• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"True Jew"

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul also says we who are in Christ are the circumcision? This after he states that Peter will go to the circumcision (presumably meaning Jews) while he will go to the Gentiles. So you see that posting mere snapshots of serious ideas is like posting a snapshot of a human pupil as though it were the image of the person your revealing, or else, perhaps, painting a man's portrait from his corpse.


John
 

Intojoy

Member
Not necessarily the end of the thread, but rather the beginning and end of the time you spent researching the question. I.e., the depth and breadth of your concern for this topic, and perhaps others as well? What Robin Williams (rest his soul) called a drive-by fruiting.


John
f105622f6eca30e5e1d6ccb43aafc8ee.jpg
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Paul also says we who are in Christ are the circumcision? This after he states that Peter will go to the circumcision (presumably meaning Jews) while he will go to the Gentiles. So you see that posting mere snapshots of serious ideas is like posting a snapshot of a human pupil as though it were the image of the person your revealing, or else, perhaps, painting a man's portrait from his corpse.


John
I don't quite get what you mean, but spiritually we are not Jews or Christians, or any name you can muster up, we are one in God, names no matter what are just mere labels,
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Patrilineal decent doesn't make Moses' offspring Jewish in the sense of the covenant
So you say, but that doesn't make it so.
(that's why they were attacked on the way to Egypt).
Moses' offspring was attacked on the way to Egypt? No, Moses was attacked (Ex 4:24). You like R. Hirsch so much, so you might want to read what he says about that - he cites a reading by Wogue, that it has nothing to do with circumcision. Then you can read the talmud's view. None of it supports your claim about "Jewish in the sense of the covenant."

Converts to what? If being Jewish is being born to a Jewish woman, how can someone convert to having a Jewish mother?
Converts to Judaism regardless of parentage - exactly the point. One can convert to Judaism without having a Jewish mother so your contentions about womb are gone.

. . . Then you're unaware that the sages speak of circumcision as a sacrifice? Are you unaware that Jewish scripture considers circumcision a sacrifice. Do you not know that Jewish scripture considers Abraham's circumcision the precursor to the Akedah? That Jewish scripture says two sacrificial bloods were placed on the doorpost on Passover (lamb and limb)?
No, while a circumcision requires that a person makes a personal (small s) sacrifice, it is not considered a (big S) Sacrifice. The medrash says that two bloods, not two sacrificial bloods were placed there. The blood as a reminder of the circumcision is so that we find favor in God's eyes in the merit of the circumcision of Abraham and that covenant. Nothing about sacrifice. You really don't understand much about this, do you?


Rashi says so. Rabbi Samson Hirsch says so. Rabbi Michael Munk says so. And I know so. So I agree with the foregoing (if you will, but you won't).
Really? Show me the rashi. I'm curious to see that rashi distinguishes between a physical Jew and a Spiritual Jew. I enjoy when R. Hertz writes that the circumcision is just a physical sign of a covenant, not the covenant itself. He mentions "sacrifice" when discussing the role circumcision had among OTHER NATIONS BEFORE ABRAHAM and includes it among the choices of "to whatever origin it might be traced-- whether as a measure safeguarding cleanliness and health (Philo), or to counteract excessive lust (Maimonides) or as a sacrificial symbol -- to Abraham and his descendants all these conceptions are supplanted..." (emphasis mine). Do you not like these words because they explode your theory? Will you simply dismiss the good Dr Hertz because you don't like what he says?

Again, how can someone convert to having a Jewish mother if they weren't born of a Jewish mother? Can something passed on biologically (natural procreation) be passed on through converting in the presence of the same Jewish men Jewish law cuts out of Jewish identity when it comes through birth to a Jewish woman?
Swing and a miss...again. Someone converts and has the same status as someone with a Jewish mother. In fact a woman who converts can become a Jewish mother. So not being born to a Jewish woman is no hindrance.
What is a Gentile converting to when he converts to Judaism?
Wait. I know this one...that's right...Judaism.
A set of beliefs?
A set of beliefs and a set of practices and a set of values and obligations etc.

How are those related to being born to a Jewish mother
It is related in that it is an equivalent way of becoming a member of the group.

If it's conceded that the original sin was phallic sex, and most knowlegeable Rabbis concede as much (see Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the subject), then circumcision is the removal of the organ that made the original sin possible. . . How apropos that Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan says circumcision returns the Jew to the time before the Fall, a time before the first human had a phallus. A time before the manufacture of the phallus (Gen. 2:21).
First, most rabbis do not concede as much. I mean, really, what's next, a Serpent's Seed argument? Second, please cite title and page for Kaplan's saying this. It's not that I doubt you, it is that, well, the only citations I can find to this online (including reading through a few of R. Kaplan's works) are web posts you wrote, or someone who shares your name.

here are some resources
http://www.chabaddayton.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/1101105/jewish/6-The-Naked-Truth.htm
http://www.mesora.org/LettersNov3.htm

I even found a website that quotes R. Kaplan directly! It has him speaking of the sin in the garden "As a result of Adam's sin, man lost the ability to perfect himself, both spiritually and physically. . . the clearest manifestation of this physical imperfection is man's mortality" which would mean that circumcision could not fix anything! But no where in that quote is there any mention of sex, though the author of the web post that quoted it then adds that! Another poster named Shoshana calls him on it but he somehow ignores her point! Such dishonesty. I'm glad we have none of that here.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sure.
A Jew is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob not Ishmael.

End of thread
Isn't it at least conceivable that some people might descend from Ishmael as well as from Isaac and/or Jacob?

And then there is conversion.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
It doesn't seem like agreement is necessary since Rabbi Hirsch says explicitly and unambiguously that the text seems to imply that the covenant isn't directly related to Abraham's physical progeny: that they are not the primary target of the covenant. Though since that covenant is to the whole world (Rashi) they can participate like anyone else. Such that Abraham's son through Hagar, Sarah, and all his servants, were circumcised.

That Abraham's offspring through Sarah play a unique role in the covenant seems pretty clear in the text. But that doesn't affect the fact they are not the primary or central target of the covenant. It's to be discovered, discerned, revealed, what is the unique relationship of Abraham and Sarah's offspring in relationship to the covenant?



John
Well look. I'll definitely hand it to you: you definitely know how to find Christian theology in the least Christian texts.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Pointing out that technically its possible and probable to be a descendant of both Isaac and Ishmael. Its cute.
You mean it is not possible?

I don't care whether it is cute or not, but people have lots of ancestors, you know. Going back all the way to Abraham.... well, I just don't see how you could say such a thing.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
You mean it is not possible?

I don't care whether it is cute or not, but people have lots of ancestors, you know. Going back all the way to Abraham.... well, I just don't see how you could say such a thing.
Of course its possible and very likely.
 
Top