Christians who observes Jewish holidays

[NASDAQ]

Eleanor,

 

That's because Christianity as we practice it in the modern western world is mostly creedal. When we say "Jane is a Christian," we mean that Jane professes the Christian faith. We don't mean that Jane's mother was a Christian, or Jane was baptised as a baby (usually), or that Jane's family was Christian a hundred years ago. Likewise, if Jane ceased to believe in Jesus, we'd say "Jane used to be a Christian."

 

Judaism is nothing like this. Think of it closer to citizenship: I'm Canadian because of where I was born or who I was born to. I'm not a Canadian because I believe certain things. I could be a Spanish person who loves Canada, who sings O Canada every morning and puts up pictures of Stephen Harper on every wall, and it wouldn't in itself make me Canadian. I'd have to go through a formal process of becoming Canadian and be accepted by the Canadian government before I became Canadian. Likewise, if I knew nothing about Canada, felt no connection to it, and even left to go live in another country, I'd still be Canadian. Citizenship is a status. Jewishness is a status.

 

Of course, the status of Canadian and the status of Jew confer on the holder obligations. For a Jew, that obligation is basically to practice Judaism. Non-Jews have no such obligation. In fact, you could be a non-Jew who believed that every word of Jewish theology was absolutely true, and you'd have no obligation to even try to be Jewish.

 

So when a Jew does something stupid -- as a people we have a tremendous talent for finding dim things to do; for example, there are many Jewish communists -- that doesn't mean he ceases to be Jewish. If he stops practicing Judaism, he isn't fulfilling the obligations of his Jewish status, but he's still Jewish. He's just not being a good Jew.

 

In fact, while you can renounce your Canadian citizenship, there is literally nothing a person can do to exit the Jewish people. No matter how crazy you go, you still have the obligation to return to the practice of Judaism.

 

Obviously the theology is understanding of people who are raised without Judaism and do not find out that they are Jewish until later in life. But if a man discovers on Wednesday that he is Jewish and on Thursday he wants to go join his local synagogue, he can do that. In fact, people would be very happy to see him. We pray three times a day (okay, my husband does ;)) for G-d to gather in our exiles.

[Ester Maria]

For a Jew, that obligation is basically to practice Judaism. Non-Jews have no such obligation. In fact, you could be a non-Jew who believed that every word of Jewish theology was absolutely true, and you'd have no obligation to even try to be Jewish.

 

So when a Jew does something stupid -- as a people we have a tremendous talent for finding dim things to do; for example, there are many Jewish communists -- that doesn't mean he ceases to be Jewish. If he stops practicing Judaism, he isn't fulfilling the obligations of his Jewish status, but he's still Jewish. He's just not being a good Jew.

Exactly.

 

Although I think Eleanor's question was more along the lines of whether belief is required or only practice. ;)

[mytwomonkeys]

Because they believed and trusted in Jesus. They heard what He said and taught, they saw Him resurrected from the dead, they saw Him ascend to heaven. I'm pretty sure it was shocking to them at the time. It's clear that none of the apostles expected it.

 

Do you have a good study Bible? That might be a good place to start. :)

 

i have many bibles. i read it everyday. that's not the issue. my ignorance isn't in my own faith, but my understanding of jewish teachings. i'm truly asking (someone that can answer) a sincere question about what the apostles would have been taught from their own religious POV, and trying to reconcile how they possibly saw jesus as a fulfillment of anything when judaism doesn't even claim to be what they are arguing in the first place (wordy sentence - sorry). i just found it confusing that bill previously said the messiah is nothing more than a leader, but the NT jews create him to be much more than that & use OT scripture as the backbone to their writings. i just thought someone could give insight from a jewish perspective, one i hadn't heard from a pulpit.

[NASDAQ]

But you (generic) rationalize it, justify it, and continue to promote cultural (religious/ ethnic) pride through "exclusivity."

 

Actually, Judaism is an exclusive religion, and that's not a bad thing. It's an essential part of the religion. We are the set-apart. G-d gave us a particular mission. Not everything exclusive is bad. The marine corp is exclusive.

 

The feast days do not belong to the Jewish people exclusively. When were they given? to whom? Where was Judah? Where was Israel? What is the timeline? Some things are easily researched.

 

They were given by G-d through Moshe Rabbeinu to the Jewish people, and yes, to the Jewish people exclusively.

 

Those who do care, eventually tire of being accused of malicious intent. .

 

If you care about the Jewish people, allow us to practice our own religion without taking the holidays we've preserved as your own. If you are unable to respect Jewish feeling on the matter, I don't think that's a good expression of caring.

[mytwomonkeys]

In other words, it wasn't what was or is taught in Judaism.

 

yes. THIS is exactly what i was trying to ask!!! thank you for putting it in easier terms!:D

[milovany]

The problem is not, or not only, that Christianity, from a conceptual perspective, claims things that Judaism does not.

The fundamental problem is that Christianity cancels Torah and commandments *in the name of Judaism*. On a logical level, from a Christian perspective, Christianity *is* Judaism - Christianity as an idea is a natural, organic continuation of Judaism as an idea. Early Christians did not attempt to start a new religion - from their perspective, as well as from the perspective of their successors, they were a natural development of that previous idea. What is "cancellation" and "break off" from the Jewish perspective is organic growth from the Christian perspective.

 

Is there ANNNNYYYYY way it could be both? Something I've learned as I've come into the Orthodox church is that often things that I previously thought had to be either/or can in fact and experience be both/and.

 

I'm not saying at all "Can we mesh the two?" I get that they are two distinct things. But can it be like this: God created a people, a chosen people, the Jewish people. This is what you know and are a part of. I won't try to say what He did for/in/through that people because I'm not a part of it and don't fathom it, as has become abundantly clear in this thread. The way you have described it sounds so beautiful. It is a good thing and the creator God loves these people and their covenant with Him continues to this day.

 

However, in His sovereignty, and because He also wants to reach out and have unique relationship with those who are not part of this Jewish people group, He set another plan in motion as well. Without cancelling out at all the Jewish people and His covenant with them, at a different place/point in time, He became flesh in the person of Christ to set the other people in the world free. He also has a new/different covenant with these people, and a different system of praxis (practice) evolved. He chose to begin this work through Jewish men, for reasons unknown to any, so what developed came from that root stock but is a different tree. It was planted in a different place and is not the same tree. But because the Lord - for whatever reason -- began with Jewish men (Christ and the apostles), the are some aspects in the new tree that hearken back to the original tree.

 

For the Church, yes, we are not to continue in the Jewish ways; in fact cannot because of the things you describe so well in this thread. We ought not have seders or keep Shabbos (sp? forgive me). This respects both groups; the Jewish people don't watch their faith be stolen and corrupted, while it also lets the Church have Christ as the foundation.

 

In this way, can both of these people groups be part of God's plan? Maybe God has not rejected either people group or either covenant. The Jewish people can continue in their place, but now the Gentile world also has an avenue for getting to know God in an active, covenantal way (through the Church).

 

Is this too simplistic? Does it miss some major points? I'm not at all going to say that I understand your side of the equation enough to assume that this can even be a possibility. I may even be wrong from the Christian side, although I like how it sounds (but who am I?). Just some thoughts passing through my head.

[NASDAQ]

Same here , Susan. I guess I don't understand how Xism ( since everyone likes to type Xitanity ) isn't part of that. I guess the synagogue in our city should stop inviting people to teach them about how its all interrelated in one way in helping us understand our own faith.

 

X is a short-hand for Christ. I don't belong to the Christish religion. Come on. You may not realise it, but the Jews are doing significant internal translating to try to make these subjects understandable on this board. There's a great deal of Jewish jargon that is being filtered out. Getting annoyed over a perfectly respectable short-hand for having to type "Christianity" isn't reasonable.

 

Having an event at a synagogue to teach about Judaism is fine and good. Christians celebrating our holidays is not fine and good.

 

And to Bill, no I never said Jesus wasn't God, but he wasn't a god. Big difference.

 

If Jesus is God, and God is a god, then Jesus is a god.

[Ester Maria]

However, in His sovereignty, and because He also wants to reach out and have unique relationship with those who are not part of this Jewish people group, He set another plan in motion as well. Without cancelling out at all the Jewish people and His covenant with them, at a different place/point in time, He became flesh in the person of Christ to set the other people in the world free.

I have heard this interpretation. :tongue_smilie:

 

The problems from the Jewish perspective are the divine incarnation, obviously, and perhaps also the idea - which is an integral part of Judaism - that the Torah we have in our hands is not only everlasting, but also integral, and that there would never be any "other" Torah. Now, I am not sure whether there is a *theoretical possibility* that God has a different kind of deal with the nations, but there is still a problem with incarnation and trinity.

Besides, I am not sure your theory is compatible with the *Christian* side of the story - do you not have verses which supposedly overrun the "set-asideness" of the Jewish people (the whole "there is no longer a Jew or a Greek" thing?), which claim the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in Jesus (how could it logically be that they are fulfilled for the nations, but not for Jews - especially if it was the Jews who had those prophecies in the first place, not the nations?), etc.? I get what you are attempting to reconcile, but perhaps your own sources - at least read the way I read them, which may be incorrect - go against a possibility of the "two trees" type of explanation? (No idea, just thinking out loud.)

[laughing lioness]

I think I am able to verbalize more clearly my thoughts on some of the issues frequently brought up in this thread (and perhaps a few earlier threads that went into that direction) regarding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

 

The problem is not, or not only, that Christianity, from a conceptual perspective, claims things that Judaism does not.

The fundamental problem is that Christianity cancels Torah and commandments *in the name of Judaism*. On a logical level, from a Christian perspective, Christianity *is* Judaism - Christianity as an idea is a natural, organic continuation of Judaism as an idea. Early Christians did not attempt to start a new religion - from their perspective, as well as from the perspective of their successors, they were a natural development of that previous idea. What is "cancellation" and "break off" from the Jewish perspective is organic growth from the Christian perspective. I have encountered this attitude a LOT in my youth because I grew up in a Catholic milieu and this is probably where Eliana and I part in experience, because I am not surprised at all at the idea that Christians do not feel as though they rejected Judaism, even if that is exactly what it looks like from our side of the fence. Speaking strictly conceptually, they think they *are* "Judaism", a natural development of that same idea, rather than a "new thing", with rabbinical post-diaspora Judaism being an anachronism in time which did not "update" properly.

 

And THAT is what is the ultimate offense of Christianity, from the Jewish perspective - Christianity is a movement within a circle of ethnic Jews, but completely inconsistent with the matrix of Judaism. The question at hand is, is everything that an ethnic Jew does automatically "Judaism" and do ideas presented by ethnic Jews as "Judaism" necessarily hold that link?

 

And here is where we part. From our side of the fence, NO. Judaism is a very complex, albeit dynamic matrix, as we have tried to explain on this thread. It has its inner logic and inner structure. Ideas which are not compatible with it are simply not Judaism, even if promoted by and originated amongst ethnic Jews. Anything that Jews do in the name of their Jewishness is certainly an expression of yehudiyutam - their *Jewishness* - but it says nothing about yahadutam - their *Judaism*, because Judaism is a specific matrix, NOT necessarily something that a random Jew claims it to be and gets his suite of followers and call what they practice an organic development of Judaism. If that makes sense.

 

 

Esther Marie (I am dh of Laughing Lioness). I understand the importance of internal consistency in a closed system. But this begs the question. For the very Jewish followers of Yeshua ben Yoseph Ha Natzaret the issue was not congruence with the teaching of the time (traditions of the Elders; yahadutam, in the parlance your use, Jewish tradition for others), but congruence with the teaching of HaShem. That is what they understood the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was. Clearly. They saw the evidence and they saw the message of the nevi'im. The point was to obey the Holy One. That is what is at issue for Christians, then, now, always. Now, if that is offensive and Rabbinic Judaism departs at that point well and good, but surely that is not what is meant? And if not, surely there is concern regarding what the Word of the Lord actually is? That the Word of the Living G-d is distinct from what a group of folks say it is, that is offensive? I certainly don't see that in Moses, I see the opposite (cf the whole issue with the rods).

The whole point is engagement with the Holy One on His terms. Now the question becomes what those terms are. Those who wrote the Brit Chadasha clearly understood that this process was not about them, collectively or individually. Christendom has gotten shipwrecked on confusion on that point. The essence of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is about trust in what they understood the Holy One said to them. With Moses it becomes about trust in what is written and what is consistent with that. Now if we have a common frame of reference on those points we can move forward. I understand the threat of this if this is all about us or all about you collectively speaking. But surely that is not what you are saying? For us, it is up to each of us to demonstrate that it is not.

With deepest respect.

[milovany]

I have heard this interpretation.

 

Well, it felt original to me, LOL. :tongue_smilie:

 

The problems from the Jewish perspective are the divine incarnation, obviously, and perhaps also the idea - which is an integral part of Judaism - that the Torah we have in our hands is not only everlasting, but also integral, and that there would never be any "other" Torah. Now, I am not sure whether there is a *theoretical possibility* that God has a different kind of deal with the nations, but there is still a problem with incarnation and trinity.

 

That's what I was kinda thinking. Yes, you the Jewish people have no other Torah. But because God wanted to be in relationship with other people, too, there might be other scriptures, too. For them. As for the incarnation and Trinity, these are not realities for you, but they might be for the Church. Do they have to be mutually exclusive? I don't know.

 

Besides, I am not sure your theory is compatible with the *Christian* side of the story - do you not have verses which supposedly overrun the "set-asideness" of the Jewish people (the whole "there is no longer a Jew or a Greek" thing?),

 

For US, not for you. For you, there is still Jew and Greek. Again, just thinking out loud.

 

which claim the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in Jesus (how could it logically be that they are fulfilled for the nations, but not for Jews - especially if it was the Jews who had those prophecies in the first place, not the nations?), etc.?

 

I don't know, but I don't pretend to understand God either!! My ways/thoughts are not His ways/thoughts.

 

I get what you are attempting to reconcile, but perhaps your own sources - at least read the way I read them, which may be incorrect - go against a possibility of the "two trees" type of explanation? (No idea, just thinking out loud.)

 

We have oral tradition, too (some Christians today don't believe that, but it's a fact for the historical church). So just reading our Scriptures without learning how our teachers -- the apostles and early church fathers interpreted them -- doesn't really work. Similar to what you are saying about the Torah/other writings.

 

 

ETA -- I guess I'm just wishing/hoping that this idea could be true. That we can both be the people of God, maybe in different ways, but both practicing our faith with mutual love and respect for each other; without either side feeling they are "right" and the other one "wrong." I know as an Orthodox Christian, I really enjoy how I'm letting go of judging the salvation of others. It sounds like the Jewish people have never done that, which I appreciate.

Edited January 28, 2012 by milovaný

[ElizaG]

Exactly.

 

Although I think Eleanor's question was more along the lines of whether belief is required or only practice. ;)

Pretty much, yes. :) But I do appreciate the time NASDAQ took for that explanation.

 

Speaking of which, my house and children are getting that "mommy's got sucked into an online religious discussion" look to them. :D See y'all later.

[Spy Car]

I agree. I understand. The lashing out under the guise of pride/ self protection is an issue though. Preservation is one thing. No one was attacking. But some people always feel attacked. It's fear. It's understandable. But it must be exhausting to always see everyone else as an enemy. You suspect everyone and end up being perceived as "suspect" and hostile. But you (generic) rationalize it, justify it, and continue to promote cultural (religious/ ethnic) pride through "exclusivity."

 

We need to disagree about her "lashing out." More than once Yael mentioned that her comments were to be understood as having a mix of humor and seriousness.

 

Trying to shift responsibility to Jews for their own persecution by accusing them of "pride' and "exclusivity" smacks of blaming the victim. It is unseemly.

 

When Jews respond negatively Christians may not *hear them* because the words are shrouded in anger & resentment. It's counterproductive. It just further solidifies the Christian thought that Jews will be made jealous and it continues to annoy those who really don't care about the Jewish people. Those who do care, eventually tire of being accused of malicious intent.

 

The Jewish response to those who would attempt to co-op their faith and launch missionizing activities using so-called "Messianic" organizations, which appear to be Jewish (but aren't), is more magnanimous than it would be if I were in their place.

 

Bill

[Aquinas Academy]

Are you offended by Anglicans celebrating the same sorts of things that you do? Because the Anglican religion is basically an off-shoot of Catholicism. One that was considered heretical and resulted in a couple hundred years of back-and-forth persecution.

The Jews on this board have been saying that they view Christianity as separate from Judaism, rather than simply an off-shoot. So, from that perspective, Christians celebrating Jewish holidays would be equivalant to Muslims celebrating Mass. That would be weird, at best.

Now, from a Christian perspective, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is more complex, and I really don't think I'm knowledgable enough to discuss it. :001_smile:

[Karis]

Trying to shift responsibility to Jews for their own persecution by accusing them of "pride' and "exclusivity" smacks of blaming the victim. It is unseemly.

 

It would be. If one were trying to shift responsibility to Jews for their own persecution and then accuse them of "pride" and "exclusivity."

 

 

The Jewish response to those who would attempt to co-op their faith and launch missionizing activities using so-called "Messianic" organizations, which appear to be Jewish (but aren't), is more magnanimous than it would be if I were in their place.

 

Bill

 

Really, how would you respond?

 

 

Do people who are not Jewish really want Judaism? I don't think so. If they do, they convert on their own. Many Jewish people don't practice Judaism. Inconsistency abounds. There are Holy Day Jews just like there are Easter/ Christmas Christians. There are secular Jews just like there are secular Christians and everything else.

But of course this applies to religion and culture.

The world is a hodge podge.

[justamouse]

Really, how would you respond?

 

 

Do people who are not Jewish really want Judaism? I don't think so. If they do, they convert on their own. Many Jewish people don't practice Judaism. Inconsistency abounds. There are Holy Day Jews just like there are Easter/ Christmas Christians. There are secular Jews just like there are secular Christians and everything else.

 

But of course this applies to religion and culture.

 

The world is a hodge podge.

 

You know, I really like this thread and would love to see Laughing Lioness' Dh's questions get answered, so do you mind not getting it shut down?

[Marylou]

This is a very interesting and informative thread. I think I have read every post.

 

I know several people who consider themselves Hebraic Roots Christians. IME they are on the wrong path. I don't believe Christians should pretend to celebrate another faith's holidays, no matter how well intentioned. It causes offense (obviously!)

 

There is a series of DVDs put out by That the World May Know www.followtherabbi.com that teach about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Some Christians may find them very informative. You can also google "Ray Vander Laan" and "Faith Lessons" to learn more.

 

Now, all this talk about the trees, orchards, branches. I don't get it. Is Romans 11 the gorilla in the room that no one wants to mention by name? Wouldn't this be one of the NT Scriptures that a mission-minded Christian would have used in his presentation of the gospel to a Jewish person?

 

I've learned on this board that there are those who don't think Paul was a Christian :001_huh:, but still, the whole cut out/grafted in thing is there and pretty easy to understand, even if you (general) don't believe it actually happened.

 

Carry on!

[FaithManor]

This is exactly where I am having a problem grasping the issue.

 

I think your analogy is poor, but can I try to make my own analogy using the same sort of terms?

 

Take Barack Obama, not in a political sense, but in a cultural sense. There are back and forth arguments about whether he is "black enough." He was not descended from American slavery, his dad was from Africa. He was born of an interracial relationship in a time when things were not as "easy" (if they are ever easy) as they are now. He was raised by his white grandparents in a multicultural (but pretty racist, IMO) state. He married a woman who is descended from American slavery.

 

He can't win. He isn't black enough (or not the right type?) for some people. He is a black American. If he does or does not refer to his heritage, someone is going to get offended.

 

So, someone who was raised Jewish has these celebrations as part of their cultural and familial heritage. If they become a Christian (which, *from a Christian perspective* is never about rejecting Judaism), then they cannot pass that cultural and familial heritage on to their children without being hugely offensive to Judaism?

 

But, someone like Bill, a complete atheist, assures us that he can have small displays of culturally appropriate shows of solidarity and friendship without being offensive?

 

It's a conundrum for me. I'm genuinely trying to see if there is a way for Christians to be unoffensive to Judaism and I'm not seeing it. So, I'm sort of getting the feeling that there is no real point in trying for cultural sensitivity because the very existence of Christianity is an offense.

 

I'm Native American, I don't try to get people to have culturally appropriate food at Thanksgiving. I do draw the line at listening to people repeating William Bradford's Thanksgiving Proclamation or sitting through sermons praising manifest destiny. But, that's because those things are directing denigrating my ancestors. Thanksgiving, itself, is offensive to some Native Americans, but I realize that most people aren't really holding on to the cultural heritage of manifest destiny, but mean something else by holding Thanksgiving dinner.

 

And yes, Christians did plenty of bad things to Native Americans too, even in living memory. That's not ancient history either.

 

I'm not sure if I'm really making my point or not?

 

You are making perfect sense to me. I can't think of any way to not be offensive either. I'm glad I signed on and took the time to read through the thread to this point. Our youngest is VERY interested in the history and practice of the Judaic faith. He is genuinely, good-heartedly interested. However, I will be canceling his appointment to meet with the rabbi.

 

I'll just keep buying books for him as I find ones that are appropriate for his maturity level.

 

Thank you Ester, Eliana, Yael, and others for graciously attempting to bring illumination to a very difficult religious topic.

 

Faith

[Marylou]

I'll just keep buying books for him as I find ones that are appropriate for his maturity level.

 

 

Faith

 

 

Have you read this one?

[Marylou]

Thank you Ester, Eliana, Yael, and others for graciously attempting to bring illumination to a very difficult religious topic.

 

Faith

 

:iagree:

[garddwr]

The Jews on this board have been saying that they view Christianity as separate from Judaism, rather than simply an off-shoot. So, from that perspective, Christians celebrating Jewish holidays would be equivalant to Muslims celebrating Mass. That would be weird, at best.

Now, from a Christian perspective, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is more complex, and I really don't think I'm knowledgable enough to discuss it. :001_smile:

 

I woke up this morning thinking about this conversation, and my thoughts were similar to the quote above. For those Christians who are struggling to understand why some Jews would feel upset or offended by Christians using Jewish celebrations in their worship (especially versions that have been Christianized so they are understood quite differently from how most Jews would understand them), I thought it might help to imagine it was Muslims co-opting Christian forms of worship to demonstrate how they point to and reinforce the Muslim religion.

Important note: I am not saying that Muslims do or would do this. Please believe me that I am not pointing a finger and certainly intend no offense. I was just looking for a situation that could potentially be viewed in a similar way--Islam is a major religion which does in fact share some common heritage with both Jewish and Christian religions.

So what if there were Muslim groups who started using crosses, perhaps performing Christian masses or other worship services, using the Christian Communion--but using it not to worship God or Jesus as Christians understand, but to show how all this Christian symbolism really points towards Mohammed as the great and last prophet, with Jesus not the Son of God but one among many prophets (I apologize if I am misunderstanding Islam in some way here)? And claiming that these ceremonies and symbols are rightfully Islamic because of shared religious heritage?

As a Christian, would you potentially be upset or offended?

 

--Sarah

[Mrs Mungo]

thegardener,

 

I might think it was weird, but I would not be upset. But, again, I think this is partly because I believe they are symbolic acts.

[brehon]

I have finally read through all 30 pages and what an absolute treat!

 

As I've been learning and pondering and ruminating (especially during the wee hours this morning) it occurred to me that *in general* Christians who grew up in and/or participate in truly liturgical traditions really don't feel the need or desire to also participate in Jewish Holy Days as part of their normal worship experience. They already have their own Holy Days, feasts, fasts, Tradition (intentionally capitalized), and commentators/philosophers (thinking of the ECFs here). Whereas perhaps those Christians whose history & worship is not liturgical maybe feel a greater pull toward a tradition of a festal year without wanting or understanding the context behind those traditions. I realize this is a generalization, of course, and possibly an oversimplified one. It did strike me as interesting.

 

Or maybe not. I could just be rambling incoherently. Anyway thank you to Yael, Eliana, EM, & Jay for a gracious and illuminating discussion.

[milovany]

Your thoughts are certainly relevant for some (including me). Our family had been looking into incorporating Jewish practices into our lives because of what you mention. We just did not have the knowledge of church experience and history within us at that point to understand that there was a church that had existed from the time of Christ, so we thought somehow Judaism was the answer (as far as it could be "Christianized" - - forgive!).

 

Pathetic, I know, but neither my dh or I had ever been part of a liturgical/historic church (just more contemporary, charismatic ones for the most part). Once we started learning what really did happen in the early church, there was no way we could NOT convert. It all came together understandably beautifully, meaning not only did it have roots we naturally came to long for, but it was, of course, a fully liturgical, age-integrated*, apostolic, Christ-centered church as well.

 

* Something else that was of extreme importance to us.

 

ETA - I'm very thankful for those that steered us back to the Church, AND now for the Jewish ladies here who have helped me see that a foray into Judaism is impossible for a Christian, and why.

Edited January 28, 2012 by milovaný

[OnTheBrink]

Wow. This has been a most enlightening discussion.

 

Personally, there have been times when I've thought about trying to adopt some of the Jewish feasts/holidays into our lives, but it just never seemed right. It seemed phony. I think what I was wanting was a connection to something deeper in my own faith, and Judaism seemed (at the time) to be a natural direction to go. But it's not. I knew that internally and now I know why I knew that, if that makes sense. It's not part of my faith and it's not who I am. Just because I'm an American (that big old melting pot) doesn't mean I can take whatever I want and make it mine. I appreciate the words of the Jewesses (is that the right word?) for helping me clarify my feelings on the issue in concrete terms.

 

Before I read this thread, my answer was, "Christians shouldn't celebrate Jewish holidays" but I couldn't have given a real reason why other than, "They aren't Jewish." But now I know, the real reason why is, "They aren't Jewish." LOL

[TracyR]

If Jesus is God, and God is a god, then Jesus is a god.

 

No. This is not true. This does not make Jesus a god. It makes him part of the Trinity of God. It makes him one with the Father.

[TracyR]

X is a short-hand for Christ. I don't belong to the Christish religion. Come on. You may not realise it, but the Jews are doing significant internal translating to try to make these subjects understandable on this board. There's a great deal of Jewish jargon that is being filtered out. Getting annoyed over a perfectly respectable short-hand for having to type "Christianity" isn't reasonable.

 

No, Christian's actually find X-itanity and X-mas very offensive because it takes Christ out of Christmas, and Christ out of Christianity. It is athiestic shorthand and nothing more ( not to offend anyone who is, not attacking it) . I am not Jewish but have the comom decency to write Judism instead of X-ism. I mean if we want to go round and round with that we should all start to refer to Judiasm as X-ism because Christians aren't Jewish.

 

Having an event at a synagogue to teach about Judaism is fine and good. Christians celebrating our holidays is not fine and good.

You want us to learn about your ways and change , but when we try to then you tell us we should not be. Its one way or the other. YOu can't have it both ways.

 

No wonder our world has religious wars.

[elegantlion]

No, Christian's actually find X-itanity and X-mas very offensive because it takes Christ out of Christmas, and Christ out of Christianity. It is athiestic shorthand and nothing more ( not to offend anyone who is, not attacking it) . I am not Jewish but have the comom decency to write Judism instead of X-ism. I mean if we want to go round and round with that we should all start to refer to Judiasm as X-ism because Christians aren't Jewish.

 

 

 

Not all christians feel that way. Please don't speak for me. On the history of X, http://hotword.dictionary.com/xmas-christogram/

[Ipsey]

X is a short-hand for Christ. I don't belong to the Christish religion. Come on. You may not realise it, but the Jews are doing significant internal translating to try to make these subjects understandable on this board. There's a great deal of Jewish jargon that is being filtered out. Getting annoyed over a perfectly respectable short-hand for having to type "Christianity" isn't reasonable.

 

No, Christian's actually find X-itanity and X-mas very offensive because it takes Christ out of Christmas, and Christ out of Christianity. It is athiestic shorthand and nothing more ( not to offend anyone who is, not attacking it) . I am not Jewish but have the comom decency to write Judism instead of X-ism. I mean if we want to go round and round with that we should all start to refer to Judiasm as X-ism because Christians aren't Jewish.

 

Having an event at a synagogue to teach about Judaism is fine and good. Christians celebrating our holidays is not fine and good.

You want us to learn about your ways and change , but when we try to then you tell us we should not be. Its one way or the other. YOu can't have it both ways.

 

No wonder our world has religious wars.

 

The furor over the "X" is modern and steeped in ignorance. Please learn some more of Christian tradition before going this "religious war" route.

 

Is is more respectful in some traditions to write "X" instead of "Christ" and "G-d" instead of "God". Do you know why? Please read and educate yourself before you criticize someone by calling their attempt to be reasonable and respectful "atheistic".

 

(Ipsey, an atheist who has no problem using "Christ" and "God". I dare say those who abbreviate those words have more respect for those concepts than I do :) )

 

Here's a piece from R.C. Sproul.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/why-is-x-used-when-it-replaces-christ-in-christmas/

With a minimum of effort you can learn much more about "X" for Christianity, including it's connection with Constantine, the first Christian Holy Roman Emperor.

[TracyR]

Not all christians feel that way. Please don't speak for me. On the history of X, http://hotword.dictionary.com/xmas-christogram/

 

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

[milovany]

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

 

Poll now up to see if this is true (at least for those that self-identify as Christians on the General Board at WTM). :001_smile: I really don't think this is true. I'm not offended in the least by it.

[Spy Car]

For those who are unaware, Jews—particularly those who are Torah observant—do not say the name of God. They generally say (or write) HaShem (which is a euphemism), or write G-d when conversing with Gentiles.

 

Not using the name of God is a mark of respect and a way of avoiding accidentally using God's name in vain.

 

To replace "Christ" with X should really not be cause for offense. It is consistent with other Jewish practices.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

 

That is not my experience. My experience is that a tiny minority are offended by it, but they are very loud.

[milovany]

 

To replace "Christ" with X should really not be cause for offense. It is consistent with other Jewish practices.

 

Bill

 

Just curious -- why? If Christ is not God/part of the Trinity, just a man (as in accordance with Jewish thought), why write Xianity using the same reasoning as writing G-d for God? I hadn't related the two; I thought perhaps it was just quicker to write Xianity or something.

[justamouse]

I have finally read through all 30 pages and what an absolute treat!

 

As I've been learning and pondering and ruminating (especially during the wee hours this morning) it occurred to me that *in general* Christians who grew up in and/or participate in truly liturgical traditions really don't feel the need or desire to also participate in Jewish Holy Days as part of their normal worship experience. They already have their own Holy Days, feasts, fasts, Tradition (intentionally capitalized), and commentators/philosophers (thinking of the ECFs here). Whereas perhaps those Christians whose history & worship is not liturgical maybe feel a greater pull toward a tradition of a festal year without wanting or understanding the context behind those traditions. I realize this is a generalization, of course, and possibly an oversimplified one. It did strike me as interesting.

 

Or maybe not. I could just be rambling incoherently. Anyway thank you to Yael, Eliana, EM, & Jay for a gracious and illuminating discussion.

 

*exactly* that's the same conclusion I had come to, and then asked back on the Crossing the Tiber social group.

 

No. This is not true. This does not make Jesus a god. It makes him part of the Trinity of God. It makes him one with the Father.

 

 

I can totally see why they see us as worshiping many gods, and, for that matter, you should too. How many times have you been told you worship Mary? Relax. Why don't you go make yourself some iced tea and have a :chillpill:. I still really want to see those two questions get answered.

 

They are offended. That's that. You trying to explain to them why their offense is wrong is only compounding the offense.

[Spy Car]

Just curious -- why? If Christ is not God/part of the Trinity, just a man (as in accordance with Jewish thought), why write Xianity using the same reasoning as writing G-d for God? I hadn't related the two; I thought perhaps it was just quicker to write Xianity or something.

 

For Jews "names" matter. They prefer to use euphemisms. "X" has a long history as an acceptable euphemism for "Christ" that allows Jews to neither intentionally offend Christians, nor to affirm that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Moshiach when they do not believe that is the case.

 

If a Jew wanted to offend there are other terms in the Jewish lexicon they might employ. "X" should be understood as a term of goodwill.

 

Bill

[milovany]

For Jews "names" matter. They prefer to use euphemisms. "X" has a long history as an acceptable euphemism for "Christ" that allows Jews to neither intentionally offend Christians, nor to affirm that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Moshiach when they do not believe that is the case.

 

If a Jew wanted to offend there are other terms in the Jewish lexicon they might employ. "X" should be understood as a term of goodwill.

 

Bill

 

Thank you kindly! I didn't think using "X" was a lack of goodwill, I wasn't/amn't offended by it at all. I just wondered why it was used.

[OnTheBrink]

X is a short-hand for Christ. I don't belong to the Christish religion. Come on. You may not realise it, but the Jews are doing significant internal translating to try to make these subjects understandable on this board. There's a great deal of Jewish jargon that is being filtered out. Getting annoyed over a perfectly respectable short-hand for having to type "Christianity" isn't reasonable.

 

No, Christian's actually find X-itanity and X-mas very offensive because it takes Christ out of Christmas, and Christ out of Christianity. It is athiestic shorthand and nothing more ( not to offend anyone who is, not attacking it) . I am not Jewish but have the comom decency to write Judism instead of X-ism. I mean if we want to go round and round with that we should all start to refer to Judiasm as X-ism because Christians aren't Jewish.

 

Having an event at a synagogue to teach about Judaism is fine and good. Christians celebrating our holidays is not fine and good.

You want us to learn about your ways and change , but when we try to then you tell us we should not be. Its one way or the other. YOu can't have it both ways.

 

No wonder our world has religious wars.

 

Not all christians feel that way. Please don't speak for me. On the history of X, http://hotword.dictionary.com/xmas-christogram/

 

:iagree:

 

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

 

How do you know the "vast majority" of Christians find this offensive?

[brehon]

That is not my experience. My experience is that a tiny minority are offended by it, but they are very loud.

 

:iagree: This is my experience as well. I honestly think those who are offended by X in place of Christ really need to bone up on their early Church history.

[HappyCrazyMama]

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

 

I would be offended if that was what it meant but it doesn't so I'm not.:) There was a time I didn't know this and it did make me bristle but "The Mystery of History" taught me otherwise so it's all good now.:D If someone means it that way the jokes on them.:tongue_smilie:

[elegantlion]

No, Christian's actually find X-itanity and X-mas very offensive because it takes Christ out of Christmas, and Christ out of Christianity. It is athiestic shorthand and nothing more ( not to offend anyone who is, not attacking it) . I am not Jewish but have the comom decency to write Judism instead of X-ism. I mean if we want to go round and round with that we should all start to refer to Judiasm as X-ism because Christians aren't Jewish.

 

 

I'm not speaking for you. Speaking for the vast majority of Christians ( not X-tians) who do find taking Christ out of Christmas and Christ out of Christianity offensive.

 

See your quote. You stated christians, as if stating all christians feel this way. So your statement presumes to speak for me. Before I was informed about X, I used to get miffed over it as well. Now I feel differently. There are wonderful words such as most, many, some, the majority, the majority I know. These words can help clarify your posting. The Jewish people on thread have gone out of their way to enlighten us using very specific vocabulary/language pertinent to the Jewish faith. It would not hurt for us to be more specific in our language as well.

[NASDAQ]

You want us to learn about your ways and change , but when we try to then you tell us we should not be. Its one way or the other. YOu can't have it both ways.

 

No wonder our world has religious wars.

 

Sigh. I didn't ask you to learn about Judaism or change one iota of Catholic practice, nor would I. If people are interested in Jewish practice, it is a lovely thing for a synagogue to have classes to accommodate that. If people are not, that is fine also.

 

Judaism is a tiny, insular religion of some 18 million people. It seeks no converts. It fights no wars. We are the Gadsden Flag of religions. All any Jew has asked on this thread is that if Christians learn about Jewish holidays, they do so in a form other than celebrating them. I can't find anything unreasonable in that request.

 

Jews do not object to Christians practicing Christianity. Orthodox Jews in particular are not participants in the "religious war, take Christ out of Christmas" aspect of prevailing culture. Orthodox Jews educate their children at schools that are open only to other Jews, shop at stores that cater to Jews, and eat at restaurants that cater to Jews. They generally prefer to maintain a bright-line distinction between Judaism and other religions and do not want their children celebrating Happy Festival of Giving Presents and Decorating Trees either.

[[email protected]]

Although this discussion has been respectful and interesting, it now seems in danger of being sidetracked. We'll close it to preserve its value.

 

Moderator