Torah-observant Christian?
- Thread starter Prober
- Start date
Prober,
I think the only way to view Jesus in such a way would be to compare him to a rebbe. Info available here:
Rebbe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dauer
I think the only way to view Jesus in such a way would be to compare him to a rebbe. Info available here:
Rebbe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dauer
That was brilliant/ignorant.
What amazes me is your willingness to disregard 2 billion people because you are ticked off at the christian faith?
And you thought I was rude...(enough for you to file a complaint)...
Arrogance.
q
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Luna!
Touche! What I meant to say was that I have glimpsed it, if only for a moment, on very rare occasions.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, China Cat!
Where you see the benefit of Christianity separating from Judaism, I see the benefit of drawing closer to the source. "Amicable divorce" is an intriguing way of describing the situation...but I do think a suitable one. The schizophrenia as you put it, would in my opinion be better resolved by "divorcing" the pagan elements, which are not crucial to the subplot to begin with, and are merely window dressing to make the whole thing palatable to a wider audience. So if Christianity should set aside either side of its schizophrenia, I think it should be the pagan side set aside, and to embrace its root "family" in Judaism. I do find it quite telling, that Jewish wisdom is not dependent on Greek logic...indeed, as others have pointed to elsewhere, Greek logic has its own faults, besides which other wisdom traditions are not subservient or beholding to Greek logic. There is logic that is quite contrary to wisdom...there is wisdom that seems quite illogical.
Of course, that's just my take on the matter.
Conceptually, I agree.
I love Prober's response; "who gets the kids?" LOL
Where you see the benefit of Christianity separating from Judaism, I see the benefit of drawing closer to the source. "Amicable divorce" is an intriguing way of describing the situation...but I do think a suitable one. The schizophrenia as you put it, would in my opinion be better resolved by "divorcing" the pagan elements, which are not crucial to the subplot to begin with, and are merely window dressing to make the whole thing palatable to a wider audience. So if Christianity should set aside either side of its schizophrenia, I think it should be the pagan side set aside, and to embrace its root "family" in Judaism. I do find it quite telling, that Jewish wisdom is not dependent on Greek logic...indeed, as others have pointed to elsewhere, Greek logic has its own faults, besides which other wisdom traditions are not subservient or beholding to Greek logic. There is logic that is quite contrary to wisdom...there is wisdom that seems quite illogical.Of course, that's just my take on the matter.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Good stuff Juan! I think I will take my comments over to your Jesus name thread as they may not be appropriate for the Judaism forum. Normally I don't worry about going off topic, but I don't want to hijack this particular one. Got to get the kiddies off to bed first, though.
Chris
Chris
Kind of like that movie "The Parent Trap" where the kids (who really know what's going on) get their dad to kick out that citified floozy and get back together with their mom (who's really cuter anyway)?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Prober!
The difficulty I see, and here I cannot escape bringing up the person Jesus, is just how "Greek" is the Christian Messiah story? There certainly are those here that would quickly remind how close the whole affair sounds to a number of pagan savior / messiah stories. So we enter into a quandary over the authenticity of the earliest Gospels, and how accurate they are in telling the story as it happened (or were they fabrications from the git-go?). Seems to me Mark was the first Gospel written, and I want to say it was written at minimum 20 years or more after the fact.
There is absolutely no denying the value of the morality lessons in the Gospels...but these same essential lessons can be had across a number of religious traditions. So does Christianity have a claim on a man that could legitimately walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead and turn water into wine? Or is this all window dressing to appeal to pagan masses by inserting the essential story line of (*insert hero-god of choice here*) into a new mythos and commandeer the symbols and names of a political thorn in the ass. Everybody is appeased to some extent...and over time nobody is the wiser.
Either Jesus did the *supernatural* things he did, or he didn't and they were superimposed for political purposes. Either Jesus is G-d incarnate (or some kind or type or manifestation or extension of G-d), or he is a fabrication of political expediency.
For many, many years I refused to watch the movie "the Life of Brian." I thought it quite heretical. I chanced a peak a while back when I found a copy in the discount rack (and after hearing so much about it on CR). I watched again the other night. I realize a great deal of what the actors were doing was played for the laugh out of sarcasm...yet there is an underlying profoundness as well. How gullible the crowds can be, falling for whatever appeals to their particular senses. How politics and "groupthink" and propaganda undermine the reality taking place in front of our very eyes. How we cannot live without religion in some sense, yet we do our level best to circumvent religion at every possible turn. This movie is funny not because these concepts are made up...we aren't laughing at Christianity per se, *we are laughing at ourselves because we know this is how we (as humans) are!* This movie could likely be done about any faith walk, because the same human foibles are present everywhere.
The longer I dwell on the concept of Jesus being a radical rabbi, the more comfortable it seems. There is a great deal of pagan symbology comingled within modern Christianity, so much it is difficult to draw a line of demarcation and separation. Whether Jesus walked on water I do not know, but I am confident he was a great Jewish teacher.
Something like that.Kind of like that movie "The Parent Trap" where the kids (who really know what's going on) get their dad to kick out that citified floozy and get back together with their mom (who's really cuter anyway)?
The difficulty I see, and here I cannot escape bringing up the person Jesus, is just how "Greek" is the Christian Messiah story? There certainly are those here that would quickly remind how close the whole affair sounds to a number of pagan savior / messiah stories. So we enter into a quandary over the authenticity of the earliest Gospels, and how accurate they are in telling the story as it happened (or were they fabrications from the git-go?). Seems to me Mark was the first Gospel written, and I want to say it was written at minimum 20 years or more after the fact.
There is absolutely no denying the value of the morality lessons in the Gospels...but these same essential lessons can be had across a number of religious traditions. So does Christianity have a claim on a man that could legitimately walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead and turn water into wine? Or is this all window dressing to appeal to pagan masses by inserting the essential story line of (*insert hero-god of choice here*) into a new mythos and commandeer the symbols and names of a political thorn in the ass. Everybody is appeased to some extent...and over time nobody is the wiser.
Either Jesus did the *supernatural* things he did, or he didn't and they were superimposed for political purposes. Either Jesus is G-d incarnate (or some kind or type or manifestation or extension of G-d), or he is a fabrication of political expediency.
For many, many years I refused to watch the movie "the Life of Brian." I thought it quite heretical. I chanced a peak a while back when I found a copy in the discount rack (and after hearing so much about it on CR). I watched again the other night. I realize a great deal of what the actors were doing was played for the laugh out of sarcasm...yet there is an underlying profoundness as well. How gullible the crowds can be, falling for whatever appeals to their particular senses. How politics and "groupthink" and propaganda undermine the reality taking place in front of our very eyes. How we cannot live without religion in some sense, yet we do our level best to circumvent religion at every possible turn. This movie is funny not because these concepts are made up...we aren't laughing at Christianity per se, *we are laughing at ourselves because we know this is how we (as humans) are!* This movie could likely be done about any faith walk, because the same human foibles are present everywhere.
The longer I dwell on the concept of Jesus being a radical rabbi, the more comfortable it seems. There is a great deal of pagan symbology comingled within modern Christianity, so much it is difficult to draw a line of demarcation and separation. Whether Jesus walked on water I do not know, but I am confident he was a great Jewish teacher.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Prober!
Yeah, I keep waffling over the same thing...and find myself ready to chuck it all and become shaman.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
What kind of shaman?
I like Judaism too...a lot! But it's not my ethnicity. I don't easily see how one could embrace Judaism without the corresponding ethnical background. I love kabbalah. I love the three thousand year continuum of intellectual, philosphical, and mystical-metaphysical endeavor. But it's not my heritage.
Chris
I like Judaism too...a lot! But it's not my ethnicity. I don't easily see how one could embrace Judaism without the corresponding ethnical background. I love kabbalah. I love the three thousand year continuum of intellectual, philosphical, and mystical-metaphysical endeavor. But it's not my heritage.
Chris
inhumility
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
There cannot be any Torah-observant Christian
Hi
I cannot visualize a Christian who in fact believes in Torah or practices Torah, from the time Paul lead them astray. Jesus himself was a Jewish ribbi, they tell us. One can become a follower of Paul and the church he established breaking the Covenant of Torah. Well that may be my opinion, others have every right to differ with me, no compulsion, but it is a fact.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam
Hi
I cannot visualize a Christian who in fact believes in Torah or practices Torah, from the time Paul lead them astray. Jesus himself was a Jewish ribbi, they tell us. One can become a follower of Paul and the church he established breaking the Covenant of Torah. Well that may be my opinion, others have every right to differ with me, no compulsion, but it is a fact.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, China Cat!
Kindest Regards, Inhumility!
Kindest Regards, Dauer!
Kindest Regards, Prober!
Good question. I jest mostly, but I do have Native American heritage, Cherokee and Seminole, as near as I can tell. But it is the Lakota that inspires me and catches my attention. A good friend is Apache shaman.
If you have European ancestry, you may be surprised...pleasantly or otherwise.
Kindest Regards, Inhumility!
You are free to believe as you wish, but I am curious why you should think a Christian incapable of looking to and respecting his religion's roots? Simply put; my Messiah was Jewish...why should I not honor the Jewish religion?
Kindest Regards, Dauer!
Sounds interesting, I would love to hear you expand on this.
Kindest Regards, Prober!
Or something. Maybe a closet agnostic? Dispense with all labels altogether and leave all the fuss and infighting to others?
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Nope. I'm scandinavian. Ain't got a celtic bone in my body. Not anglo nor saxon. Do you by any chance have a connection with the World Wide Church of God and Garner Ted Armstrong?
Chris
Juantoo,
The merkavah is ezekiel's chariot. Heikhalot literature dealt iirc with ascending through various palaces. They're both examples of extremely vivid mystical realities, something that's pretty much part and parcel of shamanism. Shamanism is less a belief system and more a type of practice, one that directly engages the imaginal. I don't think that's the only place one might find indications of shamanism in Judaism. The originators of kabbalah may also have engaged in shamanic practices via which they came up with the various systems and processes of kabbalah. I think one of the things that makes it seem more foreign is simply the name, which for many raises images of specific types of rituals etc.
Book books books. Too many. lol. A tanach is a definite, but then there are a number of different translations and none are official. NJPS is probably the best all-around, but it's not perfect. The Fox translation of the Torah is what I prefer for Torah reading. He hasn't done the rest of the Tanach. "Back to the Sources" by I think Barry Holtz imo is almost essential, as it shows how to approach Jewish texts, from tanach and commentaries, to gemara, to the siddur, to kabbalah and hasidic texts. The essays are each written by masters in their field. That's from the Conservative movement. Jewish Literacy by Telushkin is also a classic. He's an Orthodox rabbi and this goes over all off Jewish history including biblical plus fundamental beliefs, holidays, and lots of other stuff. Another good book along the same introduction line is Jewish with Feeling by R. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi. It offers a lot of practical advise, also I think is a bit less straight education, more about engaging the reader with concerns and issues they might be having. That's probably a good place to start, although there are many many more good books, and I've probably left something significant out. myjewishlearning.com is a very good resource. jewfaq.org is decent, but more limited both in scope and perspective.
I don't really follow any particular branch of Judaism. I consider myself post-denominational and I'm attracted to ideas in both reconstructionism and renewal, although renewal isn't really a denomination so much as a transdenominational movement. Not sure it will remain that way, but as of now it seems to have people interested in primarily the liberal movements, and to a much lesser degree orthodoxy.
I really don't agree much at all with Orthodoxy when it comes to beliefs, or its need to stick to halachah, although I do feel that it's important they hold that space. Conservative Judaism I see as doing good work, but essentially I don't think they're really doing things too much differently than Orthodoxy. In some ways I think they've made a step back by centralizing halachic rulings, although they are definitely more progressive than Orthodoxy. I don't really agree with Reform Judaism. I don't think it works when the movement is pushing that people should just do what they want, and if it doesn't make sense to them just drop it. I think the individualism of Reform is important, recognizing people as individuals, but I think where it fails is that it never really went beyond halachah to create something else that could bind people together. It instead accepts halachah and says, "We still see this as Jewish law, but we don't necessarily hold it as binding for ourself. We'll decide as individuals." So I think that's a problem.
Reconstructionism I like because it does make change, it's in fact very progressive, the authority is shifted really to the community, but also the definition of what halachah currently is, that is made by the community too. There is a sort of standard for any given community. Some people will do more, some people will do less (it's not black and white) but there's an idea of where the community stands. And they give tradition a vote but not a veto.
Renewal is a sort of neo-hasidism, taken loosely. Neo-hasidism is something much broader which would include the works of, for example, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and there is also a large crossover between the neo-hasidic movement and renewal, but besides that renewal seems to be a popularist mystical movement fully embracing modernity and everything that comes with it and trying to essentially pick up where hasidism left off with radical theology and practice, before hasidism did a 180. So in Renewal one of the things you see that you don't see as much other places, is the theology can shape the practice. Jewish theology has always been very free but it hasn't really in the past changed practice, with the exception of real shifts like the beginning of rabbinic Judaism.
Post-denominationalism is just sorta saying, the whole denominational structure isn't working. People are more interested in the type of davvening a shul has, what type of d'var torah they're gonna hear, what type of classes are offered, stuff like that. Individuals may hold to certain halachic customs, and for them they'll want the shul to meet those, but you don't need the denominational structure to indicate that. It just adds a whole lot of beauracracy and division. I'd like to see it much more localized eventually.
Dauer
The merkavah is ezekiel's chariot. Heikhalot literature dealt iirc with ascending through various palaces. They're both examples of extremely vivid mystical realities, something that's pretty much part and parcel of shamanism. Shamanism is less a belief system and more a type of practice, one that directly engages the imaginal. I don't think that's the only place one might find indications of shamanism in Judaism. The originators of kabbalah may also have engaged in shamanic practices via which they came up with the various systems and processes of kabbalah. I think one of the things that makes it seem more foreign is simply the name, which for many raises images of specific types of rituals etc.
Book books books. Too many. lol. A tanach is a definite, but then there are a number of different translations and none are official. NJPS is probably the best all-around, but it's not perfect. The Fox translation of the Torah is what I prefer for Torah reading. He hasn't done the rest of the Tanach. "Back to the Sources" by I think Barry Holtz imo is almost essential, as it shows how to approach Jewish texts, from tanach and commentaries, to gemara, to the siddur, to kabbalah and hasidic texts. The essays are each written by masters in their field. That's from the Conservative movement. Jewish Literacy by Telushkin is also a classic. He's an Orthodox rabbi and this goes over all off Jewish history including biblical plus fundamental beliefs, holidays, and lots of other stuff. Another good book along the same introduction line is Jewish with Feeling by R. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi. It offers a lot of practical advise, also I think is a bit less straight education, more about engaging the reader with concerns and issues they might be having. That's probably a good place to start, although there are many many more good books, and I've probably left something significant out. myjewishlearning.com is a very good resource. jewfaq.org is decent, but more limited both in scope and perspective.
I don't really follow any particular branch of Judaism. I consider myself post-denominational and I'm attracted to ideas in both reconstructionism and renewal, although renewal isn't really a denomination so much as a transdenominational movement. Not sure it will remain that way, but as of now it seems to have people interested in primarily the liberal movements, and to a much lesser degree orthodoxy.
I really don't agree much at all with Orthodoxy when it comes to beliefs, or its need to stick to halachah, although I do feel that it's important they hold that space. Conservative Judaism I see as doing good work, but essentially I don't think they're really doing things too much differently than Orthodoxy. In some ways I think they've made a step back by centralizing halachic rulings, although they are definitely more progressive than Orthodoxy. I don't really agree with Reform Judaism. I don't think it works when the movement is pushing that people should just do what they want, and if it doesn't make sense to them just drop it. I think the individualism of Reform is important, recognizing people as individuals, but I think where it fails is that it never really went beyond halachah to create something else that could bind people together. It instead accepts halachah and says, "We still see this as Jewish law, but we don't necessarily hold it as binding for ourself. We'll decide as individuals." So I think that's a problem.
Reconstructionism I like because it does make change, it's in fact very progressive, the authority is shifted really to the community, but also the definition of what halachah currently is, that is made by the community too. There is a sort of standard for any given community. Some people will do more, some people will do less (it's not black and white) but there's an idea of where the community stands. And they give tradition a vote but not a veto.
Renewal is a sort of neo-hasidism, taken loosely. Neo-hasidism is something much broader which would include the works of, for example, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and there is also a large crossover between the neo-hasidic movement and renewal, but besides that renewal seems to be a popularist mystical movement fully embracing modernity and everything that comes with it and trying to essentially pick up where hasidism left off with radical theology and practice, before hasidism did a 180. So in Renewal one of the things you see that you don't see as much other places, is the theology can shape the practice. Jewish theology has always been very free but it hasn't really in the past changed practice, with the exception of real shifts like the beginning of rabbinic Judaism.
Post-denominationalism is just sorta saying, the whole denominational structure isn't working. People are more interested in the type of davvening a shul has, what type of d'var torah they're gonna hear, what type of classes are offered, stuff like that. Individuals may hold to certain halachic customs, and for them they'll want the shul to meet those, but you don't need the denominational structure to indicate that. It just adds a whole lot of beauracracy and division. I'd like to see it much more localized eventually.
Dauer