Torah-observant Christian?

[dauer]

Juantoo,

Thank you for speaking so openly about this subject. There hasn't been much voiced simpathy on this matter, and it really helps. And I would take it a step further even than what you said, it's not just that it's a conversion campaign. When evangelicals write tracts based around OT scripture to target Jews, that's even a separate matter, and one that while I still don't like, I don't find offensive in the same way. It is the dressing of one tradition in another's clothing for the explicit reason of subversion that really upsets me. To me, it's all very dishonest, and it shows a lack of respect for the tradition being infiltrated.

I do want to address one thing you said, if only to clarify. I don't think there's anyone who would say a gentile is stupid for taking on the 613 mitzvot. There are in fact certain areas that in the developing noahide works, (and this is from the far right side) noahides are being encouraged to look into, primarily ethical things like the mitzvot around speech, around tzedakah, and modesty. And hanukah for example, is a holiday that among active noahides who are doing the not-jewish jewish thing is a really big deal, because it's post-biblical and thus not related to the brit with Israel, the covenant with Israel, and so that has become a big focus. And there are also noahides who do practice shabbos for example, maybe turning a light on early. More than anything, that's a nod of respect to Judaism, recognizing that it is something to be taken seriously, and not frivolously. I just wanted to clarify, no enmity from our end about it. It's just related to a particular contractual agreement between two parties. For the same reason I can't claim ownership to a business that does not belong to me.

Now of course including the NT you could then say that you're included now via an extension of the brit, and thus you are able to operate within those boundaries, and under different terms than the previous agreement. And myself, I would not be one to discourage that. If it's what works for you (and I do not know this is the approach you take) regardless of your beliefs about the nature of God then I think that's great. You've found something that works and that in itself is a blessing. But I have been speaking to the traditional ways in which Judaism relates to these things.

Dauer

Edit: And on the other side, I think you would find simpathy among those messianics who are not in it to convert Jews, but for the other reasons that have been discussed here and possibly in the other thread. I don't understand why Jews for Jesus would find simpathy among Christians, but a group doing the same without interest in active conversion of Jews would not.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dauer, and thank you for the considerate response!

Originally Posted by dauer

I do want to address one thing you said, if only to clarify. I don't think there's anyone who would say a gentile is stupid for taking on the 613 mitzvot.

I don't want to seem to be putting words in people's mouths, "stupid" was my term. I forget now exactly how the conversation unfolded, but it was made pretty clear to me I was barking up the wrong tree, at least in that person's opinion. Of course, I didn't listen to my own father's opinion until as I got older he seemed to get wiser, another subject for another day...

Now of course including the NT you could then say that you're included now via an extension of the brit, and thus you are able to operate within those boundaries, and under different terms than the previous agreement. And myself, I would not be one to discourage that. If it's what works for you (and I do not know this is the approach you take) regardless of your beliefs about the nature of God then I think that's great.

This is very close to how I have grown to see things. Consider...the "Anglo" side of my heritage is likely descended from the ten lost tribes of the House of Israel. The Irish side of my heritage is descended from one of the daughters of the last king of Judah taken by Nebuchadnezzer into bondage in Babylon, carried to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah, evidenced by the Stone of Scone. The Traditions of Glastonbury suggest the first Christian church ever built, was built in the south of England, "Brit"ain, the land of the covenant, by Joseph of Arimathea the tin trader and uncle to Jesus. All of these point to my heritage being...umm, black sheep cousins...to the Jewish faith. The more reason in my mind to find agreement, respect and a harmonious relationship with the Jewish tradition.

You've found something that works and that in itself is a blessing.

Well, I won't know until I get there...will I? That shred of doubt keeps me on my toes.

But I have been speaking to the traditional ways in which Judaism relates to these things.

Indeed, and I would encourage you to continue.

And on the other side, I think you would find simpathy among those messianics who are not in it to convert Jews, but for the other reasons that have been discussed here and possibly in the other thread. I don't understand why Jews for Jesus would find simpathy among Christians, but a group doing the same without interest in active conversion of Jews would not.

JforJ are a fringe group at best, I don't think mainstream Christianity even gives them a second thought. Other than the occasional debate over the merits of Paul, I don't think there has been any more than random consideration of the subject discussed on the Christianity boards. Especially if one were to discount my posts, which have been deliberately presented as non-conformist conformity, rather than espousing any "one" particular way. If anything, considering conversion, I would think a group "missionizing" would garner support among mainstream Christianity that a group that just seemed oddly heretical would not. So there is a political element to be considered, and for that I am grateful to BB for opening my eyes. It was never at any time since I have been on CR to attempt to convert anybody. I simply wander where my heart and the Good Lord leads...

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So I wander in a no man's land...too Jewish to be Christian, too Christian to be Jewish...and neither side is very sympathetic. So I will listen to my heart and follow where G-d leads me.

Many thanks. You have described what I was thinking.

I'm trying to get back to the roots to really be what G-d wants me to be.

I don't know that I can give up Jesus' divinity. If that's what G-d wants me to do, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Truth or conditioning?

Thanks again,
Mark

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Apologies for having missed this earlier.

Originally Posted by Prober

Many thanks. You have described what I was thinking.

I'm trying to get back to the roots to really be what G-d wants me to be.

China Cat said something recently that has me thinking...something about not seeing the value in either syncretic mixing of faiths, or in reducing them to their original essence (my butchered paraphrase, of which maybe I missed his point altogether?). In some sense, I think he has a point. I don't personally see any value to comingling faiths, or picking and choosing smorgasbord. I have long thought returning to the essence might hold value.

I also find that without a guide, it is a tough row to hoe. Frankly, I haven't been very good at it. There are subtle nuances to the 613 I do not understand, or am honestly ignorant of. Some as a matter of practicality I have given up on (Linsey-woolsey). Of course, I don't think I own a single piece of clothing with both cotton and wool together, but just try finding an inexpensive (read that: something a poor man can realistically afford) dress shirt that isn't some poly-cotton blend of synthetic garbage.

I kept Kosher as well as I understood for many years, until recently I married and my wife occasionally eats pork. She is learning English, and my Chinese sucks, so what am I supposed to do? Insult my wife by not eating her meals she has prepared for me? I still do not generally go out of my way to look for pork, and frankly no longer care for the taste. I used to love the smell of bacon cooking, now it turns my stomach. But that's me... Pretty much the same story with shellfish, haven't eaten in years until recently...still don't care for it, but if the wife cooks it for me, I'm not going to insult her.

Some things like not eating "a kid cooked in its mother's milk" I have come to view a little differently than is Jewish tradition. I see it very much the same as "kicking a man when he is down." But again, that's my interpretation as Spirit has led me.

Originally Posted by Prober

I don't know that I can give up Jesus' divinity. If that's what G-d wants me to do, I'm sure he'll let me know.

I'm very torn on this as well. I know great miracles have been brought to pass calling on the name of Jesus. Yet, I also know that is not His name. I don't know the subtleties of the language, but I think Yahshua is His Hebrew name, translated properly into English would be Joshua, not Jesus. His Aramiac name, if I've got the story straight, is more like Y'shua, or Yeshua. The Greek is Iesus, (which corresponds with Zeus). There wasn't even a "J" in the English alphabet until 1555 AD. King James, of KJV Bible fame, was born the following year. So are we even calling on the correct person when we call on the name of Jesus? Don't get me wrong, I think G-d does consider intent, especially when there is legitimate ignorance. Hence, why there are miracles done in the name of Jesus. But if one knows that is not His name, (and is no longer legitimately ignorant) does that name still carry the same weight?

Originally Posted by Prober

Truth or conditioning?

Both.

The trick is in being able to sort it out. Some of it is tied together pretty stoutly. Makes the Gordian knot look like child's play.

[bananabrain]

juan,

i think you're great and i hope i haven't been too mean to you at any time!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm very torn on this as well. I know great miracles have been brought to pass calling on the name of Jesus. Yet, I also know that is not His name. I don't know the subtleties of the language, but I think Yahshua is His Hebrew name, translated properly into English would be Joshua, not Jesus. His Aramiac name, if I've got the story straight, is more like Y'shua, or Yeshua. The Greek is Iesus, (which corresponds with Zeus). There wasn't even a "J" in the English alphabet until 1555 AD. King James, of KJV Bible fame, was born the following year. So are we even calling on the correct person when we call on the name of Jesus? Don't get me wrong, I think G-d does consider intent, especially when there is legitimate ignorance. Hence, why there are miracles done in the name of Jesus. But if one knows that is not His name, (and is no longer legitimately ignorant) does that name still carry the same weight?

it is the intent. the point is not the language, the mispelling, the mispronunciation; rather it is the intent. we worship and pray in spirit and the intent of that goes way beyond our shortcomings. it is also very personal, and that goes beyond social and cultural norms. what i mean is if you lived in a foreign country and everyone called their fathers, dad; but your son called you papa, not only is that correct because it is a personal name between the two of you, but its correct because he called you out of love and you love him back; therefore, you respond.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

China Cat said something recently that has me thinking...something about not seeing the value in either syncretic mixing of faiths, or in reducing them to their original essence (my butchered paraphrase, of which maybe I missed his point altogether?). In some sense, I think he has a point. I don't personally see any value to comingling faiths, or picking and choosing smorgasbord. I have long thought returning to the essence might hold value.

I appreciate your post, Juan.

It's not that I want to mix faiths or pick smorgasbord. I see it like this...

The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.

I'm searching for Him behind the human varnish and pigment and, at the same time, not wanting to discount the value of the pointings in the paintings.

If it's a religion or not, I don't care. I just want to do what G-d wants me to do.

Thanks,
Mark

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Originally Posted by Prober

I appreciate your post, Juan.

It's not that I want to mix faiths or pick smorgasbord. I see it like this...

The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.

I'm searching for Him behind the human varnish and pigment and, at the same time, not wanting to discount the value of the pointings in the paintings.

If it's a religion or not, I don't care. I just want to do what G-d wants me to do.

Oh, absolutely! This is so close to my own thinking I am tempted to say I see it exactly the same way. I tell myself I approach from a Christian vantage because I was born into Christianity, and I am comfortable there. Yet, had I been born Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu, I sense I would still end up approaching the question in the same manner. I would maintain as well I understood within the bounds of my heritage faith while looking back to the source for clues to the purest essence.

I do see an issue, perhaps better addressed elsewhere so as not to tie up the Judaism board, where others have mentioned bringing religion into the modern age, or something like that, as though religion is like the new automobile model years. Or a computer. You need to upgrade every so often...I don't agree.

I think G-d is timeless. I think religion as an approach to the timeless is actually relatively static (or certainly meant to be.) I don't want to hog the board with "Jesus", but I have some flippant image of "a new, improved Messiah!" prepared just for the 21st century! Quick, get yours before they're sold out!

No.

True religion, like G-d, is timeless. There is no such thing as "old-fashioned" with timeless, it is either correct or it is incorrect. Timeless is timeless precisely because it has withstood the test of time. Model years are fads that come and go...don't like this year's model g-d?, just hang around a little while and we'll make a new one just for you!...or come on down to the used g-d lot and pick out your favorites...*stated tongue in cheek of course*, even though I see this attitude I am pointing to all over these boards. "Let us make G-d in our image, in our image let us make S/He." It really seems ridiculous to me on so very many levels, not least the spiritual. To the sense that logic can be applied, it defies even logic.

So yes, the painting of the mountain is not the mountain. Most of us, it seems, can't see to look beyond the canvas blocking our view.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Blazn!

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

it is the intent. the point is not the language, the mispelling, the mispronunciation; rather it is the intent. we worship and pray in spirit and the intent of that goes way beyond our shortcomings. it is also very personal, and that goes beyond social and cultural norms. what i mean is if you lived in a foreign country and everyone called their fathers, dad; but your son called you papa, not only is that correct because it is a personal name between the two of you, but its correct because he called you out of love and you love him back; therefore, you respond.

You have raised an interesting point of discussion, but I feel in defference to our hosts on this board that this is an inappropriate place for this discussion. Perhaps the Liberal board, because this enters a realm traditionalist Christians dare not even enter...

[bananabrain]

this is an interesting discussion and i am enjoying reading it. i don't think it's out of place here, although you might want to point to it from elsewhere.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Model years are fads that come and go...don't like this year's model g-d?, just hang around a little while and we'll make a new one just for you!...or come on down to the used g-d lot and pick out your favorites...*stated tongue in cheek of course*, even though I see this attitude I am pointing to all over these boards. "Let us make G-d in our image, in our image let us make S/He." It really seems ridiculous to me on so very many levels, not least the spiritual. To the sense that logic can be applied, it defies even logic.

Indeed! Let us (instead) make ourselves in G-d's image (so to speak).

[lunamoth]

Interesting conversation Prober. Thank you for initiating it.

Originally Posted by Prober

The painting of the mountain is not the mountain.

Somewhere behind the sacred texts is the real G-d.

I feel the same way about the painting of the mountain and the thing signfied and the finger pointing at the moon.

My take on it is that God is not behind the sacred texts, but in, above, and through them. In other words, if you're looking you can't miss.

2 c,
luna

[Prober]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Interesting conversation Prober. Thank you for initiating it.



I feel the same way about the painting of the mountain and the thing signfied and the finger pointing at the moon.

My take on it is that God is not behind the sacred texts, but in, above, and through them. In other words, if you're looking you can't miss.

2 c,
luna

Oh, absolutely!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BananaBrain!

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this is an interesting discussion and i am enjoying reading it. i don't think it's out of place here, although you might want to point to it from elsewhere.

Thanks. I will accept this as an invitation to continue the basis of the ongoing discussion. I did pull the issue of the sacred name of the Christian Messiah to the Liberal Christianity board because I felt the subject matter was so discreet from Judaism as to cause confusion.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Originally Posted by Prober

Indeed! Let us (instead) make ourselves in G-d's image (so to speak).

Well, yes...but the trick is in not inadvertantly doing things the other way around. The trick is to try to see G-d, (*as much as G-d can be seen*) as He IS, rather than as we desire Him to be.

I have this mental image of my dad when I was a kid (you know, when your dad is the master of the universe and can do no wrong...). Now, he could wear a mechanic's overalls and be one persona, or he could wear a suit and tie and be another persona...but when he was butt naked he was who he is. Warts, freckles, birthmarks, bumps and bruises. Hair where he didn't want it, and no hair where he wanted it.

G-d, to me, is a lot like my naked dad. G-d is who He IS. Nothing I (or anybody) can say or do is going to change any of that. I can decry how I don't think this or that in the universe is right, but the simple fact is; *I didn't make the universe*, He did. I might not see or understand the reason some things are the way they are, but I am confident and comfortable that things are the way they are for a reason. I don't know why some animals slaughter other animals, but I trust there is a reason. I don't know why sacrifice is / was required, but I trust there is a reason. I don't know why bad things happen to good people, but I trust there is a reason.

I don't know why G-d created the different peoples, and the different religious schools to seek Him in different forms and varying manners, but I trust there is a reason.