Now, there are certain bodies of Christianity who will tell you that there is an unequivocal definition of what is and is not Christian. Nonetheless, there are so many people who have adultered the term, it’s losing it’s effectiveness. So, most sane Christians just let it go, roll their eyes, knowing in their own mind what the difference is and move on.

We’re much quicker to defend theology than terminology. I won’t let someone disgrace God’s name by their teaching. I could care less what people say about Christians–unless it violates the aforementioned.

What is fascinating about all this etymology (study of words) is that “Christian” was originally a derogatory term used in Antioch to mock followers of Christ. So, there’s no reason to defend the word as much as their is to defend the faith–and we can distinguish between the two.

I believe the same is true for “Jewish” although my history could be off. It was a slang term in the Roman empire (or at least it’s derived from some slang term, though I’m sure the latin pronunciation was different) by which the Semitic people from the Roman province of Judea were called, and not in a respectful manner at all. I don’t think it originally had any religious connotiation, but quickly evolved, as words often do, to connote what we call today Judaism. Interesting, the word “jew” is not in the Torah.

Can you imagine how a person might react if you told them you were a part of Israel, instead of saying, “I’m a Jew.” They’d respond, “Oh, you’re from Israel.” You might say back, “Well, descended from, you mean. I’m not an Israeli citizen, no, but I’m from Israel.” Now how’s that for a conversation starter?

I do the same thing. “Oh, you’re a Christian?” I say back, “What do you mean by Christian? I’m a follower of Christ.”

“What’s the difference?” they say… and boom, I have a conversation open.

I get it now, I think. You’ve hit the nail on the head; yes, the two faiths totally differ on how identity is defined.

Let me make sure I’m understanding: Christianity is a *private* faith – you as a Christian have a personal relationship with Jesus, as do all others who would also define themselves as ‘Christians’. If you meet someone who identifies as a Christian, it may be that you don’t agree that they are representing the Christianity that you know and honour. But neither you, nor any ONE Christian body, could assert that they are NOT a ‘christian’?

Am I understanding this properly?

Judaism is entirely different and this is where we’ve been misunderstanding each other.

Judaism is far more ‘legalistic’. No Jew can, individually, decide on what is or is not a Jewish belief. Rather, Jewish religious law, or **Halacha**, is the objective and final arbiter of what is Jewish or is not.

So for example: I can guarantee you that there exists not one single Jew who would ever suggest that a Jew can also be Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Pagan.

This is because Halacha says that no Jew can have dual religious identity. Thus a Jew that becomes a Christian = a Christian, and an Apostate Jew. They retain the Jewish heritage, as nothing can alter that they were born into the Jewish family. But they cannot claim to ‘be jewish’.

This is not to deny in any way that Judaism and Christianity stand on some of the same teachings. ‘Love thy neighbour’ is a basic tenet of both our faiths, as you and I both know

I hadn’t realised until now that there is no authoritative structure that defines, absolutely, who is and is not a Christian. So it’s been extremely helpful now that you’ve explained that to me.

The authoritative structure, then, in Judaism, is Halacha.

So if I meet a person at a dinner party, for example, and they claim to be Jewish, and then mention that their mother is not Jewish, then I can say, 100% that they are NOT Jewish. Because Halacha says so.

And every single Rabbi in the world would say the same.

The *only* time any ‘jew’ will say differently, are the tiny number of Messianics who were, originally Jewish, but are now practising Christians who belong specifically to the Messianic movement. And as they have removed themselves from Judaism, they can’t speak for Judaism.

I think this illustrates, yet again, that theologically Christian is more complex. Christian identity seems, to me, now, to be more complex in some ways than Jewish identity.

And while our faiths differ profoundly on matters of identity and theology, there are some fundamental links and similarities that I fear get lost sometimes between Jews and Christians – but hopefully inter faith dialogue can remedy this

Thanks for the response. I didn’t mean to sound “tense” – I certainly don’t feel that way. I think my emotional reaction hinged on the phrase “entirely separate faith” from which I conjurred up the impression of imposters or outsiders with no rightful claim to the Old Testament. I’ll admit that you didn’t *say* that, rather I *heard* that. Sorry.

As to your second question, perhaps this is why I struggle to understand your staunch position on what IS and IS NOT “jewish.” I think our respective faiths differ in the way members of our faiths would identify themselves.

You see, there is no authoritative structure for what is “Christian.” Sure, each group makes their own definition and might say that they regard another group as non-Christian, but there is not a rigid, wholly and universally accepted set of definitions.

Additionally, I’m going to make a leap here, but I dare say the same may be true in Judaism. Respecting your beliefs entirely, we have to admit that your views on what are or are not Judaism are not the views of all Jews. It may be the “correct” view according to traditional Judaism. Nonetheless, I bet I could find a liberal Jew somewhere who has no problem saying you can be a Jew and be a Christian. He’s still Jewish. Yet you disagree with him. You’d even say he’s wrong. The same thing exists in Christianity.

My reaction to defining Christianity, then, has been notably different than your reaction to defining Judaism. I have laid down the title “Christian.” If someone tells me they’re Christian these days, I’m inclined to ask what they mean by that. I’ll tell others who call themselves Christian that we are not indeed of the same faith. But, I wouldn’t tell someone they’re not “Christian” b/c to them, the term has a different definition in their mind. They might just think all you have to do to be Christian is go to a church with a cross on it at least 2 out of 3 Sundays, or some other liberal understanding.

My goal is not to defend a term. My goal is to defend the glory of God. If the word “Christian” is defamed, oh well. If it gets abused and morphed and the real meaning eventually gets watered down so that nobody really knows what it was supposed to mean back in the 1st century, oh well.

I live to make sure that people honor and glorify God, not a label that historically described people who did so. I call that Christianity, but I have to be much more descriptive than that. I call it “orthodoxy” — “reformed” — “Christ Follower” — etc. I don’t believe you can glorify God and be pluralistic, humanistic, or naturalistic. I don’t believe you can be amoral.

It’s not easy for me to define what is and is not “Christian.” I believe Winston Churchill said (of a totally different topic), “I can’t define profanity, but I know it when I see it.” Same applies here.

I’ll let you know when it’s on my blog, I’m hoping to have it finished within the next few days

And yes, the Torah can be interpreted in a variety of ways – but again, I’d refer you back to the post where I used the Chess anaology. Even with Torah study, there are parameters.

And once you interpret the Torah in a way that contradicts the very core of Judaism, then of course, for Jews, in our view, it’s a MISinterpretation. Just as it would be a total MISinterpretation if I insisted that the Christian bible actually said that Jesus was a mere mortal and NOT divine!

~That would be a MISinterpretation from a *Christian* viewpoint, would it not…?

I’d also ask that you note I did state that *some* versions of the OT are extremely reliable. I NEVER EVER said that all Christian translations and versions were mistranslations etc. I stated – correctly – that some are.

I also would ask you to recall that I did mention the historical context, albeit very briefly. I don’t want to dwell on it but you can’t have a conversation on this topic, I don’t think, without acknowledging that historically (I am in NO WAY implying anything about today’s Christians!) the Christian interpretation OF the Jewish scriptures WAS used to try and invalidate Judaism. This is a simple statement of fact – I am not in any way seeking to mispresent Christianity nor Christians! Nor am I stating nor implying that ALL Christians sought to invalidate Judaism. *Some* did.

Nick, you also said:
‘I guess I really am just struggling to see how you can have writings as late as the 16th century which continue to enhance, modify, and change the way you read the Torah… and all of those are just fine so long as they don’t do one thing: present the theory that Jesus was G-d in the flesh. Whereas, for a Christian to perform the same kind of exegesis of the text–albeit very very very different from any theology or interpretation that you are comfortable with–you see as ludicrous and unfounded. ‘

Please note that I NEVER said that anything about Christianity was ‘ludicrous’!!!!!

‘Unfounded’ yes, in terms of naturally I don’t agree with the Christian interpretation of the Torah. But I never stated nor implied that any Christian beliefs were ‘ludicrous’!

Jews haven’t ‘changed’ the way Torah is studied and interpreted. We’ve always approached it in the same way. Even before, for example, the Talmud was completed, there was ‘Oral Torah’, it just wasn’t in written form.

And we don’t say that Christians don’t have the right to intepret Torah in their own way. What we state – perfectly logically – is that if a Jewish person concludes that, and affirms belief in, Jesus as ‘god in the flesh’ then that Jew has violated Jewish beliefs.

I can’t see anything illogical in that statement. And again, surely there are times when a Christian interprets the Christian bible in ways that are deemed ‘wrong’ or ‘heretical’ or ‘inaccurate’?

What happens if a Christian reaches a belief that Jesus was not the messiah? What if they then start arguing that this is ’shown’ in the Christian scriptures?

You’re surely not saying that this would be an acceptable ‘view’ or ‘interpretation’ of your bible?

I know that you are totally familar with Jewish theology and that you are aware of the following, but just for anyone reading who is less knowledgeable, I’m going to define the specific Christian beliefs that contradict Torah and Jewish ideology:

Virgin birth – Jews don’t believe in this

Resurrection of Jesus – Jews don’t believe that anyone can be resurrected until the maschiach comes

Vicarious atonement – Jews do not believe that anyone can die for the sins of others. In fact, the Tanakh specifically states that this is not possible.

G-d takes human form – this belief is a total contradiction to Torah and Judaism. We believe that G-d is G-d and man is man. The two never mesh/mix/co-exist in one form.

Jesus as ‘divine’ – for Jews, this is ‘blasphemy’. Judaism has always had as a core tenet that NO human can possibly be ‘divine’.

So it’s not just that the early Christians took a certain ‘view’ about Jesus. Christianity represented an entire array of beliefs that contradict Judaism.

I have a question: I understand, and you’ve also helped to explain on your blog, that there are differences of opinion between the various Christian groups. What are the specific beliefs that, if contradicted, would render a Christian an EX Christian, as agreed by ALL Christian denominations?

I’m sorry that our exchanges have become a tad tense; I’ve really been enjoying hearing your thoughts and have tried to answer your questions as best as I can.

And I am of the firm opinion that, theological differences aside, both Judaism and Christianity have great, moral values at their core.

To continue responding; you said:

‘The Christian faith, all of our theology and basis for our belief structure, is based on an interpretation of the Old Testament. And, you yourself have said it can clearly be interpreted in countless ways. Don’t misrepresent the Christian faith as some imposters based on your experience with a specific group of Messianics. ‘

My aim was never to ‘misrepresent’ Christianity.

And where did I EVER state or imply that Christians are ‘imposters’?????????????????

Clearly I have caused offence. It certainly was unintentional. If you read all of my comments on Christianity, then you can see, surely, that I have never expressed anything BUT respect for – and indeed interest in! – the Christian faith!

And again, if you look at everything I’ve posted on Messianics you will see that EVERY SINGLE TIME I have clearly stated that they are a *****specific***** group that DO NOT represent all Christians.

I’ll try and respond to your points one by one.

1) You said: ‘My particular interest was in the fact that when some Jews in the 1st century posited one “view” in which they accepted that G-d had appeared as a man, they are called polytheists and no longer Jews.”

Let me clarify. We do not regard Christians as ‘polytheists’. Why would we? Christians do not worship an array of deities. Christians worship ONE G-d – just as Jews do. Be assured the vast majority of Jews hold this view and would not describe Christianity as ‘polytheism’. Granted, Christians conceive of G-d in a different way to Jews, but we recognise that you too are worshipping ONE G-d.

As to why the first believers in Jesus were no longer Jews… At first they probably were deemed just a heretical Jewish sect. But again, remember that the early Christians didn’t just state that Jesus was ‘god’ and ‘maschiach’. There were/are many other beliefs associated with belief in Jesus that contradict Judaism.

Also, remember that it was the early Christians themselves who petitioned Rome for separate status to the Jews!

Let’s imagine that a group of Christians subscribe to most of the core Christian ideas – but they decide that while the idea of Jesus is great, they don’t think he actually existed. Would you not agree that they would no longer be Christians?

Same with Judaism. Those that followed Jesus and then affirmed belief in his resurrection, his divinity, his status as ‘maschiach’, his death as a vicarious atonement, his ‘virgin birth’, could no longer be Jews because they were blatantly contradicting Jewish ideology.

Another key point: the majority of the early Christians were not Jews to start with. Yes, some were, of course. But when Paul found he could not persuade the Jews to abandon Torah and worship Jesus, he preached to the Gentiles and Pagans – who of course were not Jewish. So Christianity fairly swiftly became a religion with no Jews in it.

The ‘view’ that Jesus was divine, was not just a ‘view’ in terms of its relation to Judaism. It was and is a total violation of Torah and Jewish beliefs.

How can anyone belong to any faith, while espousing a belief that violates said faith’s core tenets…???

As I read through your replies, it seems you’ve done a good job of telling me that, indeed, there are many views on the Torah and ways to interpret it. But, with all due respect, I already knew that. That wasn’t my question. My particular interest was in the fact that when some Jews in the 1st century posited one “view” in which they accepted that G-d had appeared as a man, they are called polytheists and no longer Jews.

You then stated “it’s really quite strange that members of another, entirely separate faith, take those Jewish texts, translate them, re-intepret them, and THEN turn around and insist that the original religion has been ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘blinded’ or ‘ignorant’ of their own scriptures for the past few thousand years!”

I want to make the point that this is an inaccurate and unfair caricature of Christianity.

First, I dare say that it’s not unheard of for one group of Jews to hold to a position so strongly that they might argue that another group has misunderstood or is ignorant. People tend to argue in black-and-white. Especially when we become adamantly convinced of an issue, there’s a right and a wrong in our minds.

Secondly, to use a term like “entirely separate faith” misses the point grossly. The Christian faith is based solely on an off-shoot of the Jewish faith. No, not the Jewish faith as it exists today. The split happened 2000 years ago. But it’s nonetheless a fallacy to state that Christians were some totally foreign party of people that came in, read your scriptures, and then just morphed them for our own uses. That would be like aliens coming to earth, reading the U.S. constitution, and then telling us how it’s to be used. That’s simply not the picture of Christianity and the Old Testament.

The Christian faith, all of our theology and basis for our belief structure, is based on an interpretation of the Old Testament. And, you yourself have said it can clearly be interpreted in countless ways. Don’t misrepresent the Christian faith as some imposters based on your experience with a specific group of Messianics.

Now, mistranslations do occur, that is undeniable and unfortunate. Any Christian scholar, however, would agree that it’s important to get to the original Hebrew and do our best to make certain we’ve translated accurately and to the best of our ability. As I study and teach, I nevertheless refer back to lexicon and commentaries to get into the original language as best I can.

I guess I really am just struggling to see how you can have writings as late as the 16th century which continue to enhance, modify, and change the way you read the Torah… and all of those are just fine so long as they don’t do one thing: present the theory that Jesus was G-d in the flesh. Whereas, for a Christian to perform the same kind of exegesis of the text–albeit very very very different from any theology or interpretation that you are comfortable with–you see as ludicrous and unfounded.

I am NOT trying to say that you should welcome Christians or “Messianic Jews” as Jews, just trying to point out the paradox in your logic and to make sure you don’t wrongly caricature our faith.

There is also a belief in Judaism that the Torah has 70 facets. ‘Shiv’im panim la Torah’ in the Hebrew – translated, it literally means ‘There are 70 faces in the Torah’.

Another Jewish belief is that *everything* can be found within the Torah. That, when studied properly, it contains past, present and future.

If we wanted to venture into the more mystical aspects of Judaism, we could also say that for any Jew, immersing onerself in the study and interpretation of Torah is viewed as actually participating with G-d in the creation of the universe!

So as you can see, the Torah is far from being a literal document.

Some students study Torah for hours at a time, every day; they spend every free moment studying Torah.

Also, I should mention that there are four distinct levels of approaching the Torah:

p’shat = literal

remez = the hint

d’rash= the moral

sod = the secret

When one reaches the fourth level, one is entering Kabbalah, the mystical side of Judaism.

I won’t go into any more detail, but I hope I’ve perhaps partly managed to convey why it is that not everything in the Torah is taken literally and why some laws are followed and others are not.

You mentioned the Messianics in your post. They claim to study Torah but what they actually do is simply read it and back-engineer Jesus into it.

Messianics do not study Oral Torah (Talmud) and they don’t show any respect for the complexity of Torah. Now, again, of course that is their right, to study as they see fit – but when they THEN go around posing as ‘the real jews’ and insist that they and ONLY they ‘truly study Torah’ it’s really appalling.

If you ever get a chance to visit a Jewish Yeshiva and observe Torah students spending hours, sometimes days and even weeks debating and analsying one line or paragraph in the Torah, I highly recommend it It’s hard to convey in words the Jewish reverence for Torah but then again, I think you do understand it, judging from your comments

“So, it would seem, then, that there exists a pivotal interpretation that, if made by a Jew, immediately nullifies their identity as a Jew would be the interpretation that the one G-d can exist in more than one nature.”

In theory, Torah has an endless number of levels of meaning. This is partly why Jews ***never*** study the Torah alone – we always use commentaries.

One Jewish writer that I like very much uses this analogy for Torah interpretation, in terms of knowing the limits and rules etc: He compares it to Chess. Chess has well established rules, but countless Chess games are played and have been played over many centuries. Torah interpretation, then, also has its own rules (as outlined in the Oral Torah) but *within* these rules there is room for a tremendous amount of diversity and debate.

- my telephone is ringing, back in a few mins to finish my response

Firstly, it depends a great deal upon which Jewish movement you are referring to. Orthodox Jews, for example, approach the Torah *more* literally, and will strive to adhere to all the various mitzvot (commandments). By the way (if you already know this, ignore it!) though many people believe there to be 613 commandments for all Jews, this is not so. Not all the mitzvot apply to all Jews. Some are purely for women, some for men and so on.

But I digress. The more Orthodox the Jewish group, then, the more rigidly they will adhere to the Torah. Conservative Jews are less rigid, but still often very observant. Reform Judaism is the most relaxed of the three main groups – but even here, you will find a huge variety in any Reform congregation, ranging from those who are devout, through to those who are secular.

Orthodox Judaism views the Torah as being divinely inspired. Reform Judaism may not always agree.

We also have to recall that there are not just ‘laws’, per se. Rather, there are several different types. I’ll post more detail on this another time if it’s of interest.

My next post will address your other queries re actual interpretations of Torah.

You also asked:

“So, if that is the root of such a deep sentiment, why then is the application of it’s other stipulations so loosely held and lightly regarded? How can you be so unshakably certain of your rich heritage and of your G-d’s existence based on these writings, while other parts are re-interpreted or considered “not viewed as a literal document?”

Response:
The Torah is not a law book – though many refer to it as such. Perhaps the closest word we have that fits is ‘instruction’. The Torah represents G-d’s instructions. But – you can’t learn about Jewish laws from the Torah. The Jewish religious laws are not fleshed out in the Torah. Nor will the Talmud always provide the exact way to follow the laws. The Torah and Talmud are the *basis* of Jewish law, but the actual laws and the specifics of how to observe them and which ones are to be taken literally, are found in several codes of law that were set up over a long period of time. For example – the SHULCHAN ARUCH. This was compiled in the 16th Century.

We also don’t regard the Torah as a history book. There is a phrase used by many Torah scholars:
‘ There is no earlier or later in the Torah’.

Or to put it more simply: we’re not talking about an historical account. The Torah is not necessarily in strict chronological order.

Yes, there is history *in* the Torah, of course. But the Torah is not primarily a history book.

Nor is the Torah something to be taken literally. Here’s an example you’ll be very familiar with, to illustrate:

‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ (Vayikra 24:20)

Many, many people cite this as meaning that revenge was encouraged by the Jews, way back when. In fact, it does not mean this at all. On the contrary, Torah law opposes acts of revenge.

Rather, this means that if someone punches you and breaks one of your teeth, you don’t get to do the same back. Instead, they should compensate you materially for the injury. Rabbis say that ‘an eye for an eye’ also refers to some form of monetary compensation, which is required for the damage, the pain, and the ’shame’ of the incident.

- more in a minute!

Right, to address your queries!

You commented:
“… it seems that Jews take quite a liberty themselves to interpret the Torah. However, I’ve been challenged by you during other exchanges that Christians have interpreted the Old Testament scriptures wrongly. As if to say that Jews can, and have, interpret the teachings of the Torah in ways that many might consider quite liberal, but for Christians to present interpretations of their own is out of the question.”

I should clarify. I didn’t mean to suggest at all that only Jews could and should read the Torah and Tanakh. Not at all. Indeed, I know several non Jews who are currently reading parts of the Torah. I hope that non Jews find it an interesting and enjoyable text.

And of course, as you have rightly reminded me in another dialogue, Christians have every right to read and then interpret the Torah as they see fit. Absolutely.

This only becomes problematic because *some* versions of the Christian ‘old testament’ are actually MIStranslated. So it’s not a question of merely a different intepretation – but rather, an incorrect translation. This is not true of ALL OTs – many are very reliable indeed.

This problem of mistranslated texts, though, is further intensified when ***some*** Christians then go on to state that we, as Jews, don’t ‘really understand’ our OWN scriptures. I have been informed by a number of Christians, in various discussions, that they have a ‘better grasp’ of ‘what the Torah is really saying’ than I, as a Jew, ever can…

I would argue that any religion told this by members of another faith, would find it problematic. And we have to place this in context: I don’t wish to dwell on this at all, so suffice it to say that historically, one of the tools used by ***some*** Christians to persecute Jews was the argument that said Jews were ‘ignoring references to Jesus’ in the Torah!

I’m sure you can appreciate that these factors have proved difficult for many Jews. After all, the Tanakh was written by Jews, for Jews, and about Jews. When one actually considers it, it’s really quite strange that members of another, entirely separate faith, take those Jewish texts, translate them, re-intepret them, and THEN turn around and insist that the original religion has been ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘blinded’ or ‘ignorant’ of their own scriptures for the past few thousand years!

This is not to say, though, that non Jews shouldn’t read the Tanakh. And of course, I totally understand that many Christians find it interesting to do so because Jesus would have read the original Hebrew scriptures, in Hebrew – just as Jews throughout the world do today.

So that’s my first comment on your post – I hope it goes some way to explaining some of my earlier comments…

I’ll post the rest of my answers in a few minutes

I’m going to answer this in detail, which is why I haven’t yet posted a response – just wanted to let you know that I hadn’t forgotten about your questions

You’re right in that for me, as for most Jews, Judaism is indeed something precious. I’m guessing that you feel precisely the same way about Christianity

I shall post a response to your queries either later today or by tomorrow morning (UK time)