Personally I find the whole "evangelicals adoping a pseudo-Jewish identity" thing quite offensive for exactly this reason - that it obscures and distorts other peeople's knowledge and opinions about actual Jews who have actually converted to Christianity.
But perhaps it is none of my business. Perhaps actual converted Jews are quite happy about the activities of these (to my mind) "fake" Messianic Jews. In which case who am I to complain?
It would be interesting to know. Does anyone have any first-hand information about this?
I've never asked a Jewish person what they think about Messianics. One thing I would point out, though, is that successive Israeli governments have cultivated warm relations with pre-mil Christian conservatives, including those who preach the Hal Lindsey catechism about the need for all good Jews to convert.
So, if you're a Jewish person who supports Israel, and you had never had a problem with that particular alliance, it might have a slight whiff of "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much" to suddenly object when the cultural appropriation gets taken to the next level.
[Sorry, re-reading your post, I see you were talking about what Jewish converts, not Jews in general, think about Messianics. I guess my point still stands for any converts who support Israel.]
Personally I find the whole "evangelicals adoping a pseudo-Jewish identity" thing quite offensive for exactly this reason - that it obscures and distorts other peeople's knowledge and opinions about actual Jews who have actually converted to Christianity.
But perhaps it is none of my business. Perhaps actual converted Jews are quite happy about the activities of these (to my mind) "fake" Messianic Jews. In which case who am I to complain?
This being the Ship, I don't think there are too many of us who are likely to confuse Cardinal Lustiger with the guy singing Texas Hava Nagila in my video.
As for the general public, yeah, if you're someone who's not overly informed about religion, and your first encounter with "Christian Jews" is Messianics, I suppose you might think that all Jewish converts are like that. But...
INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY ALERT
...I think it's ultimately the responsibility of each person to keep themselves informed about religion, and if they get duped by a theological drag-show, well, it's pretty much their own fault.
Just for clarity, I was refering to Messianic Jews in Mousethief's capital-lettered meaning ie. members of Christian evangelical sects who adopt a Jewish identity, in pursuit of the eschatological goal of converting all Jews.
As a matter of interest, does anyone have any sources on the origin of this use of "Messianic Jew", and how many people it actually represents?
My understanding was always that Messianic Jews are people born Jews (or had converted to Judaism) who subsequently accept that Jesus was the Messiah and accept mainstream Christian beliefs while maintaining significant portions of Jewish culture. The resulting congregations may include some Gentiles who are both Christian and attracted by the culture and associated worship styles but who hadn't converted to Judaism, but being an evangelical sect playing at being Jewish to seek to convert Jews wasn't something I'd encountered. I know of several evangelicals who have spent time as missionaries in Israel aiming to convert Jews, but these have been from more mainstream churches (Pentecostals, AOG, large evangelical churches and associations) and if they ever converted anyone it would be to a faith that looks very western European/American rather than retaining Jewish culture.
Just for clarity, I was refering to Messianic Jews in Mousethief's capital-lettered meaning ie. members of Christian evangelical sects who adopt a Jewish identity, in pursuit of the eschatological goal of converting all Jews.
As a matter of interest, does anyone have any sources on the origin of this use of "Messianic Jew", and how many people it actually represents?
My understanding was always that Messianic Jews are people born Jews (or had converted to Judaism) who subsequently accept that Jesus was the Messiah and accept mainstream Christian beliefs while maintaining significant portions of Jewish culture. The resulting congregations may include some Gentiles who are both Christian and attracted by the culture and associated worship styles but who hadn't converted to Judaism, but being an evangelical sect playing at being Jewish to seek to convert Jews wasn't something I'd encountered. I know of several evangelicals who have spent time as missionaries in Israel aiming to convert Jews, but these have been from more mainstream churches (Pentecostals, AOG, large evangelical churches and associations) and if they ever converted anyone it would be to a faith that looks very western European/American rather than retaining Jewish culture.
My understanding is that the people involved are usually at least partially of Jewish descent but don't tend to have been practising Jews prior to becoming Christians. Their existence is certainly used as a proselytising tool by evangelicals.
Well, from the POV of traditional Judaism, I'm not sure how much difference there is between...
A. a cradle Jew who comes to believe that Jews must convert in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible and bring about the Second Coming of Jesus, and...
B. a cradle Christian who believes he should adopt a self-styled form of Judaism in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible and bring about the Second Coming of Jesus.
If either of those people are calling themselves Jewish, I would think that most traditional Jews would consider that pretty heretical, for lack of a better word.
(Though, I suppose, since religious Judaism does await the Messiah, they technically shouldn't rule out that it might be Jesus, though there are pretty strong cultural reasons for doing so.)
FWIW, the couple of Messianics I know in my hometown are cradle Christians, and going by their congregation's website, their rabbi had Jewish ancestry that he was unaware of until adulthood, and played no role in his religious upbringing.
On Messianic Jews, I have no first-hand information to contribute (sorry about that), never having met, either IRL or online, anyone who actually describes themselves as that. The question I would ask is this. For someone brought up in a Jewish family, no matter how strict or how lax their religious observance, and who feels impelled to convert to Christianity, there is, on the face of it, a choice between, on the one hand, converting into one of the existing churches, whether it's the Catholic Church or the Reformed Church or anything else, and on the other going for an option that seems to enable them to carry on identifying as Jewish.
In practice, however, it doesn't seem to work out like that, and not only because other Jews do not, in fact, accept that converts to Messianic Judaism retain their Jewishness unimpaired. There is also the complicating factor that, taken as whole, the people who call themselves "Messianic Jews" include a very large number, perhaps even a majority, who have no Jewish background at all. Surely this must convey to the prospective convert that there is something contrived about the whole business and that they might just as well opt for one of the existing churches after all.
On Messianic Jews, I have no first-hand information to contribute (sorry about that), never having met, either IRL or online, anyone who actually describes themselves as that. The question I would ask is this. For someone brought up in a Jewish family, no matter how strict or how lax their religious observance, and who feels impelled to convert to Christianity, there is, on the face of it, a choice between, on the one hand, converting into one of the existing churches, whether it's the Catholic Church or the Reformed Church or anything else, and on the other going for an option that seems to enable them to carry on identifying as Jewish.
In practice, however, it doesn't seem to work out like that, and not only because other Jews do not, in fact, accept that converts to Messianic Judaism retain their Jewishness unimpaired. There is also the complicating factor that, taken as whole, the people who call themselves "Messianic Jews" include a very large number, perhaps even a majority, who have no Jewish background at all. Surely this must convey to the prospective convert that there is something contrived about the whole business and that they might just as well opt for one of the existing churches after all.
Well, as for the whole thing being obviously "contrived", remember we are talking about people who think Hal Lindsey is a profound theologian. So, if you're someone who can accept that the Book Of Revelation predicted the Six Day War and the EU, your standards for recognizing a "contrived religion" might not quite be the same as everyone else's.
This being the Ship, I don't think there are too many of us who are likely to confuse Cardinal Lustiger with the guy singing Texas Hava Nagila in my video.
As for the general public, yeah, if you're someone who's not overly informed about religion, and your first encounter with "Christian Jews" is Messianics, I suppose you might think that all Jewish converts are like that. But...
INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY ALERT
...I think it's ultimately the responsibility of each person to keep themselves informed about religion, and if they get duped by a theological drag-show, well, it's pretty much their own fault.
I see what you mean, but I disagree! We can see already on this thread that a certain amount of confusion exists even on the Ship, and we're as fine a bunch of "religion-nerds" as you could ask for. How much more confusing for the general Christian public, let alone the general public...
My understanding is that the people involved are usually at least partially of Jewish descent but don't tend to have been practising Jews prior to becoming Christians. Their existence is certainly used as a proselytising tool by evangelicals.
But it seems like a dumb proselytising tool because there are, and always have been, lots of Jewish converts who have joined mainstream churches. Some of them are fairly prominent, for example Hugh Montefiore. Why make up extra "fake" converts? How can that help the conversion drive?
Thanks for the link. Fun. I love it! I noticed something odd: the instrument the fiddler was using. Looked kind of like a violin, but narrower and much smaller, no tuning pegs--and FIVE strings. Given the missing pegs, I figured it had to be electric/electronic. And I found lots of online listings. Here are some (Electric Violin Shop). The ones on the right are like what the fiddler used. The other two look...amazing.
I haven't yet had time to read up on this. The extra string is the lowest pitched--a C string. I wonder if it's related to Hardanger fiddles from Norway. Two extra "drone" strings, also the lowest pitched.
From what I could tell amongst the enthusiastic music in the video, the 5 string sounded pretty normal. I much prefer acoustic instruments, though I can enjoy electronic--depending on the music.
Oh, and the right-hand list on the Texas Hava Nagila page has other versions, including Japanese. Will listen to that tomorrow.
I can speak definitively to fiddles but guitars with no tuning heads are tuned at the bridge. The point, apparently, is the striking visual effect, reminiscent of decapitation. I have a friend who makes violins and he made and now plays a five-string.
On Messianic Jews, I have no first-hand information to contribute (sorry about that), never having met, either IRL or online, anyone who actually describes themselves as that. The question I would ask is this. For someone brought up in a Jewish family, no matter how strict or how lax their religious observance, and who feels impelled to convert to Christianity, there is, on the face of it, a choice between, on the one hand, converting into one of the existing churches, whether it's the Catholic Church or the Reformed Church or anything else, and on the other going for an option that seems to enable them to carry on identifying as Jewish.
In practice, however, it doesn't seem to work out like that, and not only because other Jews do not, in fact, accept that converts to Messianic Judaism retain their Jewishness unimpaired. There is also the complicating factor that, taken as whole, the people who call themselves "Messianic Jews" include a very large number, perhaps even a majority, who have no Jewish background at all. Surely this must convey to the prospective convert that there is something contrived about the whole business and that they might just as well opt for one of the existing churches after all.
There's another option, one that some of the cradle Jews-converted-to-Jesus-still-maintaining-a-Jewish-identity of my acqaintance have gone for, which is to create their own congregation within a larger church body. It's basically parallel to our Vietnamese congregation--it's a place where, if you attend there, you are dealing with people who believe in Lutheran doctrine, yes, but the whole experience is linguistically and culturally shot through-and-through with their birth culture. Which is as it should be.
That said, I'm sure they don't refuse prospective members who were born Gentile. But we just don't have that whole weird "we need to do something to trigger the prophecies and bring the kingdom of God into being" in Lutheranism, and so any Gentile members are likely to be people who marry or date their way into the congregation--or who just live next door and are unusually open to other languages and cultures.
This being the Ship, I don't think there are too many of us who are likely to confuse Cardinal Lustiger with the guy singing Texas Hava Nagila in my video.
As for the general public, yeah, if you're someone who's not overly informed about religion, and your first encounter with "Christian Jews" is Messianics, I suppose you might think that all Jewish converts are like that. But...
INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY ALERT
...I think it's ultimately the responsibility of each person to keep themselves informed about religion, and if they get duped by a theological drag-show, well, it's pretty much their own fault.
I see what you mean, but I disagree! We can see already on this thread that a certain amount of confusion exists even on the Ship, and we're as fine a bunch of "religion-nerds" as you could ask for. How much more confusing for the general Christian public, let alone the general public...
Well, on this thread, there were a couple of people who were not familiar with capital lettered Messianic Judaism, as an actual sect.
I think you can still be a respectable religion-nerd without knowing that. By way of example, I do not know all the various permutations of Copticism, even though I devour all the info that I can about certain other faiths.
But the scenario I was talking about was one where someone meets a Messianic Jew, and presumably gets a basic rundown of their faith(ie. they think Jews need to convert in order to bring about the Second Coming) AND comes away thinking that Messianics are representative of Jews who convert to Christisnity in general. I don't think there are too many Shipmates would make that mistake, both because it would seem counter-intuitive, and also because it likely wouldn't be backed up by knowledge or personal experience.
As for the general, non-nerd public, I'd say it might be a bit more forgivable to think Messianics is synonymous with "Christians who converted from Judaism", assuming one's knowledge of religion is like my knowledge of economics. My point was, if you do lack the relevant knowledge, the onus is on you, not the Messianics, to inform yourself.
My understanding is that the people involved are usually at least partially of Jewish descent but don't tend to have been practising Jews prior to becoming Christians. Their existence is certainly used as a proselytising tool by evangelicals.
But it seems like a dumb proselytising tool because there are, and always have been, lots of Jewish converts who have joined mainstream churches. Some of them are fairly prominent, for example Hugh Montefiore. Why make up extra "fake" converts? How can that help the conversion drive?
I think the idea is "See! You don't have to stop being Jewish to be a Christian", with a side of "Look! Other people like you are doing it, maybe you should too." That was certainly the experience of someone I knew at university. She was speaking with a person from the Evangelical Christian Union who, on hearing she was Jewish, switched tack to talking about their friend who was a member of Jews for Jesus. I'll grant that the ECU at my university were notoriously unsubtle in their approach (some clever person in the SU thought all the religious societies should be grouped together at freshers' fayre; which was fine except they put the ECU next to PagSoc).
<snip>But the scenario I was talking about was one where someone meets a Messianic Jew, and presumably gets a basic rundown of their faith(ie. they think Jews need to convert in order to bring about the Second Coming)
I have only known a couple of Messianic Jews, and am not currently in touch with them, but this one-sentence caricature of what they believed is so limited and partial as to be positively misleading.
<snip>But the scenario I was talking about was one where someone meets a Messianic Jew, and presumably gets a basic rundown of their faith(ie. they think Jews need to convert in order to bring about the Second Coming)
I have only known a couple of Messianic Jews, and am not currently in touch with them, but this one-sentence caricature of what they believed is so limited and partial as to be positively misleading.
Are you saying that your acquaintances DON'T believe that Jews need to convert in order to fulfill Bible prophecy? Or are you saying that they do believe that, but it's not the sum total of their beliefs?
If it's the latter, I'll agree with you, and will retroactively change my "ie." to an "eg." The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
Perhaps after 20+ years of discussions here on just about every form of Christianity there is, and a shit load of other interactions with people of a wide range of Christian traditions, has left me theologically uniformed. But before the posts here on the last couple of days every single time I have read anything about (capitalised) Messianic Jews what I've read has been "Jews who have converted to Christianity and wanted to maintain significant parts of Jewish culture in their life and worship". The posts in the last few days are the first time I have ever come across a suggestion that Messianic Jews as a group believe that their mission is to convert all Jews to fulfil prophecy - of course, there probably are some individuals sub-groups within the group who do, but that's not the same as it being something believed by all or even most.
Why hasn't this formed part of previous discussions of Messianic Jews?
I have only known a couple of Messianic Jews, and am not currently in touch with them, but this one-sentence caricature of what they believed is so limited and partial as to be positively misleading.
Dear Bro James,
The subject of this thread is The Image of Edessa. Please, in your role as Host, encourage participants to limit their discussions to that topic.
By "not genuine" I meant that it was not in fact first century.
Ok. Do you have any evidence for that being the case?
The Image was also characterized as "Not being made by [human] hand," meaning miraculous. So are you saying that the Image was made in the 6th century but was mirraculously formed nontheless?
I have only known a couple of Messianic Jews, and am not currently in touch with them, but this one-sentence caricature of what they believed is so limited and partial as to be positively misleading.
Dear Bro James,
The subject of this thread is The Image of Edessa. Please, in your role as Host, encourage participants to limit their discussions to that topic.
Do a google on "mjaa messianic movement". A page should come up with a photo of a guy in a yarmulke talking to another person in some kind of headdress.
Read the statement contained on that same page.
That organization might not represent the entirety of the Messianic Jewish movement, but the theology outlined has been part of almost every version I've heard of.
And as for this theology not being part of previous discussions of MJism on the Ship, I can't vouch for what other people may or may not know. Certainly, if I was a participant on those threads, I likely would have mentioned it.
There was quite a *Convert The Jews* movement within churches in the UK (and probably elsewhere) in the 19th and 20th centuries, with various Missionary Societies being set up (and operating, I suspect, with varying degrees of *success*!).
Indeed, IIRC, the Church of my Yoof (what would now be called conservative evangelical/Prayer Book) supported *CMJ* - Churches Mission/Ministry to the Jews? - as recently as the early 1960s.
There was quite a *Convert The Jews* movement within churches in the UK (and probably elsewhere) in the 19th and 20th centuries, with various Missionary Societies being set up (and operating, I suspect, with varying degrees of *success*!).
Indeed, IIRC, the Church of my Yoof (what would now be called conservative evangelical/Prayer Book) supported *CMJ* - Churches Mission/Ministry to the Jews? - as recently as the early 1960s.
Did those movements generally emphasize that becoming a Christian was the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be Jewish?
Because that's a big part of Messianic Judaism, though there are a few other things I'd consider to be sine qua nons of the movement eg. the pre-mil eschatology.
There was quite a *Convert The Jews* movement within churches in the UK (and probably elsewhere) in the 19th and 20th centuries, with various Missionary Societies being set up (and operating, I suspect, with varying degrees of *success*!).
Indeed, IIRC, the Church of my Yoof (what would now be called conservative evangelical/Prayer Book) supported *CMJ* - Churches Mission/Ministry to the Jews? - as recently as the early 1960s.
Did those movements generally emphasize that becoming a Christian was the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be Jewish?
Because that's a big part of Messianic Judaism, though there are a few other things I'd consider to be sine qua nons of the movement eg. the pre-mil eschatology.
A good question.
I'm not sure of the answer - and different Societies may have had different aims - but AIUI the main idea was, at least at some point, to save the Jews from God's wrath (after all, it was they who caused His Son to be crucified), presumably by rejecting Judaism, and becoming Christians.
I think there's probably a lot more to it than that, as you rightly say. CMJ's website might help - I didn't realise that they're still very much in business! - and they seem to emphasise the fulfilment criterion you mention. https://cmj.org.uk/
The subject of this thread is The Image of Edessa, not Judaism.
My cell-phone skills don't allow me to start a new thread with the requisite linkage etc. If you'd like to ask the mods to start a spinoff thread, AND if they are amenable to the idea, feel free. Otherwise, I can wait till I get to a computer tomorrow.
@stetson - sorry, I didn't realise that you can't access linkies on your phone!
undead_rat seems to be getting a bit uptight, as this thread has been hijacked by a rather more interesting subject, although I agree with you that a separate thread might be more appropriate.
There was quite a *Convert The Jews* movement within churches in the UK (and probably elsewhere) in the 19th and 20th centuries, with various Missionary Societies being set up (and operating, I suspect, with varying degrees of *success*!).
In the Catholic Church, the Congregation of Our Lady of Sion was founded in the 1830s with the specific aim of seeking as many Jewish converts as possible. The Congregation is still in existence, but I think I remember reading, a few years ago, that they formally dropped that missionary aim.
@stetson - sorry, I didn't realise that you can't access linkies on your phone!
No need to apologize. I can still click on links, such as the one you provided. I just can't figure out how to post them.
I've been looking through your CMJ link. From what I've seen, they do regard conversion as sort of a telos for Jews, they are pro-Israel, and they have affiliations with groups calling themselves "Messianic". But CMJ themselves don't seem quite so into the hardcore prophecy stuff.
Interesting. There's a big difference between sharing God's love for Jews and Gentiles, and trying to convert all the Jews before they go to Hell, IYSWIM!
The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
Perhaps after 20+ years of discussions here on just about every form of Christianity there is, and a shit load of other interactions with people of a wide range of Christian traditions, has left me theologically uniformed. But before the posts here on the last couple of days every single time I have read anything about (capitalised) Messianic Jews what I've read has been "Jews who have converted to Christianity and wanted to maintain significant parts of Jewish culture in their life and worship". The posts in the last few days are the first time I have ever come across a suggestion that Messianic Jews as a group believe that their mission is to convert all Jews to fulfil prophecy - of course, there probably are some individuals sub-groups within the group who do, but that's not the same as it being something believed by all or even most.
Why hasn't this formed part of previous discussions of Messianic Jews?
What previous discussions of Messianic Jews? I cannot think of any.
@stetson - sorry, I didn't realise that you can't access linkies on your phone!
undead_rat seems to be getting a bit uptight, as this thread has been hijacked by a rather more interesting subject, although I agree with you that a separate thread might be more appropriate.
Then again we are told repeatedly that the originator of a thread is not in control of where it goes.
The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
Perhaps after 20+ years of discussions here on just about every form of Christianity there is, and a shit load of other interactions with people of a wide range of Christian traditions, has left me theologically uniformed. But before the posts here on the last couple of days every single time I have read anything about (capitalised) Messianic Jews what I've read has been "Jews who have converted to Christianity and wanted to maintain significant parts of Jewish culture in their life and worship". The posts in the last few days are the first time I have ever come across a suggestion that Messianic Jews as a group believe that their mission is to convert all Jews to fulfil prophecy - of course, there probably are some individuals sub-groups within the group who do, but that's not the same as it being something believed by all or even most.
Why hasn't this formed part of previous discussions of Messianic Jews?
What previous discussions of Messianic Jews? I cannot think of any.
I can't locate any archived threads, and can't recall the details of when Messianic Jews have come up in discussion before. But, I know I've read stuff about them before, and by far the most likely reason for that is that there have been discussions on the Ship, either dedicated threads or tangents on something else, sometime over the last 22 years. Several times is a distinct possibility.
By "not genuine" I meant that it was not in fact first century.
Ok. Do you have any evidence for that being the case?
The Image was also characterized as "Not being made by [human] hand," meaning miraculous. So are you saying that the Image was made in the 6th century but was mirraculously formed nontheless?
Why do I need evidence to prove a negative? You are asserting, and it is for you to prove.
And you simply cannot go from my post to your second paragraph - there is absolutely no connection between them. If you ask me if I accept that it was miraculously formed, my answer again is that there is no evidence to support that assertion either.
The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
Perhaps after 20+ years of discussions here on just about every form of Christianity there is, and a shit load of other interactions with people of a wide range of Christian traditions, has left me theologically uniformed. But before the posts here on the last couple of days every single time I have read anything about (capitalised) Messianic Jews what I've read has been "Jews who have converted to Christianity and wanted to maintain significant parts of Jewish culture in their life and worship". The posts in the last few days are the first time I have ever come across a suggestion that Messianic Jews as a group believe that their mission is to convert all Jews to fulfil prophecy - of course, there probably are some individuals sub-groups within the group who do, but that's not the same as it being something believed by all or even most.
Why hasn't this formed part of previous discussions of Messianic Jews?
What previous discussions of Messianic Jews? I cannot think of any.
I can't locate any archived threads, and can't recall the details of when Messianic Jews have come up in discussion before. But, I know I've read stuff about them before, and by far the most likely reason for that is that there have been discussions on the Ship, either dedicated threads or tangents on something else, sometime over the last 22 years. Several times is a distinct possibility.
I'm pretty sure the topic has come up a couple of times at least, because I can remember posting that Texas Hava Nagila video more than once.
Unless we were just discussing general evangelical support for Israel, but I don't think so.
By "not genuine" I meant that it was not in fact first century.
Ok. Do you have any evidence for that being the case?
The Image was also characterized as "Not being made by [human] hand," meaning miraculous. So are you saying that the Image was made in the 6th century but was mirraculously formed nontheless?
Why do I need evidence to prove a negative? You are asserting, and it is for you to prove.
And you simply cannot go from my post to your second paragraph - there is absolutely no connection between them. If you ask me if I accept that it was miraculously formed, my answer again is that there is no evidence to support that assertion either.
The "evidence" is all of the ancient texts and references which assert that this image stemmed from the first century and that it was "not made by human hand." Guscin lists these in great detail. I suppose that it's a scientific examination of the relic that you want, something that is obviously impossible.
You mean that in 1204 C.E. someone got rid of the Image of Edessa so that in the 21st century we would not be able to subject it to scientific tests?
That's a good one.
You mean that in 1204 C.E. someone got rid of the Image of Edessa so that in the 21st century we would not be able to subject it to scientific tests?
That's a good one.
I think he might just mean the fact that the image is missing makes it impossible to conclusively prove anything about it. And the onus of proof is on the person making the original claim.
A: Joan Of Arc had three navels.
B: That's pretty hard to believe. Has anyone examined her body to prove this?
A: Well, no. She was burned at the stake a long time ago.
B: How convenient.
Person B isn't saying that Joan was burned to cover up evidence about her anatomical features. He's simply saying the fact that she WAS burned means her body is no longer around, and hence there is no basis for making extraordinary claims about it.
Can a shipmate tell me why that weird performance isn't condemned as cultural appropriation?
What difference is there between that and a white person singing reggae or adopting a rasta hairstyle? Yet, there are people in the audience waving Israeli flags and wearing yarmulkes. Are they real Jews appreciating the performance or other cultural appropriators?
This is a genuine query, from someone from a foreign culture where this is not so much of an issue as it seems to be in the USA. Is there something important about this controversial subject that I have not understood?
Comments
I've never asked a Jewish person what they think about Messianics. One thing I would point out, though, is that successive Israeli governments have cultivated warm relations with pre-mil Christian conservatives, including those who preach the Hal Lindsey catechism about the need for all good Jews to convert.
So, if you're a Jewish person who supports Israel, and you had never had a problem with that particular alliance, it might have a slight whiff of "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much" to suddenly object when the cultural appropriation gets taken to the next level.
[Sorry, re-reading your post, I see you were talking about what Jewish converts, not Jews in general, think about Messianics. I guess my point still stands for any converts who support Israel.]
This being the Ship, I don't think there are too many of us who are likely to confuse Cardinal Lustiger with the guy singing Texas Hava Nagila in my video.
As for the general public, yeah, if you're someone who's not overly informed about religion, and your first encounter with "Christian Jews" is Messianics, I suppose you might think that all Jewish converts are like that. But...
INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY ALERT
...I think it's ultimately the responsibility of each person to keep themselves informed about religion, and if they get duped by a theological drag-show, well, it's pretty much their own fault.
My understanding was always that Messianic Jews are people born Jews (or had converted to Judaism) who subsequently accept that Jesus was the Messiah and accept mainstream Christian beliefs while maintaining significant portions of Jewish culture. The resulting congregations may include some Gentiles who are both Christian and attracted by the culture and associated worship styles but who hadn't converted to Judaism, but being an evangelical sect playing at being Jewish to seek to convert Jews wasn't something I'd encountered. I know of several evangelicals who have spent time as missionaries in Israel aiming to convert Jews, but these have been from more mainstream churches (Pentecostals, AOG, large evangelical churches and associations) and if they ever converted anyone it would be to a faith that looks very western European/American rather than retaining Jewish culture.
FWIW, Wikipedia reflects my understanding of Messianic Judaism, and doesn't include any of the "evangelicals adoping a pseudo-Jewish identity" thing.
My understanding is that the people involved are usually at least partially of Jewish descent but don't tend to have been practising Jews prior to becoming Christians. Their existence is certainly used as a proselytising tool by evangelicals.
Well, from the POV of traditional Judaism, I'm not sure how much difference there is between...
A. a cradle Jew who comes to believe that Jews must convert in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible and bring about the Second Coming of Jesus, and...
B. a cradle Christian who believes he should adopt a self-styled form of Judaism in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible and bring about the Second Coming of Jesus.
If either of those people are calling themselves Jewish, I would think that most traditional Jews would consider that pretty heretical, for lack of a better word.
(Though, I suppose, since religious Judaism does await the Messiah, they technically shouldn't rule out that it might be Jesus, though there are pretty strong cultural reasons for doing so.)
FWIW, the couple of Messianics I know in my hometown are cradle Christians, and going by their congregation's website, their rabbi had Jewish ancestry that he was unaware of until adulthood, and played no role in his religious upbringing.
In practice, however, it doesn't seem to work out like that, and not only because other Jews do not, in fact, accept that converts to Messianic Judaism retain their Jewishness unimpaired. There is also the complicating factor that, taken as whole, the people who call themselves "Messianic Jews" include a very large number, perhaps even a majority, who have no Jewish background at all. Surely this must convey to the prospective convert that there is something contrived about the whole business and that they might just as well opt for one of the existing churches after all.
Well, as for the whole thing being obviously "contrived", remember we are talking about people who think Hal Lindsey is a profound theologian. So, if you're someone who can accept that the Book Of Revelation predicted the Six Day War and the EU, your standards for recognizing a "contrived religion" might not quite be the same as everyone else's.
I see what you mean, but I disagree! We can see already on this thread that a certain amount of confusion exists even on the Ship, and we're as fine a bunch of "religion-nerds" as you could ask for. How much more confusing for the general Christian public, let alone the general public...
But it seems like a dumb proselytising tool because there are, and always have been, lots of Jewish converts who have joined mainstream churches. Some of them are fairly prominent, for example Hugh Montefiore. Why make up extra "fake" converts? How can that help the conversion drive?
I can speak definitively to fiddles but guitars with no tuning heads are tuned at the bridge. The point, apparently, is the striking visual effect, reminiscent of decapitation. I have a friend who makes violins and he made and now plays a five-string.
There's another option, one that some of the cradle Jews-converted-to-Jesus-still-maintaining-a-Jewish-identity of my acqaintance have gone for, which is to create their own congregation within a larger church body. It's basically parallel to our Vietnamese congregation--it's a place where, if you attend there, you are dealing with people who believe in Lutheran doctrine, yes, but the whole experience is linguistically and culturally shot through-and-through with their birth culture. Which is as it should be.
That said, I'm sure they don't refuse prospective members who were born Gentile. But we just don't have that whole weird "we need to do something to trigger the prophecies and bring the kingdom of God into being" in Lutheranism, and so any Gentile members are likely to be people who marry or date their way into the congregation--or who just live next door and are unusually open to other languages and cultures.
Well, on this thread, there were a couple of people who were not familiar with capital lettered Messianic Judaism, as an actual sect.
I think you can still be a respectable religion-nerd without knowing that. By way of example, I do not know all the various permutations of Copticism, even though I devour all the info that I can about certain other faiths.
But the scenario I was talking about was one where someone meets a Messianic Jew, and presumably gets a basic rundown of their faith(ie. they think Jews need to convert in order to bring about the Second Coming) AND comes away thinking that Messianics are representative of Jews who convert to Christisnity in general. I don't think there are too many Shipmates would make that mistake, both because it would seem counter-intuitive, and also because it likely wouldn't be backed up by knowledge or personal experience.
As for the general, non-nerd public, I'd say it might be a bit more forgivable to think Messianics is synonymous with "Christians who converted from Judaism", assuming one's knowledge of religion is like my knowledge of economics. My point was, if you do lack the relevant knowledge, the onus is on you, not the Messianics, to inform yourself.
I think the idea is "See! You don't have to stop being Jewish to be a Christian", with a side of "Look! Other people like you are doing it, maybe you should too." That was certainly the experience of someone I knew at university. She was speaking with a person from the Evangelical Christian Union who, on hearing she was Jewish, switched tack to talking about their friend who was a member of Jews for Jesus. I'll grant that the ECU at my university were notoriously unsubtle in their approach (some clever person in the SU thought all the religious societies should be grouped together at freshers' fayre; which was fine except they put the ECU next to PagSoc).
I have only known a couple of Messianic Jews, and am not currently in touch with them, but this one-sentence caricature of what they believed is so limited and partial as to be positively misleading.
Are you saying that your acquaintances DON'T believe that Jews need to convert in order to fulfill Bible prophecy? Or are you saying that they do believe that, but it's not the sum total of their beliefs?
If it's the latter, I'll agree with you, and will retroactively change my "ie." to an "eg." The point is, I don't think that a theologically informed person could listen to a basic exposition of Messianic Judaism, capital lettered, and come away thinking that it just means the same thing as "Jews who have converted to Christianity".
Why hasn't this formed part of previous discussions of Messianic Jews?
Dear Bro James,
The subject of this thread is The Image of Edessa. Please, in your role as Host, encourage participants to limit their discussions to that topic.
Ok. Do you have any evidence for that being the case?
The Image was also characterized as "Not being made by [human] hand," meaning miraculous. So are you saying that the Image was made in the 6th century but was mirraculously formed nontheless?
Do a google on "mjaa messianic movement". A page should come up with a photo of a guy in a yarmulke talking to another person in some kind of headdress.
Read the statement contained on that same page.
That organization might not represent the entirety of the Messianic Jewish movement, but the theology outlined has been part of almost every version I've heard of.
Indeed, IIRC, the Church of my Yoof (what would now be called conservative evangelical/Prayer Book) supported *CMJ* - Churches Mission/Ministry to the Jews? - as recently as the early 1960s.
And just the first paragraph should suffice.
Did those movements generally emphasize that becoming a Christian was the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be Jewish?
Because that's a big part of Messianic Judaism, though there are a few other things I'd consider to be sine qua nons of the movement eg. the pre-mil eschatology.
A good question.
I'm not sure of the answer - and different Societies may have had different aims - but AIUI the main idea was, at least at some point, to save the Jews from God's wrath (after all, it was they who caused His Son to be crucified), presumably by rejecting Judaism, and becoming Christians.
I think there's probably a lot more to it than that, as you rightly say. CMJ's website might help - I didn't realise that they're still very much in business! - and they seem to emphasise the fulfilment criterion you mention.
https://cmj.org.uk/
My cell-phone skills don't allow me to start a new thread with the requisite linkage etc. If you'd like to ask the mods to start a spinoff thread, AND if they are amenable to the idea, feel free. Otherwise, I can wait till I get to a computer tomorrow.
undead_rat seems to be getting a bit uptight, as this thread has been hijacked by a rather more interesting subject, although I agree with you that a separate thread might be more appropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Our_Lady_of_Sion
No need to apologize. I can still click on links, such as the one you provided. I just can't figure out how to post them.
I've been looking through your CMJ link. From what I've seen, they do regard conversion as sort of a telos for Jews, they are pro-Israel, and they have affiliations with groups calling themselves "Messianic". But CMJ themselves don't seem quite so into the hardcore prophecy stuff.
I think I might explore a bit more tomorrow.
What previous discussions of Messianic Jews? I cannot think of any.
I think a separate thread might be imminent, to prevent undead_rat's blood pressure from rising too high...
Then again we are told repeatedly that the originator of a thread is not in control of where it goes.
Would the Jews be converted if they were shown the bits of cloth with pictures on them, I wonder?
I daresay we shall shortly be given a List of Auncient Bokes, proving me wrong...
Why do I need evidence to prove a negative? You are asserting, and it is for you to prove.
And you simply cannot go from my post to your second paragraph - there is absolutely no connection between them. If you ask me if I accept that it was miraculously formed, my answer again is that there is no evidence to support that assertion either.
I'm pretty sure the topic has come up a couple of times at least, because I can remember posting that Texas Hava Nagila video more than once.
Unless we were just discussing general evangelical support for Israel, but I don't think so.
The "evidence" is all of the ancient texts and references which assert that this image stemmed from the first century and that it was "not made by human hand." Guscin lists these in great detail. I suppose that it's a scientific examination of the relic that you want, something that is obviously impossible.
How convenient.
Do you have anything besides sarcasm to add to the discussion?
If you can't see that as anything more than sarcasm, then I can't help you.
That's a good one.
I think he might just mean the fact that the image is missing makes it impossible to conclusively prove anything about it. And the onus of proof is on the person making the original claim.
A: Joan Of Arc had three navels.
B: That's pretty hard to believe. Has anyone examined her body to prove this?
A: Well, no. She was burned at the stake a long time ago.
B: How convenient.
Person B isn't saying that Joan was burned to cover up evidence about her anatomical features. He's simply saying the fact that she WAS burned means her body is no longer around, and hence there is no basis for making extraordinary claims about it.
If the two additional navels were in her heart then that raises further questions.
(and it is no more tangential then some of the other posts than some other posts on this thread.) Can a shipmate tell me why that weird performance isn't condemned as cultural appropriation?
What difference is there between that and a white person singing reggae or adopting a rasta hairstyle? Yet, there are people in the audience waving Israeli flags and wearing yarmulkes. Are they real Jews appreciating the performance or other cultural appropriators?
This is a genuine query, from someone from a foreign culture where this is not so much of an issue as it seems to be in the USA. Is there something important about this controversial subject that I have not understood?