Question for Christian theologians

Gosh. Nobody's that classical Reform any more.

 

THAT Reform?

Uncle,

No, you are right, our shabbat means what it says, "seven". And I wear a kippah and tallit on Saturday mornings usw. Really, when we're feeling particularly religious, you'd have a hard time telling us from a Conservative congregation on Shabbat. Well, no musaf and we usually don't do the haftarah though I wish we did, but to an outsider, anyway, the differences aren't that obvious.

You might be interested to know, though, that Sunday services are enjoying a kind of renewed interest in addition to Shabbat. Why? Because the Sunday service is a WEEKDAY service which is, as you know, not the same as the Shabbat service. It has the full amidah and a few other things that people want an opportunity to say.

It also offers the opportunity to wrap t'fillin.

BillDayson,

BELIEVE me, I share your doubts! Judaism is a non dogmatic religion; I can participate fully in the life of the community without ever being asked whether I believe in God. The average Jew would consider that a personal, and even to some extent offensive, question. There IS no such concept as "salvation" or "grace" or really, "hell" in any Christian sense. These things are beyond our ken, you see. (little fauss is going to argue with me on this point but all I can do is invite him to attend our services and study sessions for a year or so. He'll see.)

But societies that do not address religious questions end up in a sort of moral relativism that can be, and has been, deadly. Nazism really became murderous once it replaced Christianity with state centered paganism. The common and continuous but limited brutality of the Church toward Jews was both a source of cruelty AND a restraint on ultimate cruelity. Sort of "thus far and no further." The Soviet and Red Chinese governments are also horrible examples of states and governments unrestrained by moral and religious scruples.

Even in this country, the abolition of slavery as an effective political movement first stirred in religious circles. Slavery was justified, of course, in religious terms but the lie inherant in that justification was pretty obvious to all but the most self interested slaveowner. And, ultimately, the lie collapsed of its own weight.

So which religion? Personally, I'd like to see all Americans embrace one form or another of Judaism. But that has as much chance as a lace valentine in Hell. Lacking that, all I can say is that religions in general tend to stress important, common values. Human dignity. Respect for life in all its forms. Accountability for one's actions. Honesty in business dealings.

I am not sure that the differences among religious groups actually matters much in terms of the political value of a religious contribution. What people THINK or FEEL matters far less to me, (and the Jew would say, "to God") than how we BEHAVE.

 

Re: THAT Reform?

Sign me up now.....

 

THAT Reform?

Uncle,

No, you are right, our shabbat means what it says, "seven". And I wear a kippah and tallit on Saturday mornings usw. Really, when we're feeling particularly religious, you'd have a hard time telling us from a Conservative congregation on Shabbat. Well, no musaf and we usually don't do the haftarah though I wish we did, but to an outsider, anyway, the differences aren't that obvious.

You might be interested to know, though, that Sunday services are enjoying a kind of renewed interest in addition to Shabbat. Why? Because the Sunday service is a WEEKDAY service which is, as you know, not the same as the Shabbat service. It has the full amidah and a few other things that people want an opportunity to say.

It also offers the opportunity to wrap t'fillin.

BillDayson,

BELIEVE me, I share your doubts! Judaism is a non dogmatic religion; I can participate fully in the life of the community without ever being asked whether I believe in God. The average Jew would consider that a personal, and even to some extent offensive, question. There IS no such concept as "salvation" or "grace" or really, "hell" in any Christian sense. These things are beyond our ken, you see. (little fauss is going to argue with me on this point but all I can do is invite him to attend our services and study sessions for a year or so. He'll see.)

But societies that do not address religious questions end up in a sort of moral relativism that can be, and has been, deadly. Nazism really became murderous once it replaced Christianity with state centered paganism. The common and continuous but limited brutality of the Church toward Jews was both a source of cruelty AND a restraint on ultimate cruelity. Sort of "thus far and no further." The Soviet and Red Chinese governments are also horrible examples of states and governments unrestrained by moral and religious scruples.

Even in this country, the abolition of slavery as an effective political movement first stirred in religious circles. Slavery was justified, of course, in religious terms but the lie inherant in that justification was pretty obvious to all but the most self interested slaveowner. And, ultimately, the lie collapsed of its own weight.

So which religion? Personally, I'd like to see all Americans embrace one form or another of Judaism. But that has as much chance as a lace valentine in Hell. Lacking that, all I can say is that religions in general tend to stress important, common values. Human dignity. Respect for life in all its forms. Accountability for one's actions. Honesty in business dealings.

I am not sure that the differences among religious groups actually matters much in terms of the political value of a religious contribution. What people THINK or FEEL matters far less to me, (and the Jew would say, "to God") than how we BEHAVE.

 

Re: THAT Reform?

Sign me up now....

 

While I'm no fan of Moyers--it's a bit hard to get over that Goldwater commercial, which was perhaps the greatest slimejob in the history of U.S. politics--I agree that for Christians to use the possibility of the end times as an excuse for environmental apathy is absurd and would violate various biblical admonitions and principles. And of the timing of the End Times, no one knows the day nor the hour. It could be in 5 minutes or 5,000 years.

One other picky point: why the "rapture" has any bearing on this is beyond me; the question is whether the earth will be destroyed in the last days--the Tribulation Period, not the rapture per se--and whether these days are rapidly approaching, not whether Christians are raptured before the Tribulation--the rapture is not the distinguishing factor here, it's the Tribulation.

 

Hmm. How is YHWH going to destroy the Earth in the last days when humanoids seem to be doing a pretty good job of that themselves?

 

little fauss,

Apparently the "rapture folks" Moyers was writing about share a belief that we are now in the end times and that the rapture will take place in the next forty years or so. Thus, no need to conserve or preserve.

It comes in part, I suppose, from a serious lack of knowledge of Church history. There have been many, many occasions in the past when people were just SURE that the end times were upon us. They were wrong then and are likely wrong now.

Something similar has happened from time to time in the Jewish world, too. The last false messiah (excepting maybe Rabbi Schneerson whom noboby outside the Lubavicher establishment took very seriously) was a fellow named Shabbatai Zevi in the 17th century or so. It was madness! People from Jewish communities all over Europe followed this fraud to the Levant where, on pain of death, he converted to Islam.

Reform and Reconstructionism, and for all practical purposes the Conservatives as well, have abandoned the messianic idea in favor of a sort of "nation as messiah" by which is generally meant the State of Israel.

This makes more sense if you understand that the Jewish messiah looks nothing like the Christian variety. He is a political leader who will reestablish Israel in the Holy Land. He is not divine. He does not have supernatural powers of any sort. He is not a religious leader as such, nor even a prophet. (Indeed, prophets are likely to have to lecture him on his shortcomings in the traditional Jewish way.)

All the word means is "anointed one". Saul, David, Solomon, Ahab, Jeroboam, etc. ALL were "messiahs".

 

How have I gotten my cause and effect all wrong? Why is there no integrity in what I'm saying? My best guess is that you think I should acknowledge the "irrefutable truth" that any theology professing a period of tribulation and destruction and the possibility of a rapture is dead wrong and unbiblical. Therefore, anyone with integrity, be they conservative or liberal theologically, should stand up and denounce the Left Behind series. That to let this stuff slide, in the interest of perhaps "scaring the hell" out of a few as-yet unconverted dupes who happen upon the books, even if the books happen to represent a grotesque distortion of the biblical truths upon which--of course--we all, at bottom, agree, is outrageous and cynical.

But there's a problem, Gregg, I don't agree that End Times theology is bunk. And neither do a great number of people. And neither should anyone who picks up the Bible and just reads it!

The obvious, prima facie reading is that there is great destruction coming some day. I actually believe that the Bible says, and I believe that when it's very clear about things--such as coming destruction of the world--that it should be read as such. Only in the world of a liberal theologan would "integrity" be defined as "lawyering up" the clear meaning of the Scriptures until they mean precisely the opposite of what they clearly say.

Again, that's not exegesis--it's sophistry.

"O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not ."

Why should I give a disclaimer, as if believing the words of Jeshua automatically disqualified one from being able to enter polite and reasoned conversation? Is not even the suggestion a bit out-of-bounds?

What my leanings mean is that I take seriously what my Messiah says, whether it be His clear and obvious teachings upon the End of the Age, or about loving the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind and with all my strength, and loving my neighbor as myself. Those last two, I'm still aspiring to.

I have Messianic leanings and am thankful that the L-rd G-d has given understanding to me. Not that I deserve it, not that I'm smarter or inherently wiser than you, not that I'm better than anyone who breathes. I'm not.

 

Was it Pat Robertson who stated his belief that the Anti-Christ has likely now been born and is a Jewish male?

I wondered where to send in my application...

 

Little shot across my bow? Well, shalom to you, brother. And happy Shabbat. My wife will be lighting the two candles of blessing within minutes of the sundown tonight irregardless.

 

Well I disagree with them, then. But of course, you already know I disagree with a great deal of the practice--if not the theology--of contemporary Christianity.

I agree if you're willing to admit that that's the traditional Jewish understanding of Messiah. But the one I see spoken of in the Scriptures and the Prophets and the Psalms is someone rather different from the traditional Jewish understanding--He's Jeshua, in my opinion.

 

A little aside: I got lazy and did a cut-and-paste from a scripture site--I noticed it now and it kind of stood out to me--oops! My dash thing, not spelling out the name of my Redeemer, is more stylistic anyway, I don't literally think that I will be struck down for violation of the Third.

 

All I can give you, little fauss, is the written work of Jewish sages from the second temple period forward. I am not going to argue bible prophecy with you because the bible prophets can be read in whatever manner suits the prejudices or needs of the reader, and you know it well. I have elsewhere posted notes on how a Jew reads prophecy differently than a Christian does and I won't repeat myself here.

I would suggest, moreover, that this difference may not be unconnected with the refusal of Jews in general to accept Christianity also from the second temple period forward despite regular...shall we call them inducements? to do so. Proclaim what you will about what you think the bible says; the continuing Jewish nation is itself a witness to its OWN interpretation of its OWN texts in its OWN language.

 

Fine then, my point is that you're jettisoning the texts in favor of the rabbinic tradition. Ask yourself: which is greater--the prophet or the One who made the prophet? Look at the texts yourself. I'm sure you do, probably have in your lifetime more than me. Now tell me if the whole Exodus story, the Pesach, does not point to Messiah, his manner of death, His redemption for us as our Pesach lamb. Even the blood--of a perfect, unblemished lamb, no less--in the basin, on the lintel and on the doorposts was spread in a manner almost precisely coinciding with the location of the blood of the One I call Messiah as he hung on that cross--draw it out yourself in your mind. How about Psalms 22? How about the prophets who told where Messiah would be born--Bethlehem?

Of course, a text can be fashioned to say whatever the reader wishes. Ms Rossing is a prime example of this phenomenon, calling the worldwide destruction predicted in the Revelation a great message of hope and peace, saying that all who claim otherwise--namely, that the text actually means something roughly akin to what it actually says--are twisters of the words, glorifiers of violence for their own selfish ends. Of course people can twist. But if there are things there that give you pause, its incumbent upon you to address them head on, not dismiss them.

 

Correction: I meant to say "which is greater--the RABBI or the One who made the RABBI?" I meant to draw no such distinction between the words of the ancient Jewish prophets and the words of the One who made them--I believe those two can be collapsed. I do not believe the same is true of the many leaders and great rabbis that have formed Jewish tradition over the centuries, in the same manner that I don't believe the various Christian leaders have been infallible over the centuries and should be followed blindly.

Just because it was said by great men of old does not mean it's right. The Scriptures should be the point of reference, not so-and-so's take on them, even if so-and-so has been revered for millenia.

 

But little fauss!

1. I utterly reject Jesus as ANY sort of prophet or teacher! I do not consider him to BE a messenger from God! So of COURSE I consider the Rabbis to be a superior source of wisdom!

2. I utterly reject the Christian notion that ANY human needs to intercede for, let alone sacrifice himself for, humanity to appease God! That is an ABSOLUTELY unJewish notion.

3. I utterly reject the idea that the bible was somehow dictated by God! Torah and the subsequent books are HUMAN creations that reflect the culture and history of the Jewish people! (I admit, as to this last, that belief in "dictation" DOES appear in Orthodox Jewish thought but even among Orthodox scholars, the exact nature of the revelation is a subject of fierce debate.)

You see, your arguments literally make NO SENSE WHATEVER to me because, as I have said before, I utterly reject your faith based starting point!

 

1. Point one misses my point. I'm not comparing Jeshua to the rabbis, I'm comparing the Prophets and the Scriptures and Torah to the rabbis. I'm saying that if you look honestly where I or people with far more knowledge than me would point you, you'd discover that there's a great deal in all of the above--which I think inspired by you-know-who--that points directly to Jeshua as Messiah.

2. Human sacrifice as practiced by the Canaanite tribes as necessary to appease G-d is most certainly not Jewish. I whole-heartedly agree! In fact, you and I both know the pains that were undertaken to prevent your ancient ancestors from being polluted by that mindset--you've read the Torah on these issues more than me. But that sort of sacrifice is not quite what I'm discussing here. I'm discussing the price to be paid for sin, and the fact that that price was paid in the blood of choice livestock dating back to Abel. I'm saying that the plan of the L-rd G-d from day one was impress upon the minds of His Chosen People the necessity of this blood penance necessary to absolve their sins. If that G-d chose to later enter this planet and pay that price Himself--rather than asking them to do the abomination of the Canaanites is utilizing their own children for this, then what of it? Why exactly would that be a blasphemy?

3. Of course, I know that you reject the Law and the Prophets and the Scriptures as authoritative and inspired by G-d. I'm not that naive or ignorant, I can read your posts. But I'm suggesting that you consider the possibility that the above are divine and not just ancient literature and tribal statutes.

I'm asking you to acknowledge that you may have taken on a decidedly non-Hebraic mindset; that your thinking comes more from the Greeks than the Jews, if I--technically a gentile--can be so presumtuous as to say it. There are a great many reasons to look at the Hebrew texts and consider that there's something more there than just the touch of man. I've given you a few examples that you've completely ignored, such as the placement of civilization's origin in the exact proper time and place, the revelation of the world as round before the best Western minds discovered it, the numerous fulfilled prophecies, etc.

If you're unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility of something extraordinary, something perhaps a little--or a lot!--bigger than you existing in these ancient but extraordinary documents, then I would say that you've allowed this Western, Greek mindset to completely blind you. Human logic and reason are often neither logical nor reasonable.

 

NO, I DO NOT REJECT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS AS AUTHORITATIVE!!!

Do you think I am a HEATHEN?

I reject the theories that involve "dictation". I do admit that there are "literalists" and always have been but it is not and never has been a universal delusion.

Torah and the writings chronicle the encounter of the Jews and pre Jews with the "OTHER". Of COURSE these things are authoritative! They are authoritative as to the understanding between the community and the individual Jew. They express what Tevya says, "Everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do." What they are NOT to be taken as is literal theology! There IS NO Jewish theology.

Like ALL texts they must be read in CONTEXT. You CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT understand them without understanding the history and culture of the people who wrote them! And you CANNOT apply them today unless you take into acount the condition of the people today!

I wonder. Have you EVER lived as part of a Jewish community? A non Christian Jewish community, I mean? It just seems to me that you keep returning to the scriptures as if they were somehow complete in themselves and could be relied upon to give you correct understandings without any sense at all of the people to whom they speak. You seem so willing to impose meanings on on Jewish things that few Jews have ever accepted or are ever likely to accept.

Listen carefully:

-There is no cosmic afterlife price to be paid for "sin" in Torah. This belief came late to Judaism.

-There DID develop a belief in an afterlife and in a sort of hell, limited in duration to twelve months, whatever that may mean. It bears no resemblance to the Christian idea of eternal damnation. There is NO concept of avoiding hell by sacrificing a person, animal, or piece of fruit.

-There is NO ORIGINAL SIN. This doctrine has NEVER been adopted by any mainstream Jewish school of thought.

-There is NO CONCEPT of salvation or heavenly redemption.

There is NO CONCEPT of God beyond a single, unified, indescribable "other". There certainly is NO IDEA WHATSOEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES of a God/human. There ARE prohibitions against serving any such diety!

Judaism did not then, nor does it now, concern itself with the concept of an afterlife beyond a few speculations.

ALL of these things are interpretations that the Christian Church placed upon Jewish books.

I do NOT ask you to accept my word for this. Find a Rabbi, your choice of movements, and ASK him/her. Find two. Find a dozen. Read a hundred books by Jewish scholars.

BETTER than that! Go get a copy of the Reform machzor and READ CAREFULLY the first third of the kol nidre service. Pay especial attention to the focus of the congregation on our individual and collective failings in the passing year and most especially on what it is we ASK for! Hint: IT AIN'T HEAVEN!

Then ATTEND kol nidre! Participate!

 

Apologies, I don't know what you are in your heart--I can't presume to know with any certainty.

I don't think it's the product of my personal delusion. I don't think it's a delusion.