Christianity

[Janoah]

In any case, popularity is not the main criterion of truth for me.

So, in other words, the majority are just the stupid or wretched masses who don't know or do anything worthwhile? I suppose that is certainly possible. It seems to be a common theme with much of philosophy and religion.

Take, for example, popular beliefs in ancient Greece of anthropomorphic gods. Yes, these beliefs were popular with the vast majority of the people.
It was a successful faith.

But at the same time, there was a philosopher Aristotle in Ancient Greece, who argued that God is One and incorporeal.
Aristotle's worldview was "unsuccessful", he had to flee so that he would not be executed by the adherents of the popular faith.

And on whose side is truth, on the side of a popular and successful faith, or more on the side of the lonely Aristotle?
But at the same time, the masters who sculpted gods from marble, created great works of art, and of course, they were not stupid.

And in our time, the time of total populism, if the music does not indulge low tastes, it will not gain likes and doesn't come close to the mass of likes, the one that will indulge, so Beethoven has to step aside, and Mozart is generally for the elite.
And you can't say that they are idiots, those who popularize perversions, because the more perverted, the more popular today.

Aristotle wrote that if the majority are abnormal, then the normal in this majority will be considered abnormal.
And now, perversion is considered the norm. And those who do not regard perversion as the norm, with those as with Aristotle, are driven away.

[Janoah]

You can ask your interlocutor how he relates to the idea of deification of the material Messiah

Why would I? Christian's don't believe in "deification" at all. They believe in the opposite: "Incarnation."

Christians would agree with Jews that man can never become God. But why would we think the Almighty would not be capable of becoming a man?

Okay, ask your interlocutor about the idea, can God turn into a man, or into a mouse, if he wants?

Man into God, or God into man,
"changing the order of addends does not change the sum",
and "sum" is the deification of the material.

[Janoah]

Perhaps if somebody came back from the dead...

p. s.
are you familiar with this?,

"Ye too, believers of incredible creeds,
"Whose faith enshrines the monsters which it breeds;
"Who, bolder even than NEMROD, think to rise
"By nonsense heapt on nonsense to the skies;
"Ye shall have miracles, ay, sound ones too,
"Seen, heard, attested, everything-- but true.
"Your preaching zealots too inspired to seek
"One grace of meaning for the things they speak:
"Your martyrs ready to shed out their blood,
"For truths too heavenly to be understood;
"And your State Priests, sole venders of the lore,
"That works salvation; --as, on AVA'S shore,
"Where none but priests are privileged to trade
"In that best marble of which Gods are made;
"They shall have mysteries-- ay precious stuff
"For knaves to thrive by-- mysteries enough;
"Dark, tangled doctrines, dark as fraud can weave,
"Which simple votaries shall on trust receive,
"While craftier feign belief till they believe.
"A Heaven too ye must have, ye lords of dust,--
"A splendid Paradise, --pure souls, ye must:
"That Prophet ill sustains his holy call,
"Who finds not heavens to suit the tastes of all;
"Houris for boys, omniscience for sages,
"And wings and glories for all ranks and ages.
"Vain things! --as lust or vanity inspires,
"The heaven of each is but what each desires,
"And, soul or sense, whate'er the object be,
"Man would be man to all eternity!

[Alexis Jacobi]

P.S. -- if a "Jewish soul" inhabits converts, how is it conferred by the mikveh? I guess that's where you'd tend to think that Christians must believe baptism has something to do with causing or contributing to salvation: but for Christians, it doesn't. For them, it's just an outward ceremony denoting the inward change, not something that has a dynamic of its own in salvation.

I get the impression that you think I am qualified to explain? But my reason for including that vid was only to explain how the Orthodox, the truly Orthodox, see these things. As you know I was raised in a mixed family and went to Reform daycare centers and summer camps. But there is no further extension to my involvement except that, years later, and for what I now consider dubious reasons, I sought to *identify* as Jewish.

Really, when I think it through it is a joke. My experiences in life were outlandishly non-Jewish.However, I was able to do a good deal of research into Jewish history, and what I would describe as the superficial or the allowed-to-be-seen inner content of strict Orthodox Judaism. For example I have a have a great deal of respect for Jewish ethics and the laws of Lashon Hara [“Lashon hara is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about a person, which emotionally or financially damages them or lowers them in the estimation of others. Lashon hara differs from defamation in that lashon hara can consist of truthful speech as well as lies.

But it is really ridiculous, given my varied experience, to *identify as a Jew*. And with that said, coming from mixed parentage, my preference or choice now is to identify with my European ancestry, and this explains my involvement in and defense of Occidental categories.

Because we conversed at considerable length privately, I understand your Christian definitions (non-denominational as you explained). And I also recognize that the ideological and doctrinal position you have is one that is supported by logical inferences and conclusions. All of this I respect of course. However, I am not sure if I share your views in many areas.

So, for example, I do grasp that your doctrinal position cannot accept most of the doctrinal assertions of Catholicism, so your rejection of the ‘reception’ of Grace at baptism, and perhaps even the sacrament of baptism, is something clear and logical. And I am sure your reasoning is good — that is it follows the predicates that you have established in an ordered successive manner

However my own position is that I do not know what view to adopt as *absolutely certain* or as absolutely verifiable. In this sense I can (to use the popular term) relate to LaceWing and what i understand to be her *objections*. So for many Christians, and of course for Catholics, they actually believe that something is transferred or instilled in the rite of baptism. I mention this not because I necessarily believe it to be true, or absolutely true, myself, but to suggest that there are many questions that are up in the air. Who determines what is ultimately true?

But with that said I do think you are likely right: Catholics likely believe that baptism, as with what happens in the mikvah when a Gentile convoits, infuses the soul with a special grace. That is how it is described in Catholic theology: as s seed planted. The seed can be nourished or it can remain unnourished.

But really all sorts of different things are believed by different Christians, as you well know, and I am not sure who has the most complete defined set of beliefs.

The other thing I wanted to say begins witha question: Do Jews (Orthodox, strict, and committed to the Orthodox tenets of Judaism) see Jesus as the Incarnation? No. Thus, and without any embellishment, the strict Jew denies Christ and the entire possibility offered by Jesus Christ in salvation.

For strict Jews Christian belief is ur-paganism, hyper-paganism. It cannot be tolerated as a genuine spiritual or metaphysical view. It was, and it remains, an attack on the core tenets of Judaism. That is given the actions of Jesus, given what he said, given what he did. (Jesus is the ultimate traitor from within! The prototypical Jewish anti-Semite!)

And when all the embellishment is removed and any sort of polite buffer, strict Jews regard Jesus Christ if not as a demon then as a representative of the demonic. That view is expressed in Kabbalah. For them the notion of Jesus Christ is a lie, through and through. And because they see — they must see — Jesus Christ as a representative of a disruptive force that acts against the true spirit of Judaism, they see Christians as possessed.

I am not making this up! These are real facts. There are dozen, hundreds of discourses where this is explained.

A Jew can of course use Christians and Christianity if it suits his purpose (similar to the way that Muslims can use non-Muslims if it advances Islam) if it serves larger Jewish purposes and the larger project of Judaism. But since a strict Orthodox Jew cannot ‘confess’ the truth of the Incarnation, and must deny it (there is no middle ground here), they are opposed to Christianity at a fundamental level. Therefore, Christianity and Christians are things to be overcome and defeated. The Christian project and the Jewish project do not coincide — except accidentally. In essence these two modes of religion are in enmity, not in fellowship one with the other.

Now, it should not be interpreted that I am setting forth my view. I am stating things as they are and this is not my invention nor even my preference. I do not know what to make of it. But I am aware that it is like this.

[Immanuel Can]

can God turn into a man, or into a mouse?

??? Mouse? What passage of Torah did you have in mind?

...the deification of the material.

It's actually not. For "deification" implies something "coming up to" God, which if course, nothing can. But God can condescend to reveal Himself in human form, as Torah also says He has done. For who spoke to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Gideon (Judges 6)?

I think you're too influenced by Gnosticism, Janoah. God does not despise the material world.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps if somebody came back from the dead...

p. s.
are you familiar with this?,

"Ye too, believers of incredible creeds...

No, but I'm baffled as to the relevance.

[Immanuel Can]

P.S. -- if a "Jewish soul" inhabits converts, how is it conferred by the mikveh? I guess that's where you'd tend to think that Christians must believe baptism has something to do with causing or contributing to salvation: but for Christians, it doesn't. For them, it's just an outward ceremony denoting the inward change, not something that has a dynamic of its own in salvation.

I get the impression that you think I am qualified to explain? But my reason for including that vid was only to explain how the Orthodox, the truly Orthodox, see these things. As you know I was raised in a mixed family and went to Reform daycare centers and summer camps. But there is no further extension to my involvement except that, years later, and for what I now consider dubious reasons, I sought to *identify* as Jewish.

Oh, okay. Sorry...didn't mean to put undue stress on you to account for everybody, of course. I thought you might know.

Really, when I think it through it is a joke. My experiences in life were outlandishly non-Jewish.However, I was able to do a good deal of research into Jewish history, and what I would describe as the superficial or the allowed-to-be-seen inner content of strict Orthodox Judaism. For example I have a have a great deal of respect for Jewish ethics and the laws of Lashon Hara [“Lashon hara is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about a person, which emotionally or financially damages them or lowers them in the estimation of others. Lashon hara differs from defamation in that lashon hara can consist of truthful speech as well as lies.

That's really interesting.

But it is really ridiculous, given my varied experience, to *identify as a Jew*. And with that said, coming from mixed parentage, my preference or choice now is to identify with my European ancestry, and this explains my involvement in and defense of Occidental categories.

To be a member of the nation through whom came knowledge of the Law, the Prophets and, I must say, the Messiah Himself? That seems to me to be a very high honour, actually. I feel the weight of my debt to that nation. I always will.

Because we conversed at considerable length privately, I understand your Christian definitions (non-denominational as you explained). And I also recognize that the ideological and doctrinal position you have is one that is supported by logical inferences and conclusions. All of this I respect of course. However, I am not sure if I share your views in many areas.

That's fine. I hope we'll be friends nonetheless.

So, for example, I do grasp that your doctrinal position cannot accept most of the doctrinal assertions of Catholicism, so your rejection of the ‘reception’ of Grace at baptism, and perhaps even the sacrament of baptism, is something clear and logical. And I am sure your reasoning is good — that is it follows the predicates that you have established in an ordered successive manner

The Catholics regard revelation as "progressive," in the sense that they don't take the Bible itself to be the last word on God's will. They hold that the decisions of the Popes and Councils can not merely explain the Word of God, but actually supercede it or render it obsolete, when "the Church" deems it suitable to do so. And they regard "the Church" itself as the organ of salvation, and salvation is achieved by works...most particularly in the sacraments themselves. These things, and some others, I do not share with Catholicism. I regard the Tanakh and the New Testament as equally authoritative.

One other thing I don't share with Catholicism is that Catholicism is supersessionist on the issue of Israel and Jews. I am not.

So for many Christians, and of course for Catholics, they actually believe that something is transferred or instilled in the rite of baptism. I mention this not because I necessarily believe it to be true, or absolutely true, myself, but to suggest that there are many questions that are up in the air. Who determines what is ultimately true?

I know that many who call themselves "Christians" would say that's true. I would just call into question their correctness about that.

As for who determines what's ultimately true, for me, the answer is "God does." But for us fallible human beings, we have the Word of God and the help of His Spirit to guide us. But beyond that, we do not need anything.

But really all sorts of different things are believed by different Christians, as you well know, and I am not sure who has the most complete defined set of beliefs.

Well...Hassidim, Orthodox, Reformed, secular, Conservative...they believe some things in common, but a lot they don't, obviously. This is human nature. However, all who are born Jewish do have some claim to being Jewish. But in a credal belief system, as Christianity inevitably is, not to believe the gospel is not to be a Christian -- no matter what one calls oneself.

...the strict Jew denies Christ and the entire possibility offered by Jesus Christ in salvation.

Well, except the Messianic Jews, who do not.

...given the actions of Jesus, given what he said, given what he did. (Jesus is the ultimate traitor from within! The prototypical Jewish anti-Semite!)...

Well, I don't doubt that you've heard this. But have you met the Man? I mean, have you ever read through what He actually said and did? I think you'll find there's no basis for such a charge...He is, in every way, an exemplary Jew.

...they must see — Jesus Christ as a representative of a disruptive force that acts against the true spirit of Judaism, they see Christians as possessed.

I have heard anti-Semites say similar things about Jews. But such railery, whenever it appears, usually hides a bad conscience. Its very extremity gives away the degree of exertion being brought to the task of trying not to think clearly.

I am not making this up! These are real facts. There are dozen, hundreds of discourses where this is explained.

I believe you.

And I remember an old German woman telling me that Jews rolled Aryan children through the streets of Berlin in barrels filled with nails, in order to extract from them blood for their sacrifices. She actually said that. But she was a crazy old woman, and had been told that which was obvious tripe, at least to anyone who had even a marginal knowledge of Judaism.

There are some kinds of prejudice we can't prevent. Sad, but there it is.

The Christian project and the Jewish project do not coincide — except accidentally. In essence these two modes of religion are in enmity, not in fellowship one with the other.

I don't agree. I regard Jews as "beloved for the sake of the fathers," even if "enemies of the gospel," as Paul advises us to regard them, in Romans 11:28. So I honour my debt to Judaism, and don't expect reciprocation. But it would be nice.

Now, it should not be interpreted that I am setting forth my view. I am stating things as they are and this is not my invention nor even my preference. I do not know what to make of it. But I am aware that it is like this.

I believe you, and feel no animosity toward you for telling it to me. However, it is not going to change my disposition to either my Jewish friends or to Judaism in general. I know where my debts lie.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To be a member of the nation through whom came knowledge of the Law, the Prophets and, I must say, the Messiah Himself? That seems to me to be a very high honour, actually. I feel the weight of my debt to that nation. I always will.

Except I had nothing to do with that, and really no did any modern Jew. It is like saying a modern Greek has any relationship at all to Plato or Aristotle. They have none. The people who write those texts, or the Psalms, are long gone. They will lkely never be repeated. You or anyone can claim them as ‘our heritage’. Our heritage in that sense is Judea, Greece, Rome, Alexandria.

That's fine. I hope we'll be friends nonetheless.

Why in Heaven’s name would we not? The purpose of these discussion is to expore as far as we are able, to try to get things out on the table for examination. That is how I see it.

There are a few more things — interesting things I think — that can be said. First is that this Universe is immense. If ‘salvation’ (I am still uncertain what this means) is a real thing, I would think that the notion of salvation extends through this world and ‘all possible worlds’. That is the level at which I take metaphysics: these are eternal and universal laws that apply everywhere, if they apply anywhere.

For this reason the Greek idea of logos, as a way to speak of Jesus Christ and the Incarnation, has a great relevance. Because it is ultimately Idea. Insofar as God is intellectual and intelligible.

Is God Jewish? Does he speak with a Brooklyn accent? Is the creator of all the billions of galaxies in all conceivable worlds, in all times, in all manifestations, a Jew? The notion of a favorite or selected people is not outside of my ken. But I think we must establish that whatever it is that Jesus Christ represents, universally and cosmically, is not an aspect of yiddishkeit!

So the Greek idea, which is an expression of hermetic thought, extends the notion of the salvific into a universal idea. If what I say is correct, we must be able to conceive of a salvific force (for want of a better metaphor) that operates in all corners of the manifestation. It is above, beyond and outside of the specificity of Earth-history.

As I said: my relationship to Christianity is more *intellectual*. I mean of course ‘intellectus’. I think part of the problem, or a problem that I notice, is to (mistakingly) believe that this Incarnation is a Jew! That cannot be. What was incarnated exists outside of any particular manifestation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have heard anti-Semites say similar things about Jews. But such railery, whenever it appears, usually hides a bad conscience. Its very extremity gives away the degree of exertion being brought to the task of trying not to think clearly.

Anti-Semites say many things. And anti-Semitism is a ‘real thing’ that should be understood.

But it would be a mistake on your part to interpret what I relay — descriptions about how Orthodox Jews interpret Christianity in relation to Jewish history and the role of Judaism — as a sign of that anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitism to understand the essential enmity between Judaism and Christianity. It is a real thing and its existence is independent of either of us.

I think that “But such railery, whenever it appears, usually hides a bad conscience” could be true, and may indeed be true in many circumstances. But I do not think that making the conflict between Judaism and Christianity explicit is necessarily a sign of anti-Semitism. I do grasp that it seems often to be described as such. And I think that view can be questioned.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, I don't doubt that you've heard this. But have you met the Man? I mean, have you ever read through what He actually said and did? I think you'll find there's no basis for such a charge...He is, in every way, an exemplary Jew.

Of course. How could it be otherwise? Most people have read the Gospels. They may have read them superficially but they have read them. I can’t say that my readings have been extremely in-depth. But I have certainly made an effort. I just reread Luke and most of yesterday and today I have been mulling over 1 John (Epistle).

I believe that I can understand why you choose to describe Jesus as an ‘exemplary Jew’. But I cannot but notice that this is a choice you have made. My retort to that is to mention that no Orthodox Jew, at no point in history, ever, has said nor could say such a thing. So ‘the Jews’ themselves stand in contradiction to your assertion.

I did not say this, they say this. They despise the man. Jesus is a Jewish curse come alive. That is how they see him.

Myself, I stand on the sidelines, watching. If I have reported inaccurately please let me know!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, except the Messianic Jews, who do not.

A Messianic Jew is . . . a Christian.

One is either a Jew or one is a Christian. I cannot conceive of a middle-ground. All definitions of ‘being Jewish’ (there are many books on the topic, for example Pragar and Telushkin’s Why The Jews?) say that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Jew!

Jews don’t get in trouble for being Christians, they get in trouble (according to Prager and Telushkin) for insisting on remaining Jews.

I am simply relaying facts. I have no investment in these notions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I believe you, and feel no animosity toward you for telling it to me. However, it is not going to change my disposition to either my Jewish friends or to Judaism in general. I know where my debts lie.

Why would you feel animosity to me when I am relaying facts which I have nothing to do with? No part of this is my invention.

I do not see the facts I have relayed as touching on our Jewish friends, or the Jews we know and work with, or the Jewish family living across the street — substantial citizens, decent people, or simply people like all the rest — this is about definitions that are developed within strict Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Judaism does not have a favorable picture of Christians and Christianity.

[Age]

can God turn into a man, or into a mouse?

??? Mouse? What passage of Torah did you have in mind?

...the deification of the material.

It's actually not. For "deification" implies something "coming up to" God, which if course, nothing can.

What proof do you for this claim of yours here?

Of course something can 'come up to' God.

But God can condescend to reveal Himself in human form, as Torah also says He has done. For who spoke to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Gideon (Judges 6)?

I think you're too influenced by Gnosticism, Janoah. God does not despise the material world.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:14 am
But God can condescend to reveal Himself in human form, as Torah also says He has done. For who spoke to Abraham (Genesis 18) and Gideon (Judges 6)?

I think you're too influenced by Gnosticism, Janoah. God does not despise the material world.

I agree. Nobody can visualise God unless they personify or otherwise reify His transcendent virtues. The downside of this fact is the perpetual fight not to idolise the personification or reification. I understand that Xianity has this covered by the doctrine that Jesus Christ is both human and divine.

I agree with IC's second point that God does not despise the material world . The material world, human bodies and so forth are frequently disparaged by some religionists who believe mind is separable from and superior to matter.

[RCSaunders]

I know where my debts lie.

You have a debt to some ethnic group?

...and no one understands where racism comes from!