Jewish by birth only.

[hoxtonchris]

carolley even tho ime your partner ime still amazed at how our lives are soooo parrallel,when we met it was a few days before we knew each was from a jewish background(altho i confess i recignised your jewishness emediatly and said so) perhaps when we are as one we will put both our half jews together and make a full jew!hoy gavelt!!

[RedGlitter]

Hello Chris. I say embrace it with all that you are. It is a part of you that does not deserve to be denied.

[Richard Bell]

Groucho Marx tried to join a men's athletic club in the 1940s, but he was refused a membership because he was Jewish.

He then asked them if his son could join, and wade in the swimming pool up to his waist, as he was only half Jewish.

[hoxtonchris]

Diuretic;507576 wrote: Thanks carolley - that's right Chris. Jesse, I think meant to type "got" but it came out "goy" and Goy or Goyim are words used to described Gentiles. Some goy find the term offensive but it's not intended by Jews to be taken that way.

The term "typo" is a shortening of the term "typographical error" and more frequently used to mean "typing error". Some can be hilarious, some can be revealing, most don't make sense but we can all work them out anyway. I just used jesse's typo to make a hopefully humorous comment. Yes I can be obscure.

thanks mate for the clarification

[Richard Bell]

Diuretic;507576 wrote: I just used jesse's typo to make a hopefully humorous comment.

:D


'twas, indeed !:D



Yes I can be obscure.


You're just a big kaballah confusion !

[double helix]

I've been enjoying a book on Jews, Religion and History, titled just that, by Max I Dimont. If your family history involves Judaism and you want to learn about how the religion began, outlasted every ancient religion of its time and fathered two other monotheistic religions to boot its the book to read. I picked it up on vacation and haven't put it down.

[spot]

Big problem, monotheism, it's where this notion of other religions being false rather than alternative came from. We might only have one god but by gum he's a big hairy monster and no mistake, he tears the heads off anyone who refuses to bend the knee and whimper on command. All today's international crises are driven by it. Some US president thinks God talks to him and a million people die.

Go on then, DH, how did Judaism begin? I so know you're wrong already.

[double helix]

spot;684512 wrote: Big problem, monotheism, it's where this notion of other religions being false rather than alternative came from. We might only have one god but by gum he's a big hairy monster and no mistake, he tears the heads off anyone who refuses to bend the knee and whimper on command. All today's international crises are driven by it. Some US president thinks God talks to him and a million people die.

Go on then, DH, how did Judaism begin? I so know you're wrong already.
Most historians feel that Judaism began with Abraham, who was a Hebrew. But where did Abraham come from? About the year 2000 BC a man named Terah and his son Abraham, his son's wife, Sarah and his grandson Lot, who was Nephew of Abraham, moved out of Babylonia. Terah's geneology traces him to Shem, one of the three sons of Noah.

Abraham first encountered 'Jehovah' northwest of a place called Ur in the south of what is now known as Turkey. God proposes a covenant to old Abraham if he and all his descendants will follow the commandments of God, He in His turn, will make all descendants of Abraham His Chosen People and place them under His protections. In return, Abraham and all his descendants must become circumcised on the eight day after birth or, if converted into the faith, upon conversion.

[spot]

Historians???

I'd be amazed if you could find a single current historian - as opposed to a fundamentalist monotheistic believer - who would describe Abraham as a historical figure. "Most historians feel that"? Am I allowed to invite you to justify your statement, since your entire argument depends on it? I'm sure there are millions of people who feel that Judaism began with Abraham, all I'm asking is which of them is saying that from the perspective of being an historian. It would be more than their job's worth to say it without evidence of some sort. The last time I checked, for example, Ur of the Chaldees was archeologically dated a long time from any reasonable proposed date for Abraham on a historical timescale.

The Ancient Near East mailing list at https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail ... 22319.html discusses the matter sensibly, under "biblical historicity and dead horses".

The problem might be one of terminology.

On the one hand there is religious belief. What one believes is obviously bound to be true, that's axiomatic in a religion. Therefore the inbuilt claims of the Holy Texts are unchallengeable. Now, since History as a subject deals with the same period as the texts, it is obvious to believers that History includes as fact the content of the texts.

On the other hand there are historians. They consider their tools to be scientific. They consider the archeological ground and the texts as material to be interpreted. Historians tend to regard a large proportion of the old testament, including all the Torah, to have been composed around 500 BC. That, outside of the context of belief, is the foundation of Judaism. Outside of the context of belief that's the point where the possibly 1500 year old oral traditions of several tribal ancestor groups get collated and moulded into a roughly coherent form. The people doing the collating hadn't the slightest idea what the oral traditions were discussing and they weren't interested, either. Their interest was expressing their new notion, which we now call Judaism, using what was to hand along with a leavening of invention. Political expediency after the Babylonian Exile put the setting of much of the Torah in the Holy Land. It would be a wonderful coincidence if the original setting of the oral traditions had all started with the same locations in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Torah is a fair starting point to delve into some of those suggestions.

[double helix]

Oh, I do appreciate your history lesson. Are you an Historian? Oh, no. Perhaps you are an expert on Historians? On History? Theology? Religious History maybe?Jewish History, perhaps?

Ok, Ok.

Did you miss the part about Noahs son Shem? In other words Abraham decended from.....a line of people who were already speaking to or beings spoken to by God, and perhaps even called themselves Hebrew, though no recorded history says such. Just that Shem, son of Noah, traveled with his son Abraham and family....etc.!

Ur of the Chaldees was archeologically dated a long time from any reasonable proposed date for Abraham on a historical timescale.


Granted, all events cannot be verified scientifically, with fossils, that is true. The supposed site of Ur, and Soddom and Gomorra has been located as has many other places mentioned in the biblical writings. We know they egsisted.

Jews trace their history back to Babylonian times when Abraham left Ur. Its not disputed by many, since Abraham is also the foundation of Christianity and Islam. I'm having a hard time seeing your point here spot! Who have you read that disputes Abraham as the origins of Judaism or that the history of Judaism isn't 4000 years old?

So, how does an Historian reconstruct events in time that leave no physical trace as in the history of a nomadic people? I believe it is done by comparing recorded events of other cultures from the same area where your subjects may have egisted. You know, Greeks weren't the earliest people to have recorded history. Babilonians, Egiptians and others at that time kept records for taxation and villification. All through the continent are recorded events, some that correspond to, even discuss, Hebrew tribes and other peoples, in fact spcifically mention Shem, Abraham, Sarah as they left Ur, and settled in another area. So, events mentioned in many places, some as early as 2000 BC helps reconstruct an historical picture. The Hebrew/Jews were around, but perhaps not a solidified nation till 500 BC.

[spot]

Much as I'd love there to be some, Far, I don't know of a single instance of archaeology having supported any pre-exile incident in the Bible. Do by all means post details of one.

I remember being inside the Temple Mount excavations on a tour and told that there was not a single archaeological trace of the first temple on the site, for example. You'd think something so major would worry fundamentalists but for some reason they seem oblivious.

[double helix]

Far Rider;686099 wrote: I have been told before that to confirm jewish blood your mother has to be of Jewish blood, that being Jewish by birth is only traced that way. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

Sorry Spot but as a biblical fundamentalist historian I must agree with DH on this subject. :wah:

I think that there is enough archeological historical information that confirms the bible is true that we can safely assume all of it is true.

Based on that, as I recall, the lineage of Abraham goes like this:

Adam

Seth

Enos

Cainan

Mahalaheel

Jabed

Enoch

Methuselah

Lamech

Noah

Shem

Arphaxed

Salah

Eber

Peleg

Reu

Serug

Nahor

Terah

Abram (Later changed to Abraham)

Since God did establish an order for Adam to follow in terms of sacrifice atonement for sin, then there was obviously a single monothiestic system of religion prior to any other. All religions then would stem from this sytem which later became what we see as Judism today, and accounting for the extension of dispensations to the age of grace today we see the church proper as a local assembly existing under the completion of the atonement of Christ and His teachings.
As I understand it, to be Jewish, your mother must be a Jewess.

[Clint]

A child can go through life wondering if dad really is dad but there is never any doubt about whether or not mother is mother.

[spot]

Far Rider;686471 wrote: Ok heres a decent article with links, we can start here and kick this around.

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html


Far, that is a perfect example. Go and read it again, take a note or two and come back here.

There are the clay tablets mentioned which show some concurrent words - not personal names from Genesis, mind. Apart from that, everything mentioned is contemporary with the exile and I did specifically mention pre-exilic as the problem. Post-exilic identification of some biblical events with the Holy Land isn't contentious at all. The exile's a historical documented event with records elsewhere than in the bible.

Who doubted the historicity of the Philistines / Phonicians or that they lived in Ashdod, or that the Assyrians raided the Mediterranean and sacked cities there? That's neither contentious nor core-biblical and the Philistines / Phonicians are attested to in Greek and Roman histories as well.

Core-biblical archaeology, to me, is for example that not a single archeological find has ever confirmed the identification of any Holy Land site with any biblical history. That leaves me very very puzzled and it ought to puzzle any non-fundamentalist just as much. I agree though that that the application of belief makes any such question meaningless.

Take a look at the "proof" of Solomon at that URL, for example:Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.Does that not simply embarrass you as the level of proof available? I have no doubt that there was an historical Solomon but I find it beyond reason that, out of all the kings of Middle Eastern empires of his time, not one trace of his residence exists. It screams to me that the location of his capital - and that of his father - is a matter of reasonable doubt. Great history, lousy archaeological identification. Nothing, but nothing, exists at or near the Temple Mount that relates to a first temple. To say that it's a long time ago and signs fade is entirely wrong - nothing disappears. Things definitely get lost though. I only mentioned Solomon's Temple initially because you just can't ignore the utter lack of any trace of it on its traditional location. It's one of those beams-in-the-eye moments that Jesus was for ever pointing out.

[Clint]

I've been there. The building materials used for that kind of a structure are huge and very durable. The builders of the second temple would have almost certainly used the remains of the first in the construction of the second as they will with the remains of the second when the third is constructed.

[spot]

Far Rider;687308 wrote: What archeology do you recognize as confirming the bible’s accuracy if any?The trouble is finding any unbiased account of archaeological finds and their attribution, anywhere at all in Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facts_on_t ... li_Society discusses a particular Ph.D Thesis that was unmercifully trashed because it had the temerity to ask exactly the same question I put in this thread.

Where you'll find material I'm not sure. How we can decide that it supports the presence of "the People of the Book", for want of a better word - Hebrews, descendants of Jacob, what you will - within the Holy Land before the exile I have no idea. I'm starting from a position that there are none at all, so surely even a single instance will knock my silliness over. What have you got?

[Clint]

carolley;506503 wrote: My mother was jewish.......my father was, well dont know as I never knew who he was. I was a "mistake" and ih boy that was bad 50 odd years ago when your mother came from quite a strict jewish home. I was fostered out till i was 6 due to the fact her sister wouldnt allow me in the home.Anyway what I want to say is this. I believe in God but no matter what way Ive gone in my life Ive come to realise that being Jewish by birth means to me that theres something inside me that will always be Jewish no matter what road I have been on in my years and what lays ahead.


I find your post to be very interesting. I didn’t know until about four years ago that of my makeup of German, Thai and Jewish, I’m most of all Jewish. Actually, up to that time, I didn’t know I had Jewish blood at all. What is interesting is that before I knew, I was very drawn to things Jewish. I liked Jewish people and loved the culture. I’m more comfortable in my skin now that I know. I think if I was only 10% I’d still feel the same way. I don’t know why.

[tude dog]

It is true that a Jew is defined by his/her birth to a Jewish mother or by conversion.

I find it strange that someone should suddenly feel more fondness towards Judaism by the accidental knowledge of being a Jew by birth.

The concept of identify by bloodline is a primitive one.

"Blood is thicker than water"

Can we think of a more silly concept?

Wouldn't adherence to the concepts of Judaism, or identify to the people be most important?

Heck, if I found out that somewhere in my ancestry I have by my mother blood of a black African, does that make me a Negro (btw, I am by all accounts white)?

Am I now supposing I can identify myself as a Black?

Doesn’t culture and attitudes count?

To the best of my knowledge we are not identified by race, so now why is blood so important?

[Shimon]

According to Torah law, a person's Jewishness is not a matter of life style or self-perception, one may be totally unaware of one's Jewishness and still be a Jew, or one may consider himself Jewish and observe all the precepts of the Torah and still not be a Jew.

In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew.

[Its a narrow way]

I too have Jewish blood in me , My fathers mothers mother was Jewish and even had the last name Isreal which some rabi told me was usally for priest too have. so I guess if it flows through the woman my father is a Jew but not me even though i looked much like my father at the same ages so much so in some photos you could hardly tell the difference.

I do not think though its bibically correct that being jewish should come through the mother always as that would mean for sure the tribe of Joseph would be disqualified as being a tribe of Isreal as the mother of Ephrium and Mannasah was a Egyption . But the bible teaches the tribe of Joseph to be the most blessed of all tribes of the earth . much more blessed then Judae.

There is a great deception on this earth or should I say forgoten truth . Jew = Judae . The first time the word Jew is found in the bible they are fighting a war against Isreal . Jews are only 2.5 tribes of Isreal Judae , Benjimen and some Levites . the other 9.5 tribes was never restored to be a same people as the jews . You can prove this with Isaiah 11 when talking of The messiahs return it talks of ephrium being envying judah and judah vexed against ephrium and in verse 12 both Isreal and Judaes outcast are gathered seperate. The jews are not Isreal . Isreal put his name on Ephrium and Manassah not Judae . even christ speaking of in the future tribulation calls what man calls the land of Isreal Judea . the 9.5 tribes are still seperate peoples from the jews . The most blessed tribe of the earth was not judae it was Joseph . Joseph was to become very Great , ephrium alone was to become a multidude of nations . And Manasseh was to be a great nation . when the bible says hear ye house of Isreal its not speaking to jews . If speaking to jews it will say hear ye house of Judae. THIS WORLD IS VERY VERY DECIEVED. And Judism is not Abrahams faith , Jesus walked like Abraham it looked like Judism same sabbaths , same holy days but it made jews so angry to see this faith they would kill over it. Jews was circumsized in the flesh but not the heart . They kept the true sabbaths and holy days but was not capable of understanding the hidden meanings portrayed by each holy day God set before them. They could not relise Unleaven bread , Mannah from above was Christ or the sinless man. They never relised YE MUST EAT UNLEAVEN BREAD = you must accept Christ . They never relised Christ was the passover . They just could not connect the dots.

[Its a narrow way]

Kind David knew Christ he said The Lord said to my Lord set thou at my right Hand , So king Davids lord Was Christ.

In 2 samuel 22 , 47 David makes a other clear reference to Jesus being his God even speaks of Jesus haveing a God just like Shown in Hebrews 1 where is a conversation between the father and the Son .

in 2 samuel 23 1-3 you See Christ was also the God of Isreal Jesus is the Rock that sets at the right hand of God the father Jews cant understand it BUT KING DAVID UNDESTOOD IT

.

[gmc]

Shimon;1322874 wrote: According to Torah law, a person's Jewishness is not a matter of life style or self-perception, one may be totally unaware of one's Jewishness and still be a Jew, or one may consider himself Jewish and observe all the precepts of the Torah and still not be a Jew.

In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew.


So jesus, despite having transgressed in a big way and starting a whole new religion is a jew? have you told the pope he is worshipping a jew?

[AnneBoleyn]

Jesus didn't start a religion. The apostles did & of course, all were Jews. Is this new to you?

[tude dog]

AnneBoleyn;1401675 wrote: Jesus didn't start a religion. The apostles did & of course, all were Jews. Is this new to you?


Not really.

His Apostles, fellow Jews did not create the new religion.

We can credit Paul (Saul of Tarsus) for creating that new religion. You know the guy who had no problem murdering followers of Jesus.

[Its a narrow way]

The new religion started much later many suspect Simon Magnus went to Rome and said he was Peter .

Peter had a wife , Peter dressed in a fishermans Cloak or plain . How did the pope get all dressed up in big hats and fancy garments .

Jesus also was raised as a Jewish boy as an exsample we should follow his steps . Jesus kept sabbath and holy days , Jesus ate clean meats . Jesus kept Torah and taght out of it. So did paul , so did peter and all Jesus followers .

In first corinthians 5 the new testament church (gentiles) are being lead by Paul to keep the feast of unleaven bread . Paul warned sternly if even he brought any othed . doctrine let him be accursed . The christian church looked very much like jews . The Holy days are christian in meaning not jewish . Christ never brought a new faith he restored the original he took it to a deeper level . The jews was way off track when Christ came to earth . Far gone from real understanding of the God of Abraham ,Isac and Jacob . Christianity in our bibles never changed sabbaths or holy days it kept the same festavals as Jews keep only had a deeper understanding of Gods plan . Christians was even told they had to spiritualy become abrahams seed . Paul understood Jewdism and understood above all men as he was not taught by flesh and Blood but was taught by the resurected Christ in the deserts of Arabia. PAUL HAD GREAT UNDERSTANDING , Paul was a Jew from tribe of Benjimin.

[Snowfire]

tude dog;1401684 wrote: Not really.

His Apostles, fellow Jews did not create the new religion.

We can credit Paul (Saul of Tarsus) for creating that new religion. You know the guy who had no problem murdering followers of Jesus.


How could Paul create the religion if he was a convert ?

[AnneBoleyn]

tude dog;1401684 wrote: Not really.

His Apostles, fellow Jews did not create the new religion.

We can credit Paul (Saul of Tarsus) for creating that new religion. You know the guy who had no problem murdering followers of Jesus.
Are you forgetting Paul was already a Jew? At first, only Jews were "members" (if I may be a bit loose with words).

[AnneBoleyn]

Snowfire;1401688 wrote: How could Paul create the religion if he was a convert ?
He was good at organizing & bossing people around. Since he was Jewish, he was not a convert.