I often recieve questions about my identity. Here are some.
1. What is a Messianic Jew?
A Messianic Jew is a Jew who believes that Jesus (henceforth Yeshua) is the Messiah.
2. Is that like a Christian?
Um...I guess it would be *like* that, yes.
3. So you're not Jewish anymore.
That's a declarative sentence. What shall I do now.
4. Oops. So how are you still Jewish, then?
Because belief in Yeshua does not remove Jewish identity, and we happen to think its the most Jewish thing you can do. He is the Jewish Messiah.
5. How do other Jews who don't believe in this Yeshua feel about you guys?
For the most part, not so well. The Orthodox consider us 'meshumdim', or traitors, and many more think we have abandoned the true Jewish faith, deceptively dressing up Christianity as a valid Jewish option, whereas they argue that its anything but. Some more 'liberal' Jews are willing to tolerate us, some even engaging in dialogue. But that's more an exception to the rule.
6. Aren't they right? About you being traitors and decievers and all that?
No. We have been rejected by the mainstream Jewish community, to be certain. Also, it is true that they do *feel* betrayed by us. But the feelings of the majority do not determine truth. We serve in the Israeli army (for those who live in Israel), celebrate the Jewish feasts, circumcise our sons, and want to see our children grow up Jewish.
7. Yeah, but they will be fake Jews.
You're doing it again.
8. Right. Sorry. Won't they just be fake Jews?
No. For Messianics, if your mother or father is Jewish, you're a real Jew (Orthodox and Conservative Jews go by the mother only; Messianics and Reform go by either parent). You can hide, pretend it isn't there, but it won't change the facts. Belief in Jesus doesn't alter it either.
9. You are just equivocating on the word "Jew," right? Everytime we ask, we mean religiously, and when you answer you go by ethnicity. Isn't that illogical?
There might have been equivocation, so let's fix that now. Ethnically, a Jew is defined according to the above. Religiously, there is a debate. Messianics think that Yeshua's claims to be the Messiah actually correspond to the facts--for Jews and everyone else. Jews who don't believe in 'that man' obviously differ on this point. So the question is whether what the New Covenant (also called the New Testament) says about Yeshua is true. If it is, Messianic Jews are Jewish religiously. If it isn't, then they aren't. But, ethnically, they would be Jewish in either case.
So, in the end, it is those who would say that Messianic Jews somehow *can't* be Jewish who are confusing you. Either they mean we cannot be Jewish religiously (and so avoid the real issue behind the claim, which is whether or not Yeshua actually is the Messiah), or they mean we are no longer Jewish ethnically (in which case their claim is wrong).
10. What's your problem? Why do you waste your time trying to say you're Jewish?
Because its a fact, and we seek to speak the truth. Moreover, we find what the Bible says about God's love and promises toward the Jewish people to be compelling. Therefore, it is part of an authentic testimony for Jewish believers to maintain their identity in Yeshua.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Messianic Jews persecuted in Israel
The following article appeared in the largest Hebrew newspaper in Israel, Yediot Acharonot. Translated by Maoz Israel with permission.
Caleb Myers (see interview below) is representing our case in Jerusalem (whereas we were unjustly harrased for our faith by the Ministry of Interior--in my case, deported; in my father's case, attempted and official deportation, though he was let in a day later.) We praise God for this article--illustrating the unique difficulties of Jewish democracy trying to understand its religious identity. Click here.
Caleb Myers (see interview below) is representing our case in Jerusalem (whereas we were unjustly harrased for our faith by the Ministry of Interior--in my case, deported; in my father's case, attempted and official deportation, though he was let in a day later.) We praise God for this article--illustrating the unique difficulties of Jewish democracy trying to understand its religious identity. Click here.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Is jury duty an absolute?
I had jury duty, and got called for a real trial. Assault with a deadly weapon, two counts. One isn’t allowed to “weigh” the evidence of the case until after the trial is over. So during the downtime, we the jury make conversation.
About what, you may ask? Favorite TV shows are an important component, and that can maintain interest for a few minutes. Someone had the idea to go around and say what we did for a living. Real estate agents, bouncers, construction workers, homemakers. After things became more familial, it came out that I was writing a paper on absolute truth. This was because there was a lull in the conversation, and I said,
“So I am writing this paper on absolute truth, and its really interesting to me how the courts depend on the concept…” or something equivalent in psychotic expectations to communally philosophize.
One man bit, “what is absolute truth?”
I responded, quoting another, “Absolute truth is what is true for all persons, places, and times.”
Our bouncer leaned back in his chair and mused, “well, that doesn’t exist at my house.”
Fighting the urge to quibble, I only replied, “but might it exist nonetheless?” And things moved on to the current state of the home-buying market.
Full-on epistemological relativism--the belief that differing determinations of the truth of a proposition cannot be arbitrated between two or more standards, leading to a proposition that can only be "true-for-you"--is too easy a target. I do not want merely to bring up the classic charges of self-refutation (undermines the very notion of rightness) and incoherence (since some beliefs are necessarily false) Both charges have led to convictions since Plato, and are there on record when needed. So let's just clarify its reasonable alternative.
There really is only one *reasonable* alternative, and it’s rather vast. Yet, we so often find ourselves, both as ordinary humans and as ivory-tower drive shafts, between two grossly unreflective and practically brainwashed options, neither of which see the vast middle where all we rightfully belong. In this case, it is between full-on relativism and “vulgar” absolutism, as some of the technicians called it. I define “vulgar” absolutism as an embracing of fact-certainty, dogmatism, incorrigibility, or some other unlikable quality that drives people away to a paint-by-numbers critique of a non-existent worldview. While both are unedible to the soul's palette, when faced with the Nazi/Communist-either/or, even the thinking person might go with the path of least popular resistance--its all relative.
Absolutism, as I see it (in its “graded” or non-vulgar sense), is really a call to inquiry. All it requires is an object of inquiry, that is, something about which to inquire. If there is something there (and not just in there, in your head), then that’s a very good start. We have something to talk about. We can ask questions like “what is it?” and “how did we know that?” We may revise our answers later, for a variety of good reasons. We may even revise our reasons, and the criteria for what counts as reasons.
Regarding the object, we still face several immediate problems, clear to even a lugnut like myself. For example, how is it that the object itself is seen, when it is seen through subjective concepts, perspectives, thoughts, and so on?
But that’s really the point. They are problems. Fun problems. As problems, they are difficult and maybe even interesting for an absolutist. But for someone who has accepted an full-on relativism, an easy and unconvincing answer has already been put forth. We don’t have any real public object. In the words of Plato's well-intentioned student who recieved needed correction, "knowledge is perception." You will just think whatever you happen to think (as coddled by thoughts, concepts, frameworks, and worlds-within-worlds-within-worlds-within-worlds). The relativist disputes the existence of public criteria for evaluating the truth of statements that can be made about the object. The absolutist doesn’t dispute that, because to dispute that is to render the possibility of disputation meaningless.
So, can we talk? Is there really something to talk about? We have reached a verdict, your honor.
About what, you may ask? Favorite TV shows are an important component, and that can maintain interest for a few minutes. Someone had the idea to go around and say what we did for a living. Real estate agents, bouncers, construction workers, homemakers. After things became more familial, it came out that I was writing a paper on absolute truth. This was because there was a lull in the conversation, and I said,
“So I am writing this paper on absolute truth, and its really interesting to me how the courts depend on the concept…” or something equivalent in psychotic expectations to communally philosophize.
One man bit, “what is absolute truth?”
I responded, quoting another, “Absolute truth is what is true for all persons, places, and times.”
Our bouncer leaned back in his chair and mused, “well, that doesn’t exist at my house.”
Fighting the urge to quibble, I only replied, “but might it exist nonetheless?” And things moved on to the current state of the home-buying market.
Full-on epistemological relativism--the belief that differing determinations of the truth of a proposition cannot be arbitrated between two or more standards, leading to a proposition that can only be "true-for-you"--is too easy a target. I do not want merely to bring up the classic charges of self-refutation (undermines the very notion of rightness) and incoherence (since some beliefs are necessarily false) Both charges have led to convictions since Plato, and are there on record when needed. So let's just clarify its reasonable alternative.
There really is only one *reasonable* alternative, and it’s rather vast. Yet, we so often find ourselves, both as ordinary humans and as ivory-tower drive shafts, between two grossly unreflective and practically brainwashed options, neither of which see the vast middle where all we rightfully belong. In this case, it is between full-on relativism and “vulgar” absolutism, as some of the technicians called it. I define “vulgar” absolutism as an embracing of fact-certainty, dogmatism, incorrigibility, or some other unlikable quality that drives people away to a paint-by-numbers critique of a non-existent worldview. While both are unedible to the soul's palette, when faced with the Nazi/Communist-either/or, even the thinking person might go with the path of least popular resistance--its all relative.
Absolutism, as I see it (in its “graded” or non-vulgar sense), is really a call to inquiry. All it requires is an object of inquiry, that is, something about which to inquire. If there is something there (and not just in there, in your head), then that’s a very good start. We have something to talk about. We can ask questions like “what is it?” and “how did we know that?” We may revise our answers later, for a variety of good reasons. We may even revise our reasons, and the criteria for what counts as reasons.
Regarding the object, we still face several immediate problems, clear to even a lugnut like myself. For example, how is it that the object itself is seen, when it is seen through subjective concepts, perspectives, thoughts, and so on?
But that’s really the point. They are problems. Fun problems. As problems, they are difficult and maybe even interesting for an absolutist. But for someone who has accepted an full-on relativism, an easy and unconvincing answer has already been put forth. We don’t have any real public object. In the words of Plato's well-intentioned student who recieved needed correction, "knowledge is perception." You will just think whatever you happen to think (as coddled by thoughts, concepts, frameworks, and worlds-within-worlds-within-worlds-within-worlds). The relativist disputes the existence of public criteria for evaluating the truth of statements that can be made about the object. The absolutist doesn’t dispute that, because to dispute that is to render the possibility of disputation meaningless.
So, can we talk? Is there really something to talk about? We have reached a verdict, your honor.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
listening and not listening
I was looking today at Isaiah 1:2, in the context of the first two chapters.
Is. 1:2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
He is speaking to the very creation that He spoke into being. "Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth." May I get out of my self-centeredness for a moment? It is not immediately obvious that the Lord is addressing me personally. He has a message for the entire universe, corporate and public. Why does he address the heavens and the earth? Because He created them, and can thus address them as He pleases (Gen 1:1)?
"Listen"--The verb there harkens back to a key passage in the Torah.
Sh’ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad (Deut. 6:4)
Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
Veahavta et Adonai Elohiecha bechol levavcha uvchol nafshecha uvchol meodechaAnd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might (Deut 6:5).
He is addressing the heavens and the earth because that is whom He has left to address. All He has left is the universe, the sum total of finite being. Since Israel is not listening, perhaps Creation will listen in her stead. Just some thoughts.
Is. 1:2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
He is speaking to the very creation that He spoke into being. "Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth." May I get out of my self-centeredness for a moment? It is not immediately obvious that the Lord is addressing me personally. He has a message for the entire universe, corporate and public. Why does he address the heavens and the earth? Because He created them, and can thus address them as He pleases (Gen 1:1)?
"Listen"--The verb there harkens back to a key passage in the Torah.
Sh’ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad (Deut. 6:4)
Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
Veahavta et Adonai Elohiecha bechol levavcha uvchol nafshecha uvchol meodechaAnd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might (Deut 6:5).
He is addressing the heavens and the earth because that is whom He has left to address. All He has left is the universe, the sum total of finite being. Since Israel is not listening, perhaps Creation will listen in her stead. Just some thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
