What is a Jew

[Sigurd]

It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).

This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.

There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.



* There were cases of gentiles converting to Judaism, but they were never considered Jewish but were called proselytes.

[Don Corleone]

Well, yeah, but in those days, most people in Western Europe practiced infanticide on newborns perceived to be inferior. I don't think it's fair to hold a people to the historical baggage of their ancestors, namely that the Jews were racially segregated, unless they're carrying those practices into today. By virtue of the fact I could convert to Judaism & be recognized as a Jew, that does not apply in today's world.

Actually, as an American, this might not be such a bad thing. Yeah, we have slavery and the Native American genocides to contend with, but that pales in comparison to the things the Europeans have done over the centuries. And, as you Europeans are so quick to point out, Americans are Americans, there is no link back to our ancestors' countries... so no blame either!

[Steppe Merc]

Europeans have had more chances to screw up.
Seriously, Americans has been around for 300 or so years, so it makes sense for Europeans to have done more bad things over the years, since they've had more years to do so.

[Don Corleone]

I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years.

[Idomeneas]

I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years.

Your family fell from the sky to america?

[Don Corleone]

Your family fell from the sky to america?

To hear Europeans tell it, apparently so. You've never seen so much outrage as when an American claims ancestral commonality.

I had a thread on here one time about it. And even here, a majority of the Europeans, though not an overwhelming one, said they really don't care for it when visiting Americans claim kinship and wished they'd just start counting their family's days from the day they arrived in America.

Dont' forget, we wound up here because we got kicked out of all the good places, or because we were religious kooks out to set up our cult in the woods.

[Sigurd]

I know I could be perfectly wrong in my position and I for one do try to be as inoffensive as I can towards the Semitic people.
But the fact remains; there are two kinds of Jews (according to the Jewish community) the Jews by birth and the Jews by choice. These two groups are separate and distinct. Sadly the latter is many times looked down upon, mainly because the Jews by birth question the motives for converting.
According to the wise men of Judaism the proselytes or converts are a choice people of God. They embraced the truth without being compelled to.
There shouldn’t be a difference between the two but reality speaks of other practises.

[Pindar]

[font=Verdana]It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).

Regarding OT vernacular: in English a distinction is made between Hebrew and Jew. Hebrew is the designation for the 12 respective tribes of Israel and their descendents. Jew is applied to the direct descendants of Judah.

The general designate Jew was also applied to loyal subjects of the Kingdom of Judah, as you noted, or followers of the Covenant after the destruction of the Kingdom of Ephraim.

This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.

This is not correct. There were three designates for proselytes:

Rev a proselyte of the gate

Myrkv a mercenary and

Qdu rg a proselyte of righteousness.

Proselytes of the gate ( Ex. 12:15; Lev. 25:45, 47) sometimes referred to as bwvt rg a "proselyte inhabitant", were gentiles who were allowed to live among the Jews who had accepted to live by the standards of the law.

A mercenary was a hired servant ( Exodus 12:44, 45) who could live amongst the Jews for a certain time period but with constraints i.e. not eating together etc.

Proselytes of righteousness (Deut. 16:20) were gentiles who fully converted to Judaism. They were considered "sons of the covenant" and considered the same as an Israelite enjoying all religious and civil liberties.

Proselyte is Greek derived. It first appears in Philo as I recall. It does not connote any negative connotation.

There are some references to proselytes in the NT: ( Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43) One includes the Christ rebuking Pharisees for converting people to the wrong understanding:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Matt. 23:15

For our purposes it clearly indicates conversion attempts to Judaism.

There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.

Whether Samaritans were mixed or not is unclear. The Jewish, Samaritan and Assyrian records contradict each other. What is clear is they had a separate temple on Mt. Girizim and rejected the Oral tradition while retaining the Torah. The general Jewish view seems to have been they were idolaters.



Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?

[Sigurd]

I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.

I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).
Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.
There is a maturation process that has to elapse before people understand the deeper meanings and the way things work. I suspect that even life-long members have problems with the core principles and would become the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament era*.

I have talked to a couple of the "fallen" LDS members even on this board and they speak of other people that is exalting themselves and sit on their high horses thinking they are better than others, like the Jews by birth looks down on the Jews by choice. They frown upon the new proselytes or converts that might not have a shirt and tie when they come to the chapel to partake of the sacraments or other small quirks they might have.
To one who beholds this from the outside this is a little confusing.
There is definitely a difference in the practice of a religion and its intentions described in rules, creeds and articles.
That is probably why they are chastised so much by prophets and religious leaders. Even Jesus himself had a go at the Jews of his time.


*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?

Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?

The word race is such a negative word but for the lack of a word that describes a people that keep strict adherence to maintaining blood relation by not intermingle with other peoples, I chose that word when I posted.
Having said that, the twelve sons of Jacob must have married women of the gentile nations and I know some were Canaanites and some of the other people in the Palestinian area.
Didn’t Joseph marry an Egyptian?
I have also read, without remembering the exact details, that Jacob and his sons came to Egypt with a lot of men(grandsons) and that at least 55 of them were described as without wives. That is if all the women described, married one of their cousins.
This means they must have taken either Egyptian wives or wives from other African nations possibly even Ethiopian women.
Didn’t Moses of the tribe of Levi marry an Ethiopian princess?
Is not the tribe of Ephraim considered fair in skin and hair? Did Joseph have other wives?
It was after the exodus when they started to restrict the intermingling with other peoples. At that time the people of Israel – the 12 tribes could very likely have a diversity of ethnic looks and attributes.
Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Solomon that broke the tradition by taking wives from diverse nations and introduced again fresh blood into the Jewish people?

After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).

The Jews of Ethiopia and the Jews of Russia could be of different tribes with different ethnic attributes. Or they could be of the same tribe i.e. Judah but have different ancestral fathers/mothers.

[Pindar]

I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
=Verdana]There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.[/font]

I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).

I mentioned in an earlier part of the discussion, before I moved this to its own thread, that I think many oppressed peoples often assume the rhetoric of their oppressors. I think many Jews have fallen into this situation. The very notion of race is problematic, yet the term persists as a hang over from the days of the "white man's burden" and eugenics.

Another issue is the shear weight of years that have passed. It is clear that Judaism pre-70 A.D. and what arose after the Temple's destruction and the Diaspora are quite different: as different as Christianity before the Ecumenical Councils and their consequent. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that a variety of views have some historical referent. This could include even ideas about base identity.

Your references to mixing is apropos. Moses having an Ethiopian wife a good example. Solomon's is noted for his many wives, but my reading is that the real issue was his marrying outside the Covenant (non-believers) and then he began to fall under their influence.

Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.

I think that is right. Growing pains certainly exist and the foibles of men are always a problem as well.

*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?

I know people who hold this view, but it seems to me to have problems. One simple one is the Essenes were separatists this continued up until the rebellion and their destruction by Titus. Whereas, Jesus embraced Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, this continued even afterwards: Peter and Paul taught in the Temple and Jesus' brother James was based in Jerusalem.

After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).

That's right.