Are there Jews in Korea?
Larry R
"Anonymous" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:ca5131553807f9fd...@mix.winterorbit.com...
> I have heard there are Jews in Korea, but I'm not sure where? Does
anybody have information on this or has anybody seen Jews in Korea? I am a
Korean Jew who is researching my roots.
>
>
ugly duckling
says...
>
>I have heard there are Jews in Korea, but I'm not sure where?
>Does anybody have information on this or has anybody seen Jews in
>Korea? I am a Korean Jew who is researching my roots.
Those Koreans who want to believe that they are Jewish is because
they heard how smart Jews are.
ugly duckling
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>I have heard there are Jews in Korea, but I'm not sure where? Does anybody have information on this or has anybody seen Jews in Korea? I am a Korean Jew who is researching my roots.
uh...you may need to research further.
that's like saying that someone is a korean arab.
but technically if one of your parents is a jew, you are a jew so i
suppose this guy might have a jewish parent. but then he's not 100%
korean.
Dan.
--
dodgers suck. it's true...it's true.
i was bored one day and ended up making http://www.hanguk.com/danpaik
Velella...27 ft Catalina. home port: Redondo Beach, CA.
R-V-D
Robert Laskey
anybody have information on this or has anybody seen Jews in Korea? I am a
Korean Jew who is researching my roots.
>
> uh...you may need to research further.
>
> that's like saying that someone is a korean arab.
>
> but technically if one of your parents is a jew, you are a jew so i
> suppose this guy might have a jewish parent. but then he's not 100%
> korean.
True enough. There are really 2 kinds of Jews. There are ethnic Jews who
may or may not adhere to the Jewish faith. Then there are gentiles
(non-ethnic Jews) who have converted to the Jewish faith. There are Koreans
who have converted to the Jewish faith, in which case the anonymous
questioner would research his religious roots by studying the Torah and the
works of Jewish scholars. Seems simple enough, eh?
Be well...
Robert
David Makowsky
Daniel Donghoon Paik <uc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
# In article <ca5131553807f9fd...@mix.winterorbit.com>,
# Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
# >I have heard there are Jews in Korea, but I'm not sure where? Does anybody have information on this or has anybody seen Jews in Korea? I am a Korean Jew who is researching my roots.
# uh...you may need to research further.
# that's like saying that someone is a korean arab.
# but technically if one of your parents is a jew, you are a jew so i
# suppose this guy might have a jewish parent. but then he's not 100%
# korean.
About 12 years ago I spent three months in South Korea on business.
There were lots of Jews there, including some Orthodox Jews. However,
they were all foreign nationals. There were many in the American
military (The government paid for them to go to medical and dental
school, and they had to serve time here to pay the government back,
most of the orthodox Jews were in this group and becuase of them the
military commisary in Seoul actually had Kosher meat), and a lot of
the French embassy staff there was Jewish.
Despite the fact that at the time South Korea "officially"
participated in the Arab boycott of Israel, there were many Israelis
there on business.
As mentioned above, I do not remember meeting any Jews who were South
Koreans.
--
There are three types of people in the world. Those that are good at
math and those that are not.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
>(non-ethnic Jews) who have converted to the Jewish faith. There are Koreans
>who have converted to the Jewish faith, in which case the anonymous
>questioner would research his religious roots by studying the Torah and the
>works of Jewish scholars. Seems simple enough, eh?
but do the koreans who convert to the Jewish faith call themselves Jews?
Do they have the right to do that?
i actually don't know but i didn't think so. even hitler didn't really
have that much against white people who were of the jewish faith...he
didn't like the race.
oh...i brought up hitler. i lose this flame war. but wait...it wasn't a
flame war.
John W. Leys
>
> In article <79gx7.162992$K6.77513076@news2>,
> Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
> >(non-ethnic Jews) who have converted to the Jewish faith. There are Koreans
> >who have converted to the Jewish faith, in which case the anonymous
> >questioner would research his religious roots by studying the Torah and the
> >works of Jewish scholars. Seems simple enough, eh?
>
> but do the koreans who convert to the Jewish faith call themselves Jews?
> Do they have the right to do that?
Of course. Anyone who converts to the Jewish faith is a Jew.
>
> i actually don't know but i didn't think so. even hitler didn't really
> have that much against white people who were of the jewish faith...he
> didn't like the race.
But he was greatly mistaken because there is no such thing as a "Jewish
race". Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race. No more
than there is a "Christian Race" or an "Italian race." This is just
another lie spread by antisemites.
--
Shalom!
John W. Leys
"When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps
to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams -- this may be
madness. To seek treasure where there is only trash. Too much sanity
may be madness. And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as
it should be."
- From 'The Man of La Mancha' by Dale Wasserman
Daniel Donghoon Paik
John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
>But he was greatly mistaken because there is no such thing as a "Jewish
>race". Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race. No more
>than there is a "Christian Race" or an "Italian race." This is just
>another lie spread by antisemites.
Well, the Jews don't believe in the New Testament but...
Jesus makes reference to Jews as his own people, the chosen race, etc. He
also rebukes the Jews numerous times. Basically the gospel was given to
the Gentiles (basically everyone except Jews) because of the simple fact
that the Jews rejected him and his gospel. The Jews were basically the
Pharisees, etc. Of course they were not all bad but many of them had a
false belief.
When this is written in the Bible, the term "Jew" is not meant has "people
of the Jewish faith"...it is defining a race.
But I will accept that it has two meanings...one to describe a race of
people and another to describe the followers of a religion.
ugly duckling
>> but do the koreans who convert to the Jewish faith call themselves Jews?
>> Do they have the right to do that?
>Of course. Anyone who converts to the Jewish faith is a Jew.
Obviously you don't understand what's going on in the spiritual world.
You see, everytime a Jew sins, there begets a mongrel baby in Korea and
China.
And the very fact that the Chinese population now is more than 1.2
billion should tell you something. Who do you think is suffering
whenever a Jew sins? They are those real Koreans who suffer because
of the mongrels begotten.
That is why Chinese and Koreans are not to become Jews.
ugly duckling
kcho
> i actually don't know but i didn't think so. even hitler didn't really
> have that much against white people who were of the jewish faith...he
> didn't like the race.
I don't want to nitpick, but aren't Jews white people too? I know
there are Asian and black Jews, but the majority of them look pretty
white to me.
Larry R
"ugly duckling" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:7kmx7.24971$ev2....@www.newsranger.com...
John W. Leys
>
> In article <3BC5B330...@yahoo.com>,
> John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >But he was greatly mistaken because there is no such thing as a "Jewish
> >race". Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race. No more
> >than there is a "Christian Race" or an "Italian race." This is just
> >another lie spread by antisemites.
>
> Well, the Jews don't believe in the New Testament but...
>
> Jesus makes reference to Jews as his own people, the chosen race, etc.
There is a huge difference between referring to the Jewish "people" and
referring to a Jewish "race." And I honestly doubt that Jesus ever
referred to the Jews as a race, but even if he did it would not make it
true. The term "people" is used to define the community and is also used
to denote nationality. Neither of which constitutes a race.
Of course there is the fact there there is only one race of humans, but
I'm sure there will be more than enough people to "disprove" that as
well.
> He
> also rebukes the Jews numerous times. Basically the gospel was given to
> the Gentiles (basically everyone except Jews) because of the simple fact
> that the Jews rejected him and his gospel. The Jews were basically the
> Pharisees, etc. Of course they were not all bad but many of them had a
> false belief.
All of which is debatable and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
>
> When this is written in the Bible, the term "Jew" is not meant has "people
> of the Jewish faith"...it is defining a race.
Would you care to offer some evidence of this?
>
> But I will accept that it has two meanings...one to describe a race of
> people and another to describe the followers of a religion.
>
It does have two definitions.. as a religion & as an ethnic group.. and
the two definitions overlap to a large degree. But there is no Jewish
"race" anymore than there is a Christian "race." In fact, most (if not
all) anthropologists agree that there isn't really a white or black
"race" either. If I have time later I'll look up some references on that
for you.
parox
news:3BC5F8CE...@yahoo.com...
> Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> >
> > In article <3BC5B330...@yahoo.com>,
> > John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > >But he was greatly mistaken because there is no such thing as a "Jewish
> > >race". Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race. No more
> > >than there is a "Christian Race" or an "Italian race." This is just
> > >another lie spread by antisemites.
Don't worry. Many Koreans aren't aware of Jewish issues, so it is hard to
say whether Dan holds a prevalent view. I personally distinguish the two
words: RACE:ETHNCITY is an analogue to SPECIES:BREED. However in Microsoft
Bookshelf, it does not make a distinction between the two. Its definition
is following a convention adopted by common usage, but I believe its
technically incorrect.
Susan Cohen
parox wrote:
If you believe someone can convert to a race, and can't inherit it
from their father, then Judaism is a race. But no one else believes this.
Okay, no one who should be taken seriously.
And of course, just because somone *does* use the word doesn't
necesarily mean they have the sinister motives of most of those who
use the phrase.
Susan
Daniel Donghoon Paik
kcho <kcho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't want to nitpick, but aren't Jews white people too? I know
>there are Asian and black Jews, but the majority of them look pretty
>white to me.
no. look at joe lieberman. he looks pretty different from anglo-saxon
whites. they usually have dark hair and a darker skin pigment.
Susan Cohen
Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> In article <f479cd77.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> kcho <kcho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I don't want to nitpick, but aren't Jews white people too? I know
> >there are Asian and black Jews, but the majority of them look pretty
> >white to me.
>
> no. look at joe lieberman. he looks pretty different from anglo-saxon
> whites. they usually have dark hair and a darker skin pigment.
Boy, you are funny! Joe Lieberman is extremely fair, & what makes
you think he isn't Anglo-Saxon? He's certain "Saxon", with a name
like Lieberman (Big Hint: the Angles, Saxons & Jutes were all Germanic
peoples.).
Susan
kcho
> In article <f479cd77.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> kcho <kcho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I don't want to nitpick, but aren't Jews white people too? I know
> >there are Asian and black Jews, but the majority of them look pretty
> >white to me.
>
> no. look at joe lieberman. he looks pretty different from anglo-saxon
> whites. they usually have dark hair and a darker skin pigment.
>
> Dan.
Huh? So how is that not white? When did white people only include
Anglo-Saxons, leaving out the people of Nordic, Latin, Slavic and
other backgrounds? Many Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Turks and Arabs
have darker hair and skin compared to Northern Europeans, but they are
still white people. Saying most Jews are non-white is like saying
Malays, who look different from Koreans or Japanese, are not Asians.
Ferguson
(snip)
>even hitler didn't really
>have that much against white people who were of the jewish faith...he
>didn't like the race.
--> Do you believe this lie or simply post it to seek attention -
please show some evidence
Ferguson
do you really beleive the stuff you post?
(Daniel Donghoon Paik) wrote
(snip)
parox
> parox wrote:
>
> > "John W. Leys" <jw-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BC5F8CE...@yahoo.com...
> > > Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3BC5B330...@yahoo.com>,
> > > > John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > > > >But he was greatly mistaken because there is no such thing as a "Jewish
> > > > >race". Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race. No more
> > > > >than there is a "Christian Race" or an "Italian race." This is just
> > > > >another lie spread by antisemites.
> >
> > Don't worry. Many Koreans aren't aware of Jewish issues, so it is hard to
> > say whether Dan holds a prevalent view. I personally distinguish the two
> > words: RACE:ETHNCITY is an analogue to SPECIES:BREED. However in Microsoft
> > Bookshelf, it does not make a distinction between the two. Its definition
> > is following a convention adopted by common usage, but I believe its
> > technically incorrect.
>
> If you believe someone can convert to a race, and can't inherit it
> from their father, then Judaism is a race. But no one else believes this.
> Okay, no one who should be taken seriously.
I'm not talking about Jewish faith but of Jewish ethnicity. It would
be correct to say I could never be a Semite.
> And of course, just because somone *does* use the word doesn't
> necesarily mean they have the sinister motives of most of those who
> use the phrase.
>
> Susan
I don't think many people use "race" with sinister intentions. It is
a convention originating from outmoded thought. Take the term "racial
tension." The term doesn't create any confusion, as human beings are
not likely to have any tension with, say, the chickens, and hence will
continue to be used.
From european mythology, there are indeed different "races" from
human, e.g. elves, dwarves. The Neibelung are also an example of a
different race. These were the only "true" races, in the realm of
fantasy and myths, eventually finding their way into propaganda to
accentuate the cultural and ethnic differences between peoples.
ELurio
Notice the use of the term "jew" for "jewish" as a racist epithet. We can
safely ignore everything he says.
eric l.
Kjames
news:f479cd77.01101...@posting.google.com:
But "Asian" refers to those native to a particular continent. "White" refers
to members of a so-called "race".
I'm not sure, but I think Asian Indians and Arabs may be classified as
"Caucasian", but I wouldn't consider them "White".
At any rate, the reason why some jews look more "white" and others more
"arab" is because they're of mixed racial heritage. Historically though, I
don't think they are any different from Arabs (racially, that is).
Ajumah
>Most Jews are *easily* identifiable by the following features
>
>1. Bing nose
>2. High cheekbones
>3. Eye displacement and position
>4. Certan hair types(curly, kinky or otherwise non white)
Odd. I have a medium nose, my cheekbones are small (unfortunately),
eye displacement? What's are you talking about? My hair is medium
blonde and I'm blue eyed. Apparently a lot of Jews from Poland look
like me. My husband on the other hand does have a darker complexion
and curly hair, but otherwise does not fall into the other categories.
Ferguson
doesn't make much sense, as you pointed out.
If in the religious sense yes there are Korean converts.
Met a few a number of years ago when I worked in an office near where
services were held. Some converted after marriage to a Jew but a
couple that I met just converted without a marriage connection.
Nektarios
----------------------------------
(David Makowsky) wrote
(snip)
Susan Cohen
Ajumah wrote:
> >Most Jews are *easily* identifiable by the following features
> >
> >1. Bing nose
> >2. High cheekbones
> >3. Eye displacement and position
> >4. Certan hair types(curly, kinky or otherwise non white)
>
> Odd. I have a medium nose, my cheekbones are small (unfortunately),
> eye displacement? What's are you talking about?
Bigotry
(Oh, wait - that was a rhtorical question, wasn't it?)
> My hair is medium
> blonde and I'm blue eyed. Apparently a lot of Jews from Poland look
> like me. My husband on the other hand does have a darker complexion
> and curly hair, but otherwise does not fall into the other categories.
Me, I look mostly Anglo-Irish. Even tho' I'm mostly Germanic. Go figure!
Now my husband, who looks very Roumanian, gets nabbed as "Celtic"
because of his red hair & hazel eyes. One of the reasons he married me is
because I asked him which part of Eastern Europe his ancestors came
from - being *truly* Celtic, I could tell the difference, & he was
thrilled.
And yes, we're both Jewish.
A shame people are just too lazy to think for themselves.
And that's a best-case scenario when it comes to stereotypes.
Susan
parox
then it suddenly became Koreanized when I saw your email address.
What else is funny is that the name "Ahgasshi" sounds like "Agassi,"
who is Iranian.
Lesson in Korean:
Ah-jum-mah = "senora", ma'am
Ah-gah-shi = "seniorita", miss
lisash...@home.com (Ajumah) wrote in message news:<3bc91748...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca>...
DarrinT68
>news:<3bc91748...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca>...
>> >Most Jews are *easily* identifiable by the following features
>> >
>> >1. Bing nose
>> >2. High cheekbones
>> >3. Eye displacement and position
>> >4. Certan hair types(curly, kinky or otherwise non white)>>
>> Odd. I have a medium nose, my cheekbones are small (unfortunately),
>> eye displacement? What's are you talking about? My hair is medium
>> blonde and I'm blue eyed. Apparently a lot of Jews from Poland look
>> like me. My husband on the other hand does have a darker complexion
>> and curly hair, but otherwise does not fall into the other categories.>
Ajumah, this anti-Semitic putz has obviously never seen Paul Newman, James
Caan, Tony Curtis (Bernie Schwartz), Michael Landon (Eugene Orowitz), Paul
Rudd, Tina Louise (Backer), Cindy Margolis, Natalie Portman, Alicia
Silverstone, Winona Ryder (Horowitz), Jennifer Connelly, Sarah Michelle Gellar,
Debra Messing, Goldie Hawn, Kate Hudson, Yasmine Bleethe, Barbara Hershey
(Herzstein), Lauren Bacall (Perske), Hedy Lamarr (Kiesler), Gwyneth Paltrow,
Natasha Lyonne, Bess Myerson (Miss America 1945), Gina Gershon, Judy Holliday
(Tuvim), Phoebe Cates (Katz), Lisa Kudrow, Dyan Cannon (Friesen), Jennifer
Grey, Theda Bara (Goodwin), Jamie Gertz, and a million more Jewish movie stars
who all make the above user look like DRECK! eh -D, NYC "...In a New York
Minute, everything can change..." - Don Henley
Daniel Donghoon Paik
John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
>> When this is written in the Bible, the term "Jew" is not meant has "people
>> of the Jewish faith"...it is defining a race.
>Would you care to offer some evidence of this?
when Jesus talks about "his people", even most of the Jewish people that I
know will admit that he's talking about the Jews as the ethnic group, not
simply a group of foreigners who may want to accep the Jewish religion.
The entire theme of the new testament is that because the Jews rejected
Jesus and the gospel, God opened up the gospel to the gentiles (non-Jews).
there are countless examples of Paul speaking to the gentiles only to have
Jews ask him what he's doing by associating with those foreigners.
One of the main reasons why the Jews had problems with Jesus is because he
constantly told the Jews that they were too fixated on laws and not
focused enough simply on faith and trust in God.
it is clear that it was impossible for a gentile to become a Jew simply by
accepting the Jewish religious beliefs.
>It does have two definitions.. as a religion & as an ethnic group.. and
>the two definitions overlap to a large degree. But there is no Jewish
>"race" anymore than there is a Christian "race." In fact, most (if not
>all) anthropologists agree that there isn't really a white or black
>"race" either. If I have time later I'll look up some references on that
>for you.
ok. i will be the first to admit that i may have thrown around the term
"race" a little too freely. i meant it as an ethnic group.
Many Jews refer to themselves as being the chosen race. I don't think I
have ever heard them say the chosen "ethnic group" so maybe that's where i
got that piece of misinformation.
i'm a little too lazy to go find a bible and find references but i'll be
happy to do that if you (or anyone else) wishes to continue this
discussion.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
no. i graduated in 1996.
>do you really beleive the stuff you post?
yup.
there is no real definition of the "white" race. to some it may include
Jewish people as well. To me, Pamela Anderson is white, Jerry Seinfeld
is not white. The Rock is not white (1/2 african american, 1/2 samoan i
think). RVD is white. Hulk Hogan is white. Joe Lieberman is not white.
Blond hair blue eyed people are rarely Jewish.
but of course there are also gray areas of overlap.
John W. Leys
>
> it is clear that it was impossible for a gentile to become a Jew simply by
> accepting the Jewish religious beliefs.
This is not clear at all. In fact it is just plain wrong. One of the
arguments Paul had with the Jerusalem church was wether gentiles had to
convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This is what the council
described in Acts chapter 15 is all about. Acts 15:1 "Then certain
individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless
you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be
saved." In other words, unless you convert to Judaism you cannot become
a Xian. THis point of view is what Paul argues against in his letter to
the Galatians. He has heard of people preaching a gospel different to
his. A gospel that claimed one must obey the Law of Moses in order to be
rightious. That thier message is termed a gospel confirms that these
were Xians. They were Xians who felt you had to convert to Judaism and
follow the Torah in order to join them. This would not have even been an
issue if it were not possible to become Jewish. And by Jewish law anyone
who converts to Judaism is Jewish. Just as Jewish as someone born
Jewish.
>
> >It does have two definitions.. as a religion & as an ethnic group.. and
> >the two definitions overlap to a large degree. But there is no Jewish
> >"race" anymore than there is a Christian "race." In fact, most (if not
> >all) anthropologists agree that there isn't really a white or black
> >"race" either. If I have time later I'll look up some references on that
> >for you.
>
> ok. i will be the first to admit that i may have thrown around the term
> "race" a little too freely. i meant it as an ethnic group.
>
> Many Jews refer to themselves as being the chosen race. I don't think I
> have ever heard them say the chosen "ethnic group" so maybe that's where i
> got that piece of misinformation.
I have never in my life heard a Jew utter the phrase "chosen race".
"chosen *people*" yes. "chosen *race*" No!
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>arguments Paul had with the Jerusalem church was wether gentiles had to
>convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This is what the council
>described in Acts chapter 15 is all about. Acts 15:1 "Then certain
>individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless
>you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be
>saved." In other words, unless you convert to Judaism you cannot become
>a Xian. THis point of view is what Paul argues against in his letter to
>the Galatians. He has heard of people preaching a gospel different to
>his. A gospel that claimed one must obey the Law of Moses in order to be
>rightious. That thier message is termed a gospel confirms that these
>were Xians. They were Xians who felt you had to convert to Judaism and
>follow the Torah in order to join them. This would not have even been an
>issue if it were not possible to become Jewish. And by Jewish law anyone
>who converts to Judaism is Jewish. Just as Jewish as someone born
>Jewish.
I sure hope you continued reading after Acts 15:1. They basically asked
Paul "Isn't it true that unless you are circumsized according to the
custom of Moses, you cannot be saved?" Paul and Barnabas argued back and
forth with them, these men from Judea said "go check with the apostles and
elders in Jerusalem".
in verse 5, it says that they do not need to be circumsized. This means
that no, gentile converts do not need to be circumsized according to the
custom of Moses to be saved. This is conversion to Christianity.
Many of the bible verses talk about his people rejecting him. Romans
chapter 10,11 is only one of these areas. They talk about Israelites
rejecting Jesus. In chapter 11:1, Paul says "God has not rejected His
people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant
of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." The Jews are referred to as anyone
who is a descendant of Abraham. Romans 11:11 says that because of the
Jews rejection of the gospel, salvation is now available and will come to
gentiles. Please read at least chapters 10 and 11 of Romans but
preferrably the entire book for a good read.
John W. Leys
Which doesn't change my point at all. This was one of the decisions that
led to Xianity becoming a separate religion. But again, it wouldn't have
been an issue if it were not possible for gentiles to become Jews.
>
> Many of the bible verses talk about his people rejecting him. Romans
> chapter 10,11 is only one of these areas. They talk about Israelites
> rejecting Jesus. In chapter 11:1, Paul says "God has not rejected His
> people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant
> of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." The Jews are referred to as anyone
> who is a descendant of Abraham.
I think the problem is that you're laying a 21st century perspective on
1st century events and labels. Nobody in the 1st century would have
thought of separating "ethnic Judaism" from "religious Judaism." It was
the same thing. The two were not thought of as different until around
the 18th century during the enlightenment, which also introduced the
idea of "secular society." Nobody in that time would have conceived of a
Jew who did not practice Judaism. They may have been more or less
observant than others, but Jews practiced Judaism by definition. The
thought of a solely "ethnic" Jew is a very recent concept. You're laying
definitions and concepts on these texts that did not exist in the 1st
century.
>Romans 11:11 says that because of the
> Jews rejection of the gospel, salvation is now available and will come to
> gentiles. Please read at least chapters 10 and 11 of Romans but
> preferrably the entire book for a good read.
And none of it has any bearing on this.
Susan Cohen
Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> In article <3BC5F8CE...@yahoo.com>,
> John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >> When this is written in the Bible, the term "Jew" is not meant has "people
> >> of the Jewish faith"...it is defining a race.
> >Would you care to offer some evidence of this?
>
> when Jesus talks about "his people", even most of the Jewish people that I
> know will admit that he's talking about the Jews as the ethnic group, not
> simply a group of foreigners who may want to accep the Jewish religion.
Well, whatever you may want to say about Jesus & yourBible
is fine, but Judaism is not an ethnic group in the same sense that
being Irish-American, or Puerto-Rican, is an ethnic group.
Between the Ashkenazi & the Sephardi (for instance), we don't
even eat the same foods! We have different religious practices, too.
And the Ethiopians - they're different from both of the previous
groups.
> The entire theme of the new testament
whatever you want to believe.
> it is clear that it was impossible for a gentile to become a Jew simply by
> accepting the Jewish religious beliefs.
Wrong. Completely, absolutely & totally.
> >It does have two definitions.. as a religion & as an ethnic group.. and
> >the two definitions overlap to a large degree. But there is no Jewish
> >"race" anymore than there is a Christian "race." In fact, most (if not
> >all) anthropologists agree that there isn't really a white or black
> >"race" either. If I have time later I'll look up some references on that
> >for you.
>
> ok. i will be the first to admit that i may have thrown around the term
> "race" a little too freely. i meant it as an ethnic group.
You;re closer, but still off the mark. We are a people.
It's the only way to describe us unilaterally & still be correct.
> Many Jews refer to themselves as being the chosen race.
This is a lie. Only Jew-haters use this term.
Not one Jew has ever used this term.
Not even the most poorly educated Jew.
> I don't think I
> have ever heard them say the chosen "ethnic group" so maybe that's where i
> got that piece of misinformation.
Disingenuousness doesn't look good on you.
> i'm a little too lazy to go find a bible and find referencesbut i'll be
> happy to do that if you (or anyone else) wishes to continue this
> discussion.
Not that I actually want to encourage you to preach your religion
on a Jewish newsgroup, but I defy you to find me anything
that your religion says about a "chosen race."
And if you do find it, I want the ISBN number.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> In article <81a8e65a.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> Ferguson <JFer...@e-mailanywhere.com> wrote:
> >Are you really a university student?
>
> no. i graduated in 1996.
For 27 years old, you sure managed not to pick anything up from the real
world.
> >do you really beleive the stuff you post?
>
> yup.
More's the pity.
> there is no real definition of the "white" race. to some it may include
> Jewish people as well. To me, Pamela Anderson is white, Jerry Seinfeld
> is not white. The Rock is not white (1/2 african american, 1/2 samoan i
> think). RVD is white. Hulk Hogan is white. Joe Lieberman is not white.
> Blond hair blue eyed people are rarely Jewish.
>
> but of course there are also gray areas of overlap.
Obviously not any in your *head*.
What a FOOL!!!
Daniel Donghoon Paik
John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
>Which doesn't change my point at all. This was one of the decisions that
>led to Xianity becoming a separate religion. But again, it wouldn't have
>been an issue if it were not possible for gentiles to become Jews.
then who are the gentiles? are they simply non believing Jews? does that
mean that a Samaritan could become a Jew if he/she accepts the Jewish
customs and beliefs?
>I think the problem is that you're laying a 21st century perspective on
>1st century events and labels. Nobody in the 1st century would have
>thought of separating "ethnic Judaism" from "religious Judaism." It was
>the same thing. The two were not thought of as different until around
>the 18th century during the enlightenment, which also introduced the
>idea of "secular society." Nobody in that time would have conceived of a
>Jew who did not practice Judaism. They may have been more or less
>observant than others, but Jews practiced Judaism by definition. The
>thought of a solely "ethnic" Jew is a very recent concept. You're laying
>definitions and concepts on these texts that did not exist in the 1st
>century.
i agree with the thought that it would have been assumed that a Jew
practices Judaism. i was simply stating that in biblical times a gentile
cannot become a Jew under any circumstance. of course i am open to
accepting that i am incorrect in this belief.
John W. Leys
>
> In article <3BCCEE24...@yahoo.com>,
> John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >Which doesn't change my point at all. This was one of the decisions that
> >led to Xianity becoming a separate religion. But again, it wouldn't have
> >been an issue if it were not possible for gentiles to become Jews.
>
> then who are the gentiles? are they simply non believing Jews?
gentiles are non-Jews. Anyone who is not Jewish is a gentile.
>does that
> mean that a Samaritan could become a Jew if he/she accepts the Jewish
> customs and beliefs?
Yes. Anyone could become Jewish if they accepted Jewish customs &
beliefs and underwent a converion.
>
> >I think the problem is that you're laying a 21st century perspective on
> >1st century events and labels. Nobody in the 1st century would have
> >thought of separating "ethnic Judaism" from "religious Judaism." It was
> >the same thing. The two were not thought of as different until around
> >the 18th century during the enlightenment, which also introduced the
> >idea of "secular society." Nobody in that time would have conceived of a
> >Jew who did not practice Judaism. They may have been more or less
> >observant than others, but Jews practiced Judaism by definition. The
> >thought of a solely "ethnic" Jew is a very recent concept. You're laying
> >definitions and concepts on these texts that did not exist in the 1st
> >century.
>
> i agree with the thought that it would have been assumed that a Jew
> practices Judaism. i was simply stating that in biblical times a gentile
> cannot become a Jew under any circumstance. of course i am open to
> accepting that i am incorrect in this belief.
>
Yes, you were incorrect in this assumption. It seems to be a fairly
common misconception though.
Ajumah
>That's a funny handle, Lisa. I first thought it was Iranian name but
>then it suddenly became Koreanized when I saw your email address.
>
>What else is funny is that the name "Ahgasshi" sounds like "Agassi,"
>who is Iranian.
>Lesson in Korean:
>
>Ah-jum-mah = "senora", ma'am
>Ah-gah-shi = "seniorita", miss
I know Korean. I just thought that Ajumah would be a cute nickname
for a change. Lisa is so . . . dull. I'll try to get more creative
in the future.
TC
Isn't the name "Cohen" Jewish? I'm curious.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
>> In article <81a8e65a.01101...@posting.google.com>,
>> Ferguson <JFer...@e-mailanywhere.com> wrote:
>> >Are you really a university student?
>> no. i graduated in 1996.
>For 27 years old, you sure managed not to pick anything up from the real
>world.
no, i'm 29. i graduated in 5 years instead of 4 and it was my birthday
last week so i just turned 29.
>> >do you really beleive the stuff you post?
>> yup.
>More's the pity.
thanks.
>> but of course there are also gray areas of overlap.
>Obviously not any in your *head*.
>What a FOOL!!!
uh...nice day to you too. such animosity...i'll bet that you're a
democrat. i usually see that type of animosity in democrats.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
>> >Which doesn't change my point at all. This was one of the decisions that
>> >led to Xianity becoming a separate religion. But again, it wouldn't have
>> >been an issue if it were not possible for gentiles to become Jews.
>> then who are the gentiles? are they simply non believing Jews?
>gentiles are non-Jews. Anyone who is not Jewish is a gentile.
in bibilical times, were there many Jews going out to try to convert
gentiles into the Jewish faith? who were these people? Paul was a Jew
(and Roman citizen) but he was converting people into the Christian
religion. Where were his Jewish counterparts? The bible talks about most
of them as people who were unwilling to associate with the gentiles.
Austin So (Hae-Jin)
early christian history except what they remember from sunday school...Dan
here is a case in point...
Not too many christians realize that there was no real distinction between
"christian" and "jewish" for those who followed Jesus' legacy during those
formative years....
"John W. Leys" <jw-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BCCB02C...@yahoo.com...
> This is not clear at all. In fact it is just plain wrong. One of the
> arguments Paul had with the Jerusalem church was wether gentiles had to
> convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This is what the council
> described in Acts chapter 15 is all about. Acts 15:1 "Then certain
> individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless
> you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be
> saved." In other words, unless you convert to Judaism you cannot become
> a Xian. THis point of view is what Paul argues against in his letter to
> the Galatians. He has heard of people preaching a gospel different to
> his. A gospel that claimed one must obey the Law of Moses in order to be
> rightious. That thier message is termed a gospel confirms that these
> were Xians. They were Xians who felt you had to convert to Judaism and
> follow the Torah in order to join them. This would not have even been an
> issue if it were not possible to become Jewish. And by Jewish law anyone
> who converts to Judaism is Jewish. Just as Jewish as someone born
> Jewish.
--
---
Austin P. So (Hae Jin)
I.I.S.G.P.
Biotechnology Laboratory
University of British Columbia
E-mail: hae...@netinfo.ubc.ca
http://server1.biotech.ubc.ca/~austin/
Susan Cohen
Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> In article <3BCCFB47...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> >> In article <81a8e65a.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> >> Ferguson <JFer...@e-mailanywhere.com> wrote:
> >> >Are you really a university student?
> >> no. i graduated in 1996.
> >For 27 years old, you sure managed not to pick anything up from the real
> >world.
>
> no, i'm 29. i graduated in 5 years instead of 4 and it was my birthday
> last week so i just turned 29.
>
> >> >do you really beleive the stuff you post?
> >> yup.
> >More's the pity.
>
> thanks.
>
> >> but of course there are also gray areas of overlap.
> >Obviously not any in your *head*.
> >What a FOOL!!!
>
> uh...nice day to you too. such animosity..
Well, I read your posts - what did you expect?
> .i'll bet that you're a
> democrat. i usually see that type of animosity in democrats.
And I knew you had to be a Republican. I usually see such
nasty arrogance from Republicans - especially the ones who
can't see that any animosity they get is something they've *earned.*
And whadaya know - you're a prime example.
Just to make it more than clear to you:
You've been told more than once by more than one person
just how wrong you are, and yet you cling to your fallacious
assumptions.
I, however, would be thrilled to find out that I have been wrong
about you.
Susan Cohen
TC wrote:
Yes, it is. It's the Anglicized spelling of the Hebrew word for "Priest."
Susan
ugly duckling
>I think you should be aware that many christians are pretty ignorant about
>early christian history except what they remember from sunday school...Dan
>here is a case in point...
That seems to be the case. And yet Dan does not quit it, because he
think in any way one looks at it, as long as one have right faith in Jesus,
it does not matter. He is giving all these presumptious Christian
garbage which he only assumed to be true and tells the world.
This is how misunderstanding starts, not to mention Anti-Semitism.
>Not too many christians realize that there was no real distinction between
>"christian" and "jewish" for those who followed Jesus' legacy during those
>formative years....
That's indeed very true. And book of Acts was written in those
formative years. It is only after the 1st century, people began to
distinguish Jews from Christians. Apparently, many Korean pastors
have partonized the Christians against the Jews to their congregation,
because they wre jealous of fame of the Jews, that christians like
Dan is formed.
ugly duckling
Susan Cohen
ugly duckling wrote:
> In article <9qketg$6ul$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>, Hae-Jin\ says...
> >I think you should be aware that many christians are pretty ignorant about
> >early christian history except what they remember from sunday school...Dan
> >here is a case in point...
>
> That seems to be the case. And yet Dan does not quit it, because he
> think in any way one looks at it, as long as one have right faith in Jesus,
> it does not matter. He is giving all these presumptious Christian
> garbage which he only assumed to be true and tells the world.
>
> This is how misunderstanding starts, not to mention Anti-Semitism.
Watch it - he'll be calling you a Democrat next.
Susan
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>> uh...nice day to you too. such animosity..
>Well, I read your posts - what did you expect?
a rational discussion about religion without ad hominem attacks.
but then again...you're a democrat. heh.
>Just to make it more than clear to you:
>You've been told more than once by more than one person
>just how wrong you are, and yet you cling to your fallacious
>assumptions.
how is that? i've already learned a lot from this thread about the Jewish
people. i never made much distinction between the terms race, people,
ethnicity, etc. until now. i've easily been open about aknowledging this
mistake that offends a lot of sensitive people.
>I, however, would be thrilled to find out that I have been wrong
>about you.
well, it's pretty clear that you're not the brightest person
around since you haven't been able to comprehend a lot of the things
written in this thread.
this isn't a Christianity versus Judaism thread but you seem to think
that it is. it's more of a discussion of the Jewish people and what
constitues a Jew. i'll try to sum it up in a way that maybe you can
understand this. i'll try to use small words.
1) the word "Jew" has two meanings. it can mean ancestry. it can also
mean a person with no Jewish ancestry that converts to the Jewish faith.
2) was this always the case? the Jewish people in this thread say "yes".
even in biblical times when they talk about gentiles (as opposed to
Jews), it simply means people who are not of Jewish faith nor Jewish
ancestry. personally, i disagree with this because when i read the bible,
i think it means only the people of Jewish ancestry as i haven't read
about conversion of gentiles into Jews.
personally, i don't have anything against Jews. this is in the same way
that i don't have anything against the Japanese. but because of my
religious beliefs (Christianity), i believe that the Jews were responsible
for the death of my Savior and Messiah. in the same way, the Japanese
have done a lot of very bad things (i'm trying to use small words
remember?) to the Korean people. this does not mean that i believe all
Jews are damned to hell, etc. because that is not my call nor is it
something i should even hold an opinion in.
anyway, i certainly do hope that clears things up a bit. if you have more
questions, i will try to answer them but if you still fail to understand
this, i'm not sure how much easier i can write.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
ugly duckling <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>Not too many christians realize that there was no real distinction between
>>"christian" and "jewish" for those who followed Jesus' legacy during those
>>formative years....
>That's indeed very true. And book of Acts was written in those
>formative years. It is only after the 1st century, people began to
>distinguish Jews from Christians. Apparently, many Korean pastors
>have partonized the Christians against the Jews to their congregation,
>because they wre jealous of fame of the Jews, that christians like
>Dan is formed.
whatever label you decide to place on it is irrelvent. since Jesus
came to Earth there has always been a distinction between those who
believe he is their Savior and those who do not. those who do not
generally think of him as a prophet, teacher, fraud, random guy, false
prophet, etc.
of course there are even groups like Jews for Jesus who in my opinion
are basically Christians of Jewish ancestry because they believe that
Jesus is the Messiah.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>Watch it - he'll be calling you a Democrat next.
is that a bad word or something? you should be proud of that. dukakis
made the same mistake when bush kept calling him a "liberal".
call me a republican or conservative all you want and i won't be
offended.
Austin So (Hae-Jin)
news:9qmu75$1uqj$1...@agate.berkeley.edu
> a rational discussion about religion ...
Indeed...
> personally, i don't have anything against Jews. this is in the same way
> that i don't have anything against the Japanese. but because of my
> religious beliefs (Christianity), i believe that the Jews were responsible
> for the death of my Savior and Messiah. in the same way, the Japanese
> have done a lot of very bad things (i'm trying to use small words
> remember?) to the Korean people. this does not mean that i believe all
> Jews are damned to hell, etc. because that is not my call nor is it
> something i should even hold an opinion in.
Susan Cohen
"Austin So (Hae-Jin)" wrote:
> "Daniel Donghoon Paik" <uc...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> news:9qmu75$1uqj$1...@agate.berkeley.edu
>
> > a rational discussion about religion ...
>
> Indeed...
He's entitled to his opinion on religious matters.
However, when he strays into the realm of fact,
his opinion cannot be counted similarly.
Susan
Robert Laskey
> that i don't have anything against the Japanese. but because of my
> religious beliefs (Christianity), i believe that the Jews were responsible
> for the death of my Savior and Messiah.
A rather silly statement, but one that I've seen before. Some other
facts... Jesus was a Jew. His mother was a Jew. All of the disciples were
Jews. The apostle Paul was a Jew. Given that God's covenants don't have
expirations, God's covenants with the tribes of Isreal are still in effect.
A very small group of Jews were responsible for Christ's death. A far
greater number of Jews were responsible for the spread of Christianity.
Stating that an entire faith or ethnicity is responsible for a single act
that occured some 2000 years ago is a rather dangerous thing, don't you
think?
Be well...
Robert
Ferguson
Consider that Dan posted 11 Oct 01:
----------
(snip)
even hitler didn't really
have that much against white people who were of the jewish faith...he
didn't like the race.
oh...i brought up hitler. i lose this flame war. but wait...it
wasn't a
flame war.
----------
This post in the context of his other posts perhaps explains his take
on "Jewish guilt for Christ's death" issue.
Of course you are very correct about the large number of Jews who
converted, became missionaries, martyrs etc., vs the small number who
worked with the Romans to have our Lord killed. It would be more
logical for Dan to "blame" Jews for the spread of Christianity and the
strong Jewish traditions that exist in Christianity.
I do not agree with "continuing covenant with the tribes of Israel"
but that would take us in a new a far off direction.
Nektarios
---------------------------------------
"Robert Laskey" wrote
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
>A very small group of Jews were responsible for Christ's death. A far
>greater number of Jews were responsible for the spread of Christianity.
>Stating that an entire faith or ethnicity is responsible for a single act
>that occured some 2000 years ago is a rather dangerous thing, don't you
>think?
Okay. I am glad to see that the Jews today look negatively upon the small
group of Jews that were responsible for Jesus' death. I am also glad to
see that at least some Jews do take responsibility that a small aberrant
group of their ancestors were responsible for this.
At the same time, I will definitely acknowledge that there were many great
Jews at the time and there are many great Jews today.
However, with that said...the Jews today still don't regard Jesus Christ
as their King, Savior, and Messiah. I'm sure they don't believe that it
was right to kill Jesus, but by not believing that Jesus is the
Messiah...do they still think Jesus was a liar and a fraud? And before
the sensitive people get offended, I am asking this question about the
Jewish religious beliefs and not in any way trying to make any moral
or religious judgements against the Jewish people. I hope this disclaimer
will suffice.
John W. Leys
>
> In article <QilA7.187283$K6.90287005@news2>,
> Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
> >A very small group of Jews were responsible for Christ's death. A far
> >greater number of Jews were responsible for the spread of Christianity.
> >Stating that an entire faith or ethnicity is responsible for a single act
> >that occured some 2000 years ago is a rather dangerous thing, don't you
> >think?
>
Jesus>
>
> At the same time, I will definitely acknowledge that there were many great
> Jews at the time and there are many great Jews today.
>
> However, with that said...the Jews today still don't regard Jesus Christ
> as their King, Savior, and Messiah.
Of course not. If we did we'd be Xians.
>I'm sure they don't believe that it
> was right to kill Jesus, but by not believing that Jesus is the
> Messiah...do they still think Jesus was a liar and a fraud?
No more or less than any of the other dozens of people who've claimed to
be the messiah over the years. Honestly I don't think most Jews of the
time probably cared all that much "oh, just another guy claiming to be
the messiah. Lets see how this one fairs" and when he died, most of them
probably forgot about him until his followers started thier own religion
And today, to be honest, I dont think most Jews think about Jesus all
that much to form such an opinion. He's really not that important to us.
If you ask 10 jews what they think about Jesus you'll no doubt get 10
completely different answers.
Susan Cohen
"John W. Leys" wrote:
> Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> >
> > In article <QilA7.187283$K6.90287005@news2>,
> > Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
> > >A very small group of Jews were responsible for Christ's death. A far
> > >greater number of Jews were responsible for the spread of Christianity.
> > >Stating that an entire faith or ethnicity is responsible for a single act
> > >that occured some 2000 years ago is a rather dangerous thing, don't you
> > >think?
> >
> <snip crap about Jews taking "responsability" for the Roman execution of
> Jesus>
He can believe what he wants - tho' I find it odd that Daniel would
persist in believing what no reputable, respectable church preaches
today, but still consider himself a good follower of Jesus.
Okay, not so odd.
> > At the same time, I will definitely acknowledge that there were many great
> > Jews at the time and there are many great Jews today.
> >
> > However, with that said...the Jews today still don't regard Jesus Christ
> > as their King, Savior, and Messiah.
>
> Of course not. If we did we'd be Xians.
Or apostates.
> >I'm sure they don't believe that it
> > was right to kill Jesus, but by not believing that Jesus is the
> > Messiah...do they still think Jesus was a liar and a fraud?
>
> No more or less than any of the other dozens of people who've claimed to
> be the messiah over the years. Honestly I don't think most Jews of the
> time probably cared all that much "oh, just another guy claiming to be
> the messiah. Lets see how this one fairs" and when he died, most of them
> probably forgot about him until his followers started thier own religion
>
> And today, to be honest, I dont think most Jews think about Jesus all
> that much to form such an opinion. He's really not that important to us.
> If you ask 10 jews what they think about Jesus you'll no doubt get 10
> completely different answers.
And very few of them pleasant for him to hear.
Susan
John W. Leys
> > And today, to be honest, I dont think most Jews think about Jesus all
> > that much to form such an opinion. He's really not that important to us.
> > If you ask 10 jews what they think about Jesus you'll no doubt get 10
> > completely different answers.
>
> The reason, of course, for this hypersensitivity is that many people who
> have persecuted Jews in the past have used "You killed Our Lord" as a
> justification.
absolutely.
>
> I understand people being touchy about this, but I think it's better, for
> discussion's sake, that people just get over being so defensive. The
> analogy Dan made about the Germans and the Japanese is interesting - owning
> up to, or glossing over, wartime atrocities. The point is that glossing
> over and ignoring the past really doesn't help anyone or solve anything.
>
> So yes, Jews killed Jesus. They obviously did so because they didn't
> believe that he was the Son of God, and still don't. Understood.
No. Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a
Roman form of execution. Therefore Jesus was executed by Romans, not
jews. If Jews had executed him he'd have been stoned to death. The story
in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
despite these facts.
>
> So why do so many Jews insist that that's not what actually happened?
Because its not what actually happened.
> What's wrong with simply acknowledging that Jesus, who was killed by Jews,
> is believed to be The Messiah by others?
because he wasn't killed by Jews. Other than that I really don't care
who anyone else claims is the messiah.
What's wrong with acknowledging that the Xian scriptures are biased and
inaccurate?
A couple good books that deal with this are:
"Who killed Jesus" by John Dominic Crossan and
"Judas Iscariot & the Myth of Jewish Evil" by Hyam Maccoby
<snip>
> Anyway, just generally speaking more about my usenet experience with Jewish
> people - as a Gentile, I naturally have a lot of questions, should the
> subject of Judaism ever come up. And no one ever gives me a straight
> answer. Usually, I get a ton of different answers, none of which makes a
> lot of sense.
Sorry to hear you've had bad experiences. Feel free to ask anything
you'd like. I'm always more than happy to do my best to inform.
>
> And often, I get accused of anti-Semitism simply for asking any questions at
> all. That is clearly what is happening to Dan in this entire thread. Dan
> has never indicated any disrespect for Jewish people, and a lot of what he
> says are just honest queries and notions held by your average Christian
> living in America.
The problem is that your average Xian living in America hold antisemitic
notions. In many ways through no fault of their own. The scriptures they
read are full of antisemitic remarks, or remarks that can be interpreted
as such. I have many Xian friends who wish their pastors/priests would
teach the context the gospels were written in & explain why these
antisemitic notions are wrong. There are few who actually still preach
antisemitism, but also few who will actively point out its roots in the
Xian Bible.
A good article on this subject can be found on the Moment Magazine web
site:
http://www.momentmag.com/features/feat1.html
>
> I fully understand that Jews don't care much about Jesus, and have varying
> opinions about Him. But that doesn't really explain why they consider
> mentioning Jesus at all, in any context, as an affront to their religion.
> They don't equate him with Satan, do they? Sometimes it seems that way.
It really depends on the person and how Jesus is mentioned. Judaism in
general really has no opinion of Jesus, to my knowledge, and certainly
doesn't equate him with Satan by any stretch of the imagination. I
really take no offense to Jesus being mentioned, but it does depend a
lot on the context. And yes, I will admit to being somewhat sensitive
when it comes to Judaism, but 2001+ years of persecution and
antisemitism will do that to you.
And honestly, if you have serious questions about Judaism please feel
free to ask. I would be happy to answer as best I can.
Susan Cohen
"John W. Leys" wrote:
> Karen Lee wrote:
>
> > So yes, Jews killed Jesus. They obviously did so because they didn't
> > believe that he was the Son of God, and still don't. Understood.
>
> No. Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a
> Roman form of execution. Therefore Jesus was executed by Romans, not
> jews. If Jews had executed him he'd have been stoned to death. The story
> in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
> despite these facts.
>
> >
> > So why do so many Jews insist that that's not what actually happened?
>
> Because its not what actually happened.
There's certainly no historical basis for *any* of it.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Karen Lee wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD3139E...@hers.com...
>
> > He can believe what he wants - tho' I find it odd that Daniel would
> > persist in believing what no reputable, respectable church preaches
> > today, but still consider himself a good follower of Jesus.
> > Okay, not so odd.
>
> What?
>
> See, this is the kind of stuff that just simply defies logic.
Yes, I find Daniel's position highly illogical.
But he doesn't.
That's part of what makes the world go 'round.
> Why would you, Susan Cohen, a Jew, care what a "reputable, respectable
> church" would "preach?"
Why shouldn't I, considering - in only one small aspect - what
the outcome generally is!
> What's a respectable church, anyway, according to a Jew?
Or according to anyone who knows what almost all Xtians accept....?
(which is, of course, the criterion)
> I mean, what
> Christian doctrine do you find more acceptable than others?
You're going off on a wrong tangent.
It's not what I consider acceptable.
It's what most of Jesus' follwers find acceptable.
They're the ones who get to define their religion, not me.
> And how do you know that Dan is or isn't a "good follower of Jesus?"
Because, like most people who are in a minority, I end up being exposed
to the thoughts, beliefs & teachings of the majority.It gets picked up
almost by osmosis - I don't even have to consciously go after it.
> How can a Jew even make that kind of determination?
See above.
> (How can anyone, for that matter, judge the Jesus-Dan relationship except
> for Jesus and Dan?)
>
> This just makes no sense whatsoever.
Then I suppose you ought to be talking to the thousands of preachers
who are always telling everyone that *they* know what Jesus wants,
etc. I'm only following what they say - I couldn't possibly have any
other interpretation.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Karen Lee wrote:
> "John W. Leys" <jw-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3BD3200A...@yahoo.com...
>
> > The story
> > in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
> > despite these facts.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > What's wrong with acknowledging that the Xian scriptures are biased and
> > inaccurate?
>
> First of all, of course Jews will think that Christian scripture is "biased
> and inaccurate." After all, they're based on the fundamental notion that
> Jesus is Son of God.
>
> Jews don't believe that, so all of the New Testament is completely useless
> to them, never mind "biased and inaccurate."
>
> See, pointing that out is not very illuminating. It's like quibbling about
> the accuracy of _Dianetics_.
Actually, the debunking of "Dianetics" is at least 40 years old.
It was written up in a book which I believe was called
"Fad & Fallacies". (Or something like this. It's on a shelf buried
under my kid's old clothes, so I won;t be seeing it for quite
some time....)
The whole idea of Dianetics is that you are supposed to clear
yourself of doubts & fears that hold you back, so that you can
become a superior human being.
On the day L. Ron Hubbard presented his first "Clear" to the press,
& told them that, among other things, she was perfectly observant
& had a perfect memory.
So a reporter stood up, told her to close her eyes, & then asked her
what color tie he was wearing. She, of course, could not.
This, of course, is far worse than simply "unproven."
Susan
parox
> Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> >
> > In article <QilA7.187283$K6.90287005@news2>,
> > Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
> > >A very small group of Jews were responsible for Christ's death. A far
> > >greater number of Jews were responsible for the spread of Christianity.
> > >Stating that an entire faith or ethnicity is responsible for a single act
> > >that occured some 2000 years ago is a rather dangerous thing, don't you
> > >think?
> >
> <snip crap about Jews taking "responsability" for the Roman execution of
> Jesus>
Here's the relevant passage exclusively from Matthew 27:
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an
uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of
the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your
responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and
on our children!"
The book of Matthew was written by Jews to address a Jewish audience.
Another passage exclusively from Luke 23:
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are
doing."
Luke was written for Gentiles, as to say, all mankind was responsible
for the death of God Incarnate.
> > At the same time, I will definitely acknowledge that there were many great
> > Jews at the time and there are many great Jews today.
> >
> > However, with that said...the Jews today still don't regard Jesus Christ
> > as their King, Savior, and Messiah.
>
> Of course not. If we did we'd be Xians.
>
> >I'm sure they don't believe that it
> > was right to kill Jesus, but by not believing that Jesus is the
> > Messiah...do they still think Jesus was a liar and a fraud?
>
> No more or less than any of the other dozens of people who've claimed to
> be the messiah over the years. Honestly I don't think most Jews of the
> time probably cared all that much "oh, just another guy claiming to be
> the messiah. Lets see how this one fairs" and when he died, most of them
> probably forgot about him until his followers started thier own religion
>
> And today, to be honest, I dont think most Jews think about Jesus all
> that much to form such an opinion. He's really not that important to us.
> If you ask 10 jews what they think about Jesus you'll no doubt get 10
> completely different answers.
No doubt a Jew's answer is influenced by the many years of persecution
delivered in the name of Christ, and he is not likely to believe that
during those times, Christ's name was being dragged through the dirt.
Personally, it doesn't come to much surprise that most Jews are
secular--any form of allegiance will only bring about more pain in one
form or another.
Robert Laskey
>
> Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was their second messiah. Christians
and
> Jews likely believe that Joseph Smith was a liar, fraud, or deluded.
>
> Same thing.
Incorrect. Mormons believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet, not the second
coming. Smith is not viewed by Mormons as God incarnate.
> > No more or less than any of the other dozens of people who've claimed to
> > be the messiah over the years. Honestly I don't think most Jews of the
> > time probably cared all that much "oh, just another guy claiming to be
> > the messiah. Lets see how this one fairs" and when he died, most of them
> > probably forgot about him until his followers started their own religion
>
>
> The reason, of course, for this hypersensitivity is that many people who
> have persecuted Jews in the past have used "You killed Our Lord" as a
> justification.
No hypersensitivity. Any reasonable person understands that this
justification is utter nonsense. Evil men who want to hold a grudge and
commit evil acts will find a justification. That they choose to incorrectly
take the name of a good faith in no way detracts from the faith itself.
> So yes, Jews killed Jesus. They obviously did so because they didn't
> believe that he was the Son of God, and still don't. Understood.
No, it was quite a different thing. Ancient Jews had a habit of
persecuting. rebelling against, and sometimes killing prophets. The
Pharisees were threatened by Christ's popularity among the people, as well
as his message of salvation through grace as opposed to works as determined
by the Pharisees. Christ's open criticism of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees
didn't exactly endear him, either. It was power and politics from the view
of the Pharisees.
> So why do so many Jews insist that that's not what actually happened?
> What's wrong with simply acknowledging that Jesus, who was killed by Jews,
> is believed to be The Messiah by others?
I've never heard any Jews deny Christ's crucifixion. It's the resurrection
that's at issue.
> And with respect to other statements like: Jews helped spread
Christianity,
> or that Jesus was a Jew ... these statements make no sense whatsoever.
> Rather, they sound ingratiating and pointless.
Uh...huh? It's a rather logical argument against the idiots that attempt to
use Christianity as an excuse for anti-Semitism. I've seen the idiots
insist that Christ was a white Aryan. Christianity was founded by Jews and
is based on many tenets of the Jewish faith. Further, our belief that
Christ is Messiah is a belief in the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. This
is incredibly important. How is it that you don't understand this?
> Yes, Jews did help spread Christianity - and one of the ways they helped
do
> so was by ... killing Jesus. Christians derive their faith from the very
> fact of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion. I sure hope this isn't news to
anyone.
No, we don't derive our faith from the crucifixion. Thousands were
crucified. It's Christ's life, teachings, miracles, and finally the
resurrection from which we derive our faith.
> And yes, Jesus was a Jew. Before he was around, there was obviously no
such
> thing as Christians. So that doesn't even mean anything.
Your logic is becoming more and more profoundly flawed. The fact that Jesus
was a Jew, directly descended from the line of King David through His mother
Mary, is incredibly important. OT prophesies described the Messiah, and one
of these indicated that he would be a direct descendent of King David.
Another is His birth in Bethlehem. More indicate the manner of His death.
Yes, the fact that Jesus was Jewish is important. You don't understand
this?
If I could, merely to understand where you're coming from... May I ask what
faith you practice or ascribe to? Your lack of knowledge of the most basic
tenets of Christianity would indicate that you're not a Christian.
Be well...
Robert
John W. Leys
>
> Hey, I thought you didn't post on Sundays?
>
> I guess you're not a very good Jew, then.
Why wouldn't a good Jew post on Sunday?
Unless you're referring to Shabbat, which is from sundown Friday night
til nightfall Saturday night? Sunday is the Xian Sabbath.
John W. Leys
>
> > The story
> > in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
> > despite these facts.
>
>
> > What's wrong with acknowledging that the Xian scriptures are biased and
> > inaccurate?
>
> and inaccurate." After all, they're based on the fundamental notion that
> Jesus is Son of God.
Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I fully accept
that Xians and Jews disagree on matters of theology.
>
> Jews don't believe that, so all of the New Testament is completely useless
> to them, never mind "biased and inaccurate."
>
> See, pointing that out is not very illuminating. It's like quibbling about
> the accuracy of _Dianetics_.
>
> And you're not going to find very many Christians who will consider the
> notion that their scriptures are flawed. Since their Bible says Jesus was
> killed by Jews, that's what they will believe.
Not true. I know *many* Xians who accept that their scriptures are
flawed & accept that they do not reflect a historical reality concerning
the crucifixion. I think you're giving Xians too little credit when it
comes to thinking for themselves. Certainly they put more value in their
scriptures than do I, but it doesn't mean they can't accept that the
authors, however inspired they may have been, were biased. This is why I
provided a link to that article in Moment Magazine. It includes the
views of several Xian theologians who agree with what I am saying, a few
of whom who are actually considering going so far as to edit the
antisemitic remarks out of the NT, which I myself think may be a little
drastic, but its not by Bible either.
> > The problem is that your average Xian living in America hold antisemitic
> > notions. In many ways through no fault of their own. The scriptures they
> > read are full of antisemitic remarks, or remarks that can be interpreted
> > as such. I have many Xian friends who wish their pastors/priests would
> > teach the context the gospels were written in & explain why these
> > antisemitic notions are wrong. There are few who actually still preach
> > antisemitism, but also few who will actively point out its roots in the
> > Xian Bible.
>
> Yes, the Bible may contain anti-semitic elements.
>
> But ... what's the problem with that?
The problem with that is that these elements are often used as
justification for hate crimes against Jews. Just as they've been used as
justification for persecuting Jews for 2000 years. I honestly don't care
what theology Xians subscribe to, but when they use their theology as an
excuse to burn down synagogues, kill, discriminate against & persecute
Jews it becomes my concern.
>
> A religious text for another religion than yours will likely contain
> elements which are contrary to your own religion.
>
> Isn't this just a no-brainer?
Absolutely. But, as I said, I'm only concerned because these particular
elements have the potential of effecting me and my family in a very
negative way. I hope you can understand that. And I don't think for a
second that every Xian is an antisemite, or that they will act violently
based on these beliefs, but there is a precedence for such behavior.
>
> Basically, you, like others, seem to criticize Christianity simply because
> it's not enough like Judaism.
Not at all. It need not be anything like Judaism. To be perfectly blunt,
I really don't care all that much.
>
> And that's really not a valid criticism.
I agree 100%.
>
> > And honestly, if you have serious questions about Judaism please feel
> > free to ask. I would be happy to answer as best I can.
>
> Thanks. I appreciate it.
>
> So here's one: Maybe you can explain the difference between Judaism as a
> race/ethnicity vs. Judaism as a religion.
oh boy.. I was hoping you'd start with an easy one! *L* Just let me warn
you that I am not an expert on this subject, but I will do my best to
clarify.
>
> Apparently anyone can convert to Judaism and be considered 100% Jew (e.g.
> Sammy Davis, Jr.) But Jews also have racial/ethnic heritage which
> identifies them as Jewish, too. As you know, some people describe
> themselves as half-Jewish, because one of their parents is Jewish.
According to Jewish Law anyone who converts is as much a Jew as someone
born Jewish. And yes, there is a ethnic/cultural dimension to Judaism as
well.
The two, religious & ethnic, are not entirely separate and overlap quite
a bit, and in fact Jewish Law makes no distinction between the two at
all. This is due I believe because Jews have always considered
themselves a "people" or a "nation" as well as "just a religion" and
have endeavored in many respects to remain distinct from non-Jews. This
created a Jewish ethnic/cultural identity much the same way that any
other
nation or people can have an ethnic identity.
>
> And Susan Cohen told me that if your mother is Jewish, than you are Jewish
> whether you like it or not, even if you convert to another religion during
> your lifetime. Although if your father is Jewish, than you are not Jewish
> at all, unless you convert.
And Susan is correct. According to Jewish Law you are Jewish if your
mother is Jewish or if you convert. I believe this is due to the fact
that, while you may not always be 100% sure of who a child's father is,
you always know who a child's mother is. If only your father is jewish
then you would have to convert to be considered Jewish by Jewish law.
Secularly, however, some people will refer to someone as "half Jewish"
if they have only one Jewish parent regardless of which parent it is,
but this is not valid according to
Jewish Law. Additionally Jewish Law does not recognize any conversions
*out* of Judaism. If a Jew quits practicing Judaism, or adopts another
religion, they are still considered "Jewish" by Jewish law, though they
would be considered apostates.
>
> So is Ben Stiller Jewish?
If his mother is Jewish or he has converted, then yes.
>
> Basically, Christianity, as you probably know, isn't something that is
> inherited through parentage. So the concept of being handed down your
> Jewish status (through your mom) is kind of a foreign one - so maybe you can
> help me understand?
The above is the best explanation I can offer. If you need more
clarification, or if I managed to misrepresent anything, hopefully Susan
or some other knowledgeable soul will help.
John W. Leys
<snip>
I have little more to say on the Xian/antisemitism subject since its
obvious we just don't agree. I do find it curious that you twice ignored
the references I made to that article in Moment, since it does contain
the opinions of Xians, who have a stake in Xianity, which pretty much
agree with what I was saying. But oh well, I guess.
>
> > > So here's one: Maybe you can explain the difference between Judaism as a
> > > race/ethnicity vs. Judaism as a religion.
> >
> > oh boy.. I was hoping you'd start with an easy one! *L* Just let me warn
> > you that I am not an expert on this subject, but I will do my best to
> > clarify.
>
> Thanks. Your answer is the most thoughtful I've gotten so far, and I
> appreciate it.
no problem. I do the best I can.
>
> You can see why anyone would be confused, right? Not only that, you can
> also see how it's a subject that can come up often, right?
Sure, its something that confuses a lot of people. No big deal. There
are things about other faiths that confuse me to. Nothing wrong with
asking.
Robert Laskey
"Karen Lee" <maveri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZEMA7.1167$Sd.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Laskey" <rlas...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:PWLA7.191973$K6.92226558@news2...
>
> > Any reasonable person understands that this
> > justification is utter nonsense.
>
>
> Mr. Leys seems to believe that there is precedence in Christian history
for
> anti-semitic behavior.
There's also precedence in Jewish history for anti-Christian behavior as
well as anti-Gentile behavior. When the behaviors of people are directly
contrary to the teachings of their faith, then blaming the faith itself is a
flawed argument.
> He appears to be a reasonable person.
Yes, he does seem so. And, being a reasonable person, he understands that
any reasoning using Christian teaching as an excuse to persecute Jews is
flawed. My point is that anyone who uses the Bible as a justification for
harming others a) is far beyond reason, and b) has no understanding of the
tenets of the Christian faith.
John 4:22 "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we
do know, for salvation is from the Jews."
Romans 15:8,9 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews
on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so
that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:
"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your
name."
Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God
for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the
Gentile.
> > No, we don't derive our faith from the crucifixion. Thousands were
> > crucified. It's Christ's life, teachings, miracles, and finally the
> > resurrection from which we derive our faith.
>
> Really?
>
> So that whole "Christ died for our sins ..." means nothing?
Surely you understand the difference between an event being important, and
deriving the entire faith from a single event. Okay, maybe not. Yes,
Christ's death is a very important part of our faith. It is not, however,
the event from which we derive our entire faith. Our holiest day of the
year is Easter, not Good Friday. Christ died as a perfect sacrifice, but it
is through the resurrection that death is defeated. As I said, our faith is
derived from a variety of sources, the central being Christ's teachings and
actions. Others include the Old Testament (ancient Judism), and the further
teachings of Paul and the disciples. In effect, Christ died for our sins,
but it is through the resurrection that salvation is gained.
1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is
useless and so is your faith.
Romans 10:3 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 2:21,22 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you
also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who
has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities
and powers in submission to him.
Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power
to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our
Lord.
Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to
life for our justification.
John 11:25,26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He
who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and
believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Phillipians 3:10,11 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection
and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his
death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
> > Yes, the fact that Jesus was Jewish is important. You don't understand
> > this?
>
> I know that it's important to Christians.
>
> I don't think it's very important to Jews.
I never said that it was.
> I simply said that trying to manufacture some connection from Jesus'
> Jewish-ness to try and gain the affinity of Jews today towards Christ is -
> ingratiating, pointless, and possibly even insulting.
Your inability to understand even basic principles never ceases to amaze me.
We don't try to gain the affinity of Jews by proclaiming Jesus' Jewishness.
I've seen this pointed out for 2 reasons. 1) Only a Jew of the direct line
of David is able to fulfill the OT messianic prophecies. 2) As an argument
against the idiots who claim to be Christians and seek to harm or belittle
Jews.
Although many Christians and Jews don't consider each other to be brethren,
many Christians understand that God's covenants with the Jews are still in
effect. The resurrection didn't change the fact that the Jews are God's
chosen people.
> You're not a member of Jews for Jesus or anything, by any chance? (Or was
> that Jesus for Jews?)
I'm familiar with the group. However, I'm not Jewish, and have no Jewish
ancestry of which I'm aware. Why would you ask? Does your flippant
question indicate a disdain for the group?
By the way, you maintain the habit of digging into other peoples' faiths
without indicating your own. Just as a reference point so that we know
where you're coming from, what faith to you practice or adhere to?
Be well...
Robert
John W. Leys
>
> "Karen Lee" <maveri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZEMA7.1167$Sd.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Robert Laskey" <rlas...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:PWLA7.191973$K6.92226558@news2...
> >
> > > Any reasonable person understands that this
> > > justification is utter nonsense.
> >
> > Apparently not.
> >
> > Mr. Leys seems to believe that there is precedence in Christian history
> for
> > anti-semitic behavior.
>
> There's also precedence in Jewish history for anti-Christian behavior as
> well as anti-Gentile behavior. When the behaviors of people are directly
> contrary to the teachings of their faith, then blaming the faith itself is a
> flawed argument.
I agree 100% & I hope that I didn't imply that I was blaming the Xian
faith, just pointing out how it and its texts have been used. I know too
many philo-semitic Xians to believe that Xianity is inherently
antisemitic.
>
> > He appears to be a reasonable person.
>
> Yes, he does seem so.
Well, I do my best.
> And, being a reasonable person, he understands that
> any reasoning using Christian teaching as an excuse to persecute Jews is
> flawed. My point is that anyone who uses the Bible as a justification for
> harming others a) is far beyond reason, and b) has no understanding of the
> tenets of the Christian faith.
Absolutely. And I think this is the point Susan was trying to make in
another post
<snip>
> > > Yes, the fact that Jesus was Jewish is important. You don't understand
> > > this?
> >
> > I know that it's important to Christians.
> >
> > I don't think it's very important to Jews.
>
> I never said that it was.
>
> > I simply said that trying to manufacture some connection from Jesus'
> > Jewish-ness to try and gain the affinity of Jews today towards Christ is -
> > ingratiating, pointless, and possibly even insulting.
>
> Your inability to understand even basic principles never ceases to amaze me.
> We don't try to gain the affinity of Jews by proclaiming Jesus' Jewishness.
> I've seen this pointed out for 2 reasons. 1) Only a Jew of the direct line
> of David is able to fulfill the OT messianic prophecies. 2) As an argument
> against the idiots who claim to be Christians and seek to harm or belittle
> Jews.
>
From my experience with Xians, some also point out Jesus Jewishness to
provide a context for his teachings. I know several Xians who have
studies Judaism in an attempt to better understand his teachings. This
doesn't contradict anything you've said, I just think its another valid
reason beyond "ingratiating."
Tom
> >Most Jews are *easily* identifiable by the following features
> >
> >4. Certan hair types(curly, kinky or otherwise non white)
>
I've actually seen very few people with white hair. Andy Warhol comes
to mind, but that was a wig.
ugly duckling
>I do not agree with "continuing covenant with the tribes of Israel"
>but that would take us in a new a far off direction.
>Nektarios
Mr. Ferguson,
The promise God made to Avraham regarding the promised land that
He was going to give him was made long prior to the Mosaic covenant.
Or are they to live like the Levites the Priests, to whom no
land was portioned?
ugly duckling
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
>Your logic is becoming more and more profoundly flawed. The fact that Jesus
>was a Jew, directly descended from the line of King David through His mother
>Mary, is incredibly important. OT prophesies described the Messiah, and one
>of these indicated that he would be a direct descendent of King David.
>Another is His birth in Bethlehem. More indicate the manner of His death.
>Yes, the fact that Jesus was Jewish is important. You don't understand
>this?
of course Jesus was a Jew. and of course Jesus was a direct descendant
of David. all of the prophesies in the old testament said this. if you
aknowledge all of these prophesies about the Messiah and you agree that
Jesus met all of the specs of these prophesies, why not believe that he is
the Messiah?
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Karen Lee <maveri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Anyway, just generally speaking more about my usenet experience with Jewish
>people - as a Gentile, I naturally have a lot of questions, should the
>subject of Judaism ever come up. And no one ever gives me a straight
>answer. Usually, I get a ton of different answers, none of which makes a
>lot of sense.
i basically agree with everything you wrote.
ugly duckling
>If I could, merely to understand where you're coming from... May I ask what
>faith you practice or ascribe to? Your lack of knowledge of the most basic
>tenets of Christianity would indicate that you're not a Christian.
This is exactly the problem that I've been talking about regarding
Koreans. They themselves do not have any grip on any life perspectives,
yet they seem to be so well trained in criticising others.
Notice JJGShin.
He doesn't have life. And yet it is payday for him when someone
makes mistakes. Like fungus, he dwells on someone else's mistakes.
Talking about the fault-finders in the end times in the bible.
ugly duckling
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Robert Laskey <rlas...@home.com> wrote:
>Uh...huh? It's a rather logical argument against the idiots that attempt to
>use Christianity as an excuse for anti-Semitism. I've seen the idiots
>insist that Christ was a white Aryan. Christianity was founded by Jews and
>is based on many tenets of the Jewish faith. Further, our belief that
>Christ is Messiah is a belief in the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. This
>is incredibly important. How is it that you don't understand this?
Jesus Christ is the main thing that differentiates between Judaism and
Christianity. Sure, many other changes have come to place in the last
2000 years but the root of the difference is in Jesus Christ. Until
Christ showed up on Earth, the Christian religion didn't exist yet. It
was simply Jews and Gentiles. This is why the fact that Jesus was a Jew,
Paul was a Jew, etc. isn't really all that important. If you say that
Jesus was a Jew because of his ancestry and his role in the fulfillment of
the prophesies...then yes, it is important. But if you say "look! Jesus
was a Jew, not a Christian"...then that's irrelvent.
for all of the SCJ readers...i never went to your newsgroup. some of
these posts may be cross posted because i'm replying to something that is
cross-posted. as for me...i'm just in SCK.
Central Lurker
Please disregard the posts of this karenlee. There is little point in
trying to have mature discussions with the argumentative
pseudointellectual rat of soc.culture.korean. You may soon realize
what we in s.c.k. know all too well, that any attempt to have reasoned
dialogue with this vermin inevitably results in uncalled for snideness
and aimless bickering (interspersed with the occasional false
courtesy). This vermin's purpose is to introduce herself into a
discussion like a virus by showing off what little she knows and then
baiting a flamewar in order to derive some perverted satisaction by
inflicting injury upon others.
We are enjoying your (and others') insights on the Jewish faith.
Please be careful of this discussion turning into an argument about an
argument (you said, I said...) by being wary of what karenlee is. As
others will attest, karenlee was one of the reasons for the
degeneration of the soc.culture.asian.american newsgroup. We are
doing everything in our power to prevent this disease from spreading
in s.c.k.
Thank you and
Annyonghigaseyo (shalom)
Robert Laskey
> This is exactly the problem that I've been talking about regarding
> Koreans. They themselves do not have any grip on any life perspectives,
> yet they seem to be so well trained in criticising others.
That's not a Korean problem. It's the nature of an online forum. Your own
postings concerning Christianity have been wildly inaccurate to the point of
silliness. I've sometimes wondered if you're delusional, or another
non-Christian troll trying to make us look foolish.
Be well...
Robert
Daniel Donghoon Paik
John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
>> So yes, Jews killed Jesus. They obviously did so because they didn't
>> believe that he was the Son of God, and still don't. Understood.
>No. Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a
>Roman form of execution. Therefore Jesus was executed by Romans, not
>jews. If Jews had executed him he'd have been stoned to death. The story
>in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
>despite these facts.
it was the romans who did the dirty work, but the bible says that it was
the Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus killed. they didn't want to do the
killing themselves so they sent Jesus to the Romans to do it. Romans sent
him back to the Jewish leaders saying this guy is innocent. Jewish
leaders added more to Jesus' rap sheet and sent him back to the Romans.
Roman judge (Pilate) didn't want to kill Jesus but the group of people
(Jews and Romans) all yelled and screamed to kill him. Pilate knew Jesus
was innocent so he said he is not responsible for this death of an
innocent man.
it's kind of like someone today hiring a hit man to kill someone. sure
the hit man did the killing but the guy who hired the hit man is the one
who is the one who wanted to kill.
>The problem is that your average Xian living in America hold antisemitic
>notions. In many ways through no fault of their own. The scriptures they
>read are full of antisemitic remarks, or remarks that can be interpreted
>as such. I have many Xian friends who wish their pastors/priests would
>teach the context the gospels were written in & explain why these
>antisemitic notions are wrong. There are few who actually still preach
>antisemitism, but also few who will actively point out its roots in the
>Xian Bible.
personally, i think the Jews are just a little bit too touchy about
criticism. Jesus criticized the Jews in his day and i'm sure they all got
really pissed at him and said that he was a traitor for stirring up
antisemitism.
it is wrong to say that Jews are bad. it is wrong to say that Jews should
be persecuted in any way. it is wrong to use the bible as justification
for any type of racial hatred towards the Jews.
but why is it antisemitism to say that i believe the bible says that the
Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. that death and
resurrection are the cornerstone of my beliefs. in no way do i feel that
because of this belief the Jews of today should be discriminated against
because this was a historical event.
>And honestly, if you have serious questions about Judaism please feel
>free to ask. I would be happy to answer as best I can.
actually, you are probably the most polite and open Jew that i've ever met
on the internet. like me...you tell it like it is and write exactly
what's on your mind without trying to change the thread into a personal
flame war.
Robert Laskey
> > There's also precedence in Jewish history for anti-Christian behavior as
> > well as anti-Gentile behavior. When the behaviors of people are
directly
> > contrary to the teachings of their faith, then blaming the faith itself
is a
> > flawed argument.
>
> I agree 100% & I hope that I didn't imply that I was blaming the Xian
> faith, just pointing out how it and its texts have been used. I know too
> many philo-semitic Xians to believe that Xianity is inherently
> antisemitic.
No, I didn't take that implication at all.
> From my experience with Xians, some also point out Jesus Jewishness to
> provide a context for his teachings. I know several Xians who have
> studies Judaism in an attempt to better understand his teachings. This
> doesn't contradict anything you've said, I just think its another valid
> reason beyond "ingratiating."
I pretty much take studying Judaism as a given for Christians, especially
given the fact that 2/3 of our sacred texts are composed of Jewish sacred
texts. Christians must study and seek to understand both OT and NT in
context to understand our faith's origins as well as the heart of God.
>
> Shalom!
To you as well. Be well...
Robert
Susan Cohen
"John W. Leys" wrote:
> Robert Laskey wrote:
> > When the behaviors of people are directly
> > contrary to the teachings of their faith, then blaming the faith itself is a
> > flawed argument.
>
> I agree 100% & I hope that I didn't imply that I was blaming the Xian
> faith, just pointing out how it and its texts have been used.
Give that man a chocolate cigar!
(Chocolate conatins no nicotine (-: )
That's it in a nutshell.
> I know too
> many philo-semitic Xians to believe that Xianity is inherently
> antisemitic.
Or even just nice regular Xtians, without any special
feelings towards Jews.
> > > He appears to be a reasonable person.
> >
> > Yes, he does seem so.
>
> Well, I do my best.
>
> > And, being a reasonable person, he understands that
> > any reasoning using Christian teaching as an excuse to persecute Jews is
> > flawed. My point is that anyone who uses the Bible as a justification for
> > harming others a) is far beyond reason, and b) has no understanding of the
> > tenets of the Christian faith.
>
> Absolutely. And I think this is the point Susan was trying to make in
> another post
Right again. When most adherents of a faith are one way (in this case,
good, kind decent, etc) & a recognizably smaller group is not, or less
so, or what-have-you, but it basing their behavior on the same
scripture, someone's got to be wrong. And since this religion is not
mine, I have to go with the majority ruling to determine who is right &
who is wrong.
Susan
Susan Cohen
ugly duckling wrote:
> In article <PWLA7.191973$K6.92226558@news2>, Robert Laskey says...
> >If I could, merely to understand where you're coming from... May I ask what
> >faith you practice or ascribe to? Your lack of knowledge of the most basic
> >tenets of Christianity would indicate that you're not a Christian.
>
> This is exactly the problem that I've been talking about regarding
> Koreans. They themselves do not have any grip on any life perspectives,
> yet they seem to be so well trained in criticising others.
Uh, you're kidding, right? "Koreans" are like this?
Not just immature people *everywhere*?
Koreans are immature?? What ethnic group is mature?
> Notice JJGShin.
> He doesn't have life. And yet it is payday for him when someone
> makes mistakes. Like fungus, he dwells on someone else's mistakes.
> Talking about the fault-finders in the end times in the bible.
You sure you're not doing the same thing, here....?
Susan
>
>
> ugly duckling
Susan Cohen
parox wrote:
> "John W. Leys" <jw-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3BD2F07E...@yahoo.com>...
> >
> > <snip crap about Jews taking "responsability" for the Roman execution of
> > Jesus>
>
> Here's the relevant passage exclusively from Matthew 27:
You may believe what you like.
I won't even argue with you about the nature of what you posted.
The real point is that until you can prove it, we're not buyin' it.
(Big Hint: You cannot use a book to prove itself)
Susan
Susan Cohen
Tom wrote:
> lisash...@home.com (Ajumah) wrote in message news:<3bc91748...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca>...
> > >Most Jews are *easily* identifiable by the following features
> > >
>
> > >4. Certan hair types(curly, kinky or otherwise non white)
Oh, damn, & here I thought I was Jewish. But my hair is
straight. What does that make me?
G-d, some people...!!!!!
> I've actually seen very few people with white hair. Andy Warhol comes
> to mind, but that was a wig.
My uncle has it, & he's only in his early sixties.
(Wow, that was hard to write!!)
Runs in the family. Actually, a friend of my parents has
white hair, too - but he's in his seventies....
Susan, gettin' older by the minute.....
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>The real point is that until you can prove it, we're not buyin' it.
>(Big Hint: You cannot use a book to prove itself)
what do you mean by "prove it"?
do you want text? i can give you the bible, dead sea scrolls, etc. sorry
but i can't provide video coverage (but even if i did, video coverage
can't prove anything either - take a look at UFO sightings). Do you want
a kodak picture? etc.
so what do you want as proof and how do ou define it?
of course i'm sure you ask for the same amount of proof when you read
about Socrates, Caesar, Da Vinci, etc.
Robert Laskey
(Or
> was
> > > that Jesus for Jews?)
> >
> > question indicate a disdain for the group?
>
>
Yes, the group is called Jews for Jesus. It's a group of Jews who have
converted to Christianity. Why exactly would such a thing be a cause for
disdain? You obviously don't understand even the basics of Christianity,
and thus your disdain is out of ignorance. A rather dangerous thing, don't
you think?
Be well...
Robert
Robert Laskey
>
> > > You're not a member of Jews for Jesus or anything, by any chance? (Or
was
> > > that Jesus for Jews?)
> >
> > question indicate a disdain for the group?
>
Oh, and of all that I posted in response to your ignorance regarding
Christianity, that's the only question that you can answer? I'm losing
faith in your vaunted Berkeley education.
Oh, you still won't indicate what your own faith is. Are you ashamed of it?
Be well...
Robert
Susan Cohen
Robert Laskey wrote:
> > > > You're not a member of Jews for Jesus or anything, by any chance?
> (Or
> > was
> > > > that Jesus for Jews?)
> > >
> > > Does your flippant
> > > question indicate a disdain for the group?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Yes, the group is called Jews for Jesus. It's a group of Jews who have
> converted to Christianity.
Er, no, it is not. It is a subsidiary of at least one of the Baptist
Conventions, specifically formulated to trick Jews into
committing apostacy by telling the more ignorant Jews who
constitute their prey that they are practicing Judaism. They
are not - it is Xtianity, dressed up to look like Judaism to
the less knowledgable.
> Why exactly would such a thing be a cause for disdain?
If what you said were true, onl yJews would have any real cause for
dsidain. As it is, if I were a Xtian, I'd be furious at their tactics, in
specific
the deliberate mislabelling of my religion. Most people I know who have
a specific faith are proud of it, & would be highly insulted if an entire
group of people was formulated to *lie* about it, as if no one would
ever join my religion except thru trickery.
> You obviously don't understand even the basics of Christianity,
> and thus your disdain is out of ignorance. A rather dangerous thing, don't
> you think?
Yes, ignorance is a dangerous thing.
The Jews for Jesus have proven it.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Daniel Donghoon Paik wrote:
> In article <3BD45A11...@hers.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >The real point is that until you can prove it, we're not buyin' it.
> >(Big Hint: You cannot use a book to prove itself)
>
> what do you mean by "prove it"?
Prove that he existed.
That is, if you want other people to *believe* what you say, rather
than merely allow that you may believe as you wish.
> do you want text?
Sure. But there is none.
> i can give you the bible,
Like I said: you can't use a book to prove itself.
If I wrote a book saying that I was a curly-haired millionaire with
4 children, & you asked me to prove it, giving you the book is
not proof.
> dead sea scrolls,
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus.
> etc. sorry
> but i can't provide video coverage (but even if i did, video coverage
> can't prove anything either - take a look at UFO sightings). Do you want
> a kodak picture? etc.
Your flippancy underscores your desperation.
> so what do you want as proof and how do ou define it?
Corroboration, plain & simple.
For just one example, the Romans were among the most meticulous
records keepers in history. Why is there no mention of anyone remotely
like Jesus in their records of governing Judea at the time?
The closest we come is 60 - 100 years after the time he was supposed
to have existed. Even Xtian (not just secular) biblical scholars have said
that each gospel is of a succeeding generation, not concurrent. I believe
this is the general historical opinion, but I could be wrong.
> of course i'm sure you ask for the same amount of proof when you read
> about Socrates, Caesar, Da Vinci, etc.
I would if I had to. But it's all there.
Oh, & before anyone says so, I can't prove my religious stories are true
either. I don't particularly care who believes them - and that's the point.
I'm not insisting to everyone else that they are true.
Susan
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>> Why exactly would such a thing be a cause for disdain?
>If what you said were true, onl yJews would have any real cause for
>dsidain. As it is, if I were a Xtian, I'd be furious at their tactics, in
>specific
>the deliberate mislabelling of my religion. Most people I know who have
>a specific faith are proud of it, & would be highly insulted if an entire
>group of people was formulated to *lie* about it, as if no one would
>ever join my religion except thru trickery.
one of the guys from Jews for Jesus came to my church once when i was in
college. most of my friends at church didn't really agree with everything
he said.
his point was the the bible makes it very clear that Jews (the ethnic
group...not including those who have converted to the Jewish faith (e.g.
Sammy Davis Jr)) are the chosen people. he felt that because they are the
chosen people, they are looked upon more favorably from God than the
Gentiles and are in a good position to lead a religious movement.
the part i didn't agree with was the fact that he was placing Jews (the
ethnic group) higher than the Gentiles when in fact i believe that God
does not favor one person over another because of ancestry.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>> what do you mean by "prove it"?
>Prove that he existed.
okay...can you prove that George Washington existed? All you have are
books, stories, people who know people who know people who know people who
have seen him firsthand, etc.
>> i can give you the bible,
>Like I said: you can't use a book to prove itself.
the bible is not the only book that proves that Jesus Christ existed.
Most religions will acknowledge that he existed. Even most (if not all)
of your Jewish friends will tell you that Jesus existed.
>If I wrote a book saying that I was a curly-haired millionaire with
>4 children, & you asked me to prove it, giving you the book is
>not proof.
However, if there were many other people who said that you are, and many
people who died saying that you are a curly haired millionaire with 4
children and you lived your lifestyle as that of a curly haired
millionaire with 4 children, i would probably believe it. i don't need to
meet you and actually see your million dollars in your bank account and
see your 4 kids to believe it. even then i wouldn't be sure that the
million in the bank is actually yours and without DNA tests, i wouldn't
know that the 4 kids are yours. but i don't need to go that far to
believe it.
>> of course i'm sure you ask for the same amount of proof when you read
>> about Socrates, Caesar, Da Vinci, etc.
>I would if I had to. But it's all there.
There is a lot more evidence about the existence of Jesus Christ than that
of Socrates.
the problem is that most non-believers say that they want proof but they
have no idea what that means.
there are groups of people who don't believe we went to the moon. there
are groups of people who don't believe that we sent a rover onto mars.
this was despite video coverage, news coverages, etc. as always, there
will be skeptics if you don't want to believe something.
John W. Leys
>
> In article <3BD3200A...@yahoo.com>,
> John W. Leys <jwl...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >> So yes, Jews killed Jesus. They obviously did so because they didn't
> >> believe that he was the Son of God, and still don't. Understood.
> >No. Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a
> >Roman form of execution. Therefore Jesus was executed by Romans, not
> >jews. If Jews had executed him he'd have been stoned to death. The story
> >in the gospel very transparently tries to place the blame on the Jews
> >despite these facts.
>
> it was the romans who did the dirty work, but the bible says that it was
> the Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus killed. they didn't want to do the
> killing themselves so they sent Jesus to the Romans to do it. Romans sent
> him back to the Jewish leaders saying this guy is innocent. Jewish
> leaders added more to Jesus' rap sheet and sent him back to the Romans.
> Roman judge (Pilate) didn't want to kill Jesus but the group of people
> (Jews and Romans) all yelled and screamed to kill him. Pilate knew Jesus
> was innocent so he said he is not responsible for this death of an
> innocent man.
>
> it's kind of like someone today hiring a hit man to kill someone. sure
> the hit man did the killing but the guy who hired the hit man is the one
> who is the one who wanted to kill.
Well, I'm not going to argue the point. Obviously we have different
opinions about the texts, which isn't suprising since you view them as
scripture and I don't (or I'm assuming you do, thats the impression I
got). From other non-biblical accounts of Pilate I find it hard to
believe he'd let anyone push him into excecuting anyone he didn't want
to, but thats just my take on things.
>
> >The problem is that your average Xian living in America hold antisemitic
> >notions. In many ways through no fault of their own. The scriptures they
> >read are full of antisemitic remarks, or remarks that can be interpreted
> >as such. I have many Xian friends who wish their pastors/priests would
> >teach the context the gospels were written in & explain why these
> >antisemitic notions are wrong. There are few who actually still preach
> >antisemitism, but also few who will actively point out its roots in the
> >Xian Bible.
>
> personally, i think the Jews are just a little bit too touchy about
> criticism. Jesus criticized the Jews in his day and i'm sure they all got
> really pissed at him and said that he was a traitor for stirring up
> antisemitism.
Well, to be fair, its not just Jews. I think the majority of people are
a little too touchy about criticism. Personally I don't mind criticism,
its predjudice & religious persecusion that I have problems with.
> it is wrong to say that Jews are bad. it is wrong to say that Jews should
> be persecuted in any way. it is wrong to use the bible as justification
> for any type of racial hatred towards the Jews.
>
> but why is it antisemitism to say that i believe the bible says that the
> Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. that death and
> resurrection are the cornerstone of my beliefs. in no way do i feel that
> because of this belief the Jews of today should be discriminated against
> because this was a historical event.
Its not necissarily antisemitic to believe these things, but Jews on the
whole are so used to having that belief used as a justification for
antisemitism that they automatically question it. I'm not saying thats a
fair thing to do, but I think thats what happens. Unfortunately there
are many who would happily blame the Jews of today for that event, which
is another reason the Jews of today wish to be distanced from it.
>
> >And honestly, if you have serious questions about Judaism please feel
> >free to ask. I would be happy to answer as best I can.
>
> actually, you are probably the most polite and open Jew that i've ever met
> on the internet. like me...you tell it like it is and write exactly
> what's on your mind without trying to change the thread into a personal
> flame war.
Thanks. I try to be as open and honest as possible. I also try and treat
people with the same respect I would have them treat me with. Flame wars
are a waste of bandwith and accomplish nothing.
--
Shalom!
John W. Leys
"When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps
to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams -- this may be
madness. To seek treasure where there is only trash. Too much sanity
may be madness. And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as
it should be."
- From 'The Man of La Mancha' by Dale Wasserman