Debate: Church/Israel

[steve]

Me too. I've been on the road for two days, and won't be home till tomorrow. I'll write then.

[kaufmannphillips]

Allyn wrote:
There are no distictions within the tree any more. The only natural branches that the tree could possibly have are those who died off after the 1st century under the New Covenant. No Jew today can claim to rightfully belong under the Old Covenant and thus be natural to the tree.

(a) <<cough>>

(b) Tangentially, as Paul might have known, wild olive branches that are grafted into a cultivated tree can be distinguished from their natural counterparts in a significant way.

Theophrastus, De causis plantarum: "It is also reasonable that grafted trees are richer in fine fruit, especially when a scion from a cultivated tree is grafted onto a stock of a wild tree of the same bark, since the scion receives more nourishment from the strength of the stock. This is why people recommend that one should first plant wild olive trees and graft in buds or branches later, for the grafts hold better to the stronger stock, and by attracting more nourishment the tree bears rich fruit. If, on the other hand, someone were to graft a wild scion into a cultivated stock, there will be some difference, but there will be no fine fruit."

So the grafting Paul describes provides allows the wild branches to be nourished from the cultivated root, but they do not bear such desirable fruit as their natural counterparts. And did not somebody else say "By their fruits you will know them"?

[Allyn]

Allyn wrote:
There are no distictions within the tree any more. The only natural branches that the tree could possibly have are those who died off after the 1st century under the New Covenant. No Jew today can claim to rightfully belong under the Old Covenant and thus be natural to the tree.

(a) <<cough>>

(b) Tangentially, as Paul might have known, wild olive branches that are grafted into a cultivated tree can be distinguished from their natural counterparts in a significant way.

Theophrastus, De causis plantarum: "It is also reasonable that grafted trees are richer in fine fruit, especially when a scion from a cultivated tree is grafted onto a stock of a wild tree of the same bark, since the scion receives more nourishment from the strength of the stock. This is why people recommend that one should first plant wild olive trees and graft in buds or branches later, for the grafts hold better to the stronger stock, and by attracting more nourishment the tree bears rich fruit. If, on the other hand, someone were to graft a wild scion into a cultivated stock, there will be some difference, but there will be no fine fruit."

So the grafting Paul describes provides allows the wild branches to be nourished from the cultivated root, but they do not bear such desirable fruit as their natural counterparts. And did not somebody else say "By their fruits you will know them"?

Sorry about the "cough" "kauf" mann. You should take something for that.

You must be disagreeing with me then I guess. If so, then who are the natural branches today? Maybe you will identify them for us. Is it someone like Sammy Davis Jr. who converted to Judaism? Maybe Madonna? How about my next door neighbor with a Jewish sounding name? Or is it all the those who simply claim to have a Jewish heritage but have never practiced Judaism? What is it that today makes them the natural branches. Better yet, what would remove them as natural branches and thus cut off?

I think these are important questions put to people who make modern Israel out to be as significant as they were before Christ i.e, being the chosen of God.

[kaufmannphillips]

Allyn wrote:
Sorry about the "cough" "kauf" mann. You should take something for that.

I appeal here to James 2:15-16. You can send sugar-free kosher throat lozenges to me @ General Delivery, Vancouver, WA - just let me know when to pick them up.

Allyn wrote:You must be disagreeing with me then I guess. If so, then who are the natural branches today? Maybe you will identify them for us. Is it someone like Sammy Davis Jr. who converted to Judaism? Maybe Madonna? How about my next door neighbor with a Jewish sounding name? Or is it all the those who simply claim to have a Jewish heritage but have never practiced Judaism? What is it that today makes them the natural branches. Better yet, what would remove them as natural branches and thus cut off?

(a) My <<cough>> was precipitated by your latter sentence, "No Jew today can claim to rightfully belong under the Old Covenant and thus be natural to the tree." I welcome you to attempt a demonstration of this claim.

(b) My lengthier response may serve as a gadfly. Is the Pauline metaphor lamentably-chosen, or it is inadequately understood by many commentators?

[brody196]

Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

This question is hotly debated amongst Jews today. Some might insist upon either physical descent from a Jewish mother or conversion under Orthodox rabbinic supervision. Some allow for other sorts of physical descent or conversion. And for what it's worth, a local Reform congregation even uses the broad language of "Jews by birth, Jews by choice and Jews at heart."

Questions of identity are frequently complex. As an imprecise parallel, one may ask "What is an American?" Is it simply a person who bears legal American citizenship? Or should persons with certain political or cultural orientations be excluded, despite their legal standing? I myself possess American citizenship, but I do not subscribe to many basic elements of American government or American culture. Am I an American? The answer is more complex than "yes" or "no."

So also is the diction of identity complex, and it defies simplistic definition. May a Jew worship a god other than HSHM? No. But when Israel turned to foreign gods, was it no longer Israel? To what extent is a bad Jew yet a Jew, and/or yet not a Jew - and how is one to speak of them? Very often the diction may be used pastorally, and - due to complexity and paradox - even to the point of seeming inconsistency.

[steve7150]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.







My simplistic answer is that culturely speaking , having a jewish mother and biblically speaking, following the Sinatic Covenent.

[brody196]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

This question is hotly debated amongst Jews today. Some might insist upon either physical descent from a Jewish mother or conversion under Orthodox rabbinic supervision. Some allow for other sorts of physical descent or conversion. And for what it's worth, a local Reform congregation even uses the broad language of "Jews by birth, Jews by choice and Jews at heart."

Questions of identity are frequently complex. As an imprecise parallel, one may ask "What is an American?" Is it simply a person who bears legal American citizenship? Or should persons with certain political or cultural orientations be excluded, despite their legal standing? I myself possess American citizenship, but I do not subscribe to many basic elements of American government or American culture. Am I an American? The answer is more complex than "yes" or "no."

So also is the diction of identity complex, and it defies simplistic definition. May a Jew worship a god other than HSHM? No. But when Israel turned to foreign gods, was it no longer Israel? To what extent is a bad Jew yet a Jew, and/or yet not a Jew - and how is one to speak of them? Very often the diction may be used pastorally, and - due to complexity and paradox - even to the point of seeming inconsistency.

So..what do you think the New Testaments definition of a Jew is?

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

steve7150 wrote:
My simplistic answer is that culturely speaking , having a jewish mother and biblically speaking, following the Sinatic Covenent.

What about the Deuteronomic covenant (see Deuteronomy 29:1)? And is a Jew by definition obligated to align with the Davidic covenant?

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
[...blah, blah, blah...]

brody196 wrote:
So..what do you think the New Testaments definition of a Jew is?

(a) Your question supposes that the New Testament has "a" definition of a Jew, as opposed to more than one understanding and/or usage of the diction.

(b) Given my religious orientation, I think the New Testament's definition of a Jew is ... not as such definitive .