Goldstein arrives at Heaven and asks for an audience with God. This is granted. "I am the representative of the Jewish people," he says, "and we have a question. Is it true that we are the Chosen People?" God replies in the affirmative. "Well," says Goldstein, "would you mind choosing somebody else for a change?")
quote:Clarinets in Jewish music. Whats the deal? I played clarinet for 7 years and one of my good friends from Israel sat next to me and played too. I've always wondered about it, yesterday new Simpsons Halloween episode brought it up again. They had a clay golem and every transition had a quick clarinet bar, much like Seinfeld and the slap bass.
Well, for one thing, it's portable.
Seriously, it's often used in klezmer, which may explain the Simpsons reference. (I haven't seen that episode.) I'm not aware of clarinet playing being especially widespread among Jews, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I have no clue.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How come so many comedians are Jewish, can any of you identify what within the Jewish culture produces them?
If you don't laugh, you have to cry.
But more than that, humor is about cognitive dissonance. We laugh when something doesn't fit. When something doesn't go the way you'd expect. "Why'd the chicken cross the road?" You expect a reason. When you get something as simple as "To get to the other side", it stops you in your tracks, and you laugh.
At least, it did when the joke was new. Nowadays, there are attempts to refresh it, like "Why'd the monkey fall out of the tree?" "It was dead." "Why'd the chicken fall out of the tree?" "It was stapled to the monkey." Incongruities. Things that defy expectation.
Our lives were full of incongruities and things that defined expectation. So we learned to look at the world that way. We can laugh at anything.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: (Stop me if you've heard this one: Mr. Goldstein arrives at Heaven and asks for an audience with God. This is granted. "I am the representative of the Jewish people," he says, "and we have a question. Is it true that we are the Chosen People?" God replies in the affirmative. "Well," says Goldstein, "would you mind choosing somebody else for a change?")
A Cubs fan dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there, he asks God, "Will the Cubs ever win the World Series again?" God says, "Not in my lifetime."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW I liked your joke Shmuel Unfortunately Ill probably never find an audience that would appreciate it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been said here that a Jew can't stop being a Jew. Are there any limitations to this?
For example (and this is actually true), I understand that one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish. My mother's, mother's, mother's, mother came from a family who we believe, but can not prove, were Jews who fled from Spain to England during the Spanish inquisition. If this story is true, am I Jewish? If not, why not? If it is true, then I imagine that there could be millions of people out there who are Jews, and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law, but do not know it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure how to say what I want to, or even if it ought to be said, but the thought has been on my mind since midway through today when this thread got on the topic of Christ's genealogy.
I feel a little bit like the premise of this thread has faded. Where initially it was a simple, "Let me ask questions, please answer them." It feels like, at least to me that it is now, "BlackBlade created a thread with the stated purpose of satisfying curiosity, but really with the pretext to convert."
I don't much enjoy being called dishonest, but at the same time if that is how people are perceiving my intent it might quite possibly be my fault that this feeling exists. A small chunk keeps suggesting, "BlackBlade this is all in your head, nobody believes that."
I flip flop from annoyance at being called false, and disappointed with myself that I appeared that way, with brief moments of, "Thats not how it is at all, just keep asking questions."
If I am wrong, then great I hope to continue to learn from all of you. If I am right I am not sure how the thread can be salvaged. I don't want to ask questions to folks who believe I do so with any intent other then curiosity. I don't want the carefully crafted statements of somebody who expects debate, nor the quick substanceless reply of one who thinks the person being responded to does not really care, but lurkers might.
If I might request two favors. Please help me understand how I might best avoid giving the vibe that I am not really interested in Judaism so much as how to proselyte Christianity to Jews.
And the other favor, please give me some slack as Ill admit this is my first thread where I have gone into it without the aim to debate and to purely understand. I've posted in hundreds of threads purely for purposes of discussion and persuasion, I HAVE had to make a conscious effort to not bring some of that mindset or vocabulary into this thread. I've got 5 good pages of information, which is hundreds of times more numerous then the last 24 years of my life combined. I've honestly enjoyed this thread, even with this slight unpleasantness, I really do hope I can mine more information from you folks.
Thank you for considering my words.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My mother's, mother's, mother's, mother came from a family who we believe, but can not prove, were Jews who fled from Spain to England during the Spanish inquisition. If this story is true, am I Jewish?
I can't pretend to be qualified to answer anything about the specifics; this is beyond my area of direct knowledge, and it's something that'd need to be handled on a case-by-case basis by a rabbi.
Speaking in generalities, it seems likely (but not certain) to me that the decision would center on the evidence. If, from a religious standpoint, it were ruled certain that your mother's mother's mother's mother was Jewish, then, yes, you'd be Jewish. If it were ruled certain that she wasn't, then you wouldn't be. If it were somewhere in the middle... you're not going to get a practical answer to that on a message board.
quote:If it is true, then I imagine that there could be millions of people out there who are Jews, and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law, but do not know it.
Taking out the phrase "and therefore bound by the Mosaic Law," you're absolutely right.
As for the phrase in the middle... yes and no. If somebody is raised as a non-Jew (the classical definition is someone captured by non-Jews as a child) and honestly doesn't know any better, they're not held accountable for violating Mosaic Law. But, yes, it'd still be their birthright, and they'd be welcomed back into the fold if they found their way back.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel a little bit like the premise of this thread has faded. Where initially it was a simple, "Let me ask questions, please answer them." It feels like, at least to me that it is now, "BlackBlade created a thread with the stated purpose of satisfying curiosity, but really with the pretext to convert."
I'm sorry if I said anything that gave you that impression. I don't think you're being dishonest in that way. To be completely honest, it wouldn't matter to me if you were, but I don't get that vibe.
If you ever want to ask me anything via e-mail, feel free to do so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A guy walks into the synagogue and asks to talk to the rabbi. When the rabbi meets with him, the man says he wants to donate a large sum to the synagogue.
The rabbi is happy, naturally. But the man says he has a condition. "I want you to make me a Kohen," he says.
(Note: A Kohen is an Aaronite priest. A direct male descendent of Aaron, Moses' brother.)
The rabbi is upset, and tries to explain to the man that he can't do that. The man says that's his condition, take it or leave it. So the rabbi, with regrets, tells him he's sorry, and the man leaves.
The next week, the man comes back, and offers twice the money. The rabbi tries to explain to him that it isn't a matter of the money. It just can't be done. The man offers a stunningly large sum, and the rabbi's resolve weakens. Feeling incredibly guilty about the deceit he's about to perpetrate, he tells the man he'll do it.
He puts together a ceremony and performs it. And he tells the man that he's now a Kohen.
The man is incredibly grateful. He thanks the rabbi with tears in his eyes. The rabbi sits him down and asks him, "Look. I really have to know. Why was it so important to you to be a Kohen?"
The man replies, "Well, rabbi. My father was a Kohen. His father was a Kohen. His father was Kohen. So I wanted to be a Kohen as well."
posted
Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well. And Levi and Levine and Levitan and Levin and Segel (Segan Levi = Seg"el) and Siegel are all Levite names. But the same caveat applies.
I was once a counselor at a Conservative summer camp in Wisconsin. I was one of the two counselors in our age group who was in charge of prayers. So at the beginning of the summer, we'd collected index cards from all of the campers with their names, their Hebrew names, their father's names, and in the case of the boys, whether they were Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael (meaning Jews not descended from Levi).
One boy, named Joel, had marked down that he was a Levi. And about halfway through the summer, I was talking with him, and he happened to mention that his father was a convert. It took a few seconds for this to percolate through, and then I asked him, "Joel, if your father is a convert, why did you mark down that you were a Levi?" Joel replied that his mother's father was a Levi, and that they didn't want him to be a "mere" Yisrael, so they decided he could be a Levi, too.
That was towards the end of my association with the Conservative movement, and I think it probably accelerated my leaving. Particularly when the powers that be (my boss, Jane) insisted that we continue to treat him like a Levi. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I do not think you are being dishonest.
However, I do get tired of certain types of questions. Not from you, specifically. But you are neither the first Christian, nor even the first Mormon I have had some of these conversations with. That means there are certain roads I will hesitate to go down, and others I just will not go down at all.
That does not mean I won't answer any more questions, though. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
posted
And Katzin (but not my relatives with that name) and Kahaneman. And I think the Katzenellenbogens are kohanim.
Kwea, there are certain sections of the Torah reading that are done only by kohanim, and others only by levi'im. There are a couple other things as well.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
posted
Kwea, like Rivka said, the main difference nowadays for Levi'im (plural of Levi) is that they get called up for the second reading when the Torah is read. Kohanim get called up for the first.
In the case up at camp, obviously we couldn't call Joel up for the second reading any more. But Jane said we couldn't treat him as a Yisrael. So we just didn't call him up again for the rest of the summer. He never even noticed.
Kohanim have other differences as well. A Kohen may not marry a convert or a divorcee. He may not go into a cemetary except to bury a parent, a child, a sibling or a spouse. There's a real issue with him going into a hospital, because of the possibility (probability) that there's a dead body in there when he's there, and many Kohanim won't become doctors because of this.
During morning prayers, Kohanim bless the congregation. In Israel, this is done every morning. Out of Israel, it's only done during the mussaf prayer on certain holidays.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Theca, thank you for deleting your earlier comment.
Oh, I didn't do it because I was sorry. I had the mistaken idea that there was some sort of mutual respect here between all these peoples and religious groups. I was so wrong. The very idea that we be respected enough to have our own words and beliefs that are important to us after all these centuries of existence gets me compared to the holocaust and chastised in front of hundreds of people. The idea that you might be used to us by now gets me reminded that I need to research how evil Christians have been for persecutions in the past. Right. I didn't realize I was supposed to in the doghouse on Hatrack for things I never did or thought.
This has been a pretty rude awakening for me. I thought we were all friends and equals. I thought we were having an educational discussion for mutual understanding. This isn't the place I thought it was.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Theca, thank you for deleting your earlier comment.
Oh, I didn't do it because I was sorry. I had the mistaken idea that there was some sort of mutual respect here between all these peoples and religious groups. I was so wrong.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess you really don't understand how horrifying it was to hear you say that we shouldn't be offended by something because "we should be used to it by now". That kind of comment is really over the top.
When I saw the comment, I was going to post pretty much the way the others did. But you'd already deleted it. I couldn't understand why the reply thing kept coming up blank. <grin>
But seriously, and without invective, do you honestly not get how telling someone who has been abused over and over and over again that they should just get over it, and that they should be used to it by now, is going to cause a pretty harsh reaction? If not, I suggest that you need to read some history, and try and get a real grasp of the absolute horrors that we suffered, for centuries, all because Christians were offended that we still existed.
Instead of having hurt feelings about how we reacted to what you said, maybe you should actually think about it, and ask yourself, "Okay, Lisa is a bitca, so we expect harshness from her. But Rivka is almost always nice to most people, and Shmuel seems like a nice person as well. What could I possibly have said to get such a unanimous reaction of disgust from all of them?"
quote:Originally posted by Theca: The very idea that we be respected enough to have our own words and beliefs that are important to us after all these centuries of existence gets me compared to the holocaust and chastised in front of hundreds of people.
Ah, but that's not exactly what you said, Theca. You didn't say, "After all this time, don't we have a right to use our own terms?" You said that we should be over it by now. If you'd said the other, I would have argued that, sure, use whatever terms you want, but not in this thread, where Jews are being asked for information. I would have argued the merits of it with you. But you didn't say that.
quote:Originally posted by Theca: The idea that you might be used to us by now gets me reminded that I need to research how evil Christians have been for persecutions in the past. Right.
Yes, right. If you want to understand why what you said elicited the reaction it did, rather than just taking offense about it, that's probably what you should do. Maybe have a little empathy for people who have suffered at the hands of a culture that thought "we should be used to it by now".
You say "persecutions in the past" as though there were a few little peccadillos, rather than literally centuries of murder and oppression. If you think we have a persecution complex, well, maybe we do. And maybe there's a reason for that. And while we don't blame individual Christians today for it, we're quite aware that this could just be a bubble in history. How many times do you have to have your people herded into a synagogue that's then set on fire before you lose the ability to take Christian terminology as just words?
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I didn't realize I was supposed to in the doghouse on Hatrack for things I never did or thought.
You were criticized (attacked), not for things you never did or thought. You were criticized for saying that we should be used to it by now. And I'm flabbergasted by the fact that you seem unable to understand the distinction. It shows a serious lack of empathy on your part.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Instead of having hurt feelings about how we reacted to what you said, maybe you should actually think about it, and ask yourself, "Okay, Lisa is a bitca, so we expect harshness from her. But Rivka is almost always nice to most people, and Shmuel seems like a nice person as well. What could I possibly have said to get such a unanimous reaction of disgust from all of them?"
Actually, I missed this one entirely, not having seen the original post. I think I've stayed out of the nomenclature debate, seeing as how I have no problem with "Old Testament." It's a term readily understood by those of all stripes, and I don't find it to be inherently offensive. But that's me.
Not having seen the post in question, I can only suppose that what Theca intended to say and what Rivka and Lisa heard are two different things. In the absence of further information -- and before somebody does some cutting and pasting, I'm really not looking for any -- I'm content to assume it's a matter of the same words meaning very different things to people from different cultural contexts, and that everybody might benefit from taking a deep breath and perhaps a nice cup of tea.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seriously? Yes, Cohen and Kohn and Kahan and Cohn and Kahn and Katz (Kohen Tzedek = Ka"tz) and Kahane and Kaplan are all Kohanic names. Although not everyone with that name is a Kohen any more. And there are families of Kohanim named Rapoport and Atlas, as well.
Also Dweks.
So is Douek also?
Yes. It's a variant spelling of the same name. I've also seen it spelled Dweck.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
