A continuously fascinating series of questions -
What is Jewish?
What is Semitic, and anti-?
(With a familial home in Aleppo, I am personally invested in that one)

A summary of my views:
- https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3166505
- https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3266062/last#last

In sum, ethnic and NOT racial, though genetic markers can exist in any self-selecting population relatively isolated for generations.
Instead: Ethnic (race, religion, language, geography) and the point here is RELIGIOUS.

Logos / anti-Logos, and Christ or Barabbas -

The 2 most important dates in religious history IMO are April 3, 33 and the summer of 70, when Titus smashed Jerusalem….

after that, who had Temple, priesthood, Ark (St. Mary) ……?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Well my "research" so far is dozens of Jewish people ranging from 20-70s in age and ranging from non-practicing to Orthodox in observance. Care to post your own research?

---

A lot of Jewish people over my life and conversations with more across the spectrum of belief. Christian Seders are seen as supersessionism bordering on antisemitism by many.

The statement linked to an article by Dr. Levine, who is one of the leading authorities on Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/holy-week-and-the-hatred-of-the-jews/11029900

Definition time. Specifics are necessary, especially when terms can be deployed to convey "you are a bad person."

What is Jewish?
What is Semitic?

As for me, I utterly reject the inventor of this term as it is sadly deployed now (anti-Semitic) -

Wilhelm Marr, the 19th Century German socialist upset that Jews were betraying revolutions due to ethnic-centricism. He though it was a genetic defect.

I REJECT THIS.

I accept the Catholic view: the only unifying characteristic of this large, diverse term is to reject the Messianic claim of the Nazarene, which should be accepted by all. This became irrevocable after Titus smashed Herod's Temple, and now the Apostolic faith has the true Temple (body), the true priesthood, the true Sacrifice (Mass).

Second, and related, "Christian Seders" are offensive insofar as they are ridiculously inauthentic. The Apostolic faith (Catholic / Orthodox) is the fulfillment of all Old Testament promise, especially Christ Himself, the Pascal Lamb, Logos Incarnate. (Present in the Mass)

Therefore, Christianity is older than Judaism, because "Judaism" was required, by grave necessity, to completely and totally re-invent after Vespasian and Titus made the streets of Jerusalem run with blood - exactly as Christ predicted.

Read the article linked just above. Another showcase for why definitions are so essential.

Of course "the Jews" killed Christ, just as "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor." Its an accurate description and should be an opening to proceed as to why, how, when, exactly who.

With the murder of Jesus, would we charge Mary, John, Peter, the rich Jewish supporters of their ministry, such as Joseph and Lazarus? Of course not.

Should be an opening to discuss in further detail, as when the definition of "Jewish" was changing rapidly between 33 and 70.

Strange that I, as a Christian practicing Torah, has never had any negative interactions despite living in NYC and working in Brooklyn, even at times at Maimonides Hospital. I got a lot of questions, but I can't even remember a neutral response. Every person expressed some variation of "that's awesome. I wish all Christians would learn about the Torah". I'd put it in the same category as Christian attitudes toward Japanese people celebrating their weird Christmas.

Now I have heard of Jewish anti-missionaries, but I've never met one in person. From what I understand, that's mostly an ultra-Orthodox Israeli thing. Those guys get offended by everything, but more often than not they get offended by other Jewish people.

Interesting to see my old thread get brought back up. Although this latest discussion seems to be how Jews react to Christians and Messianic Jews keeping Torah, in general, and Passover specifically. Okay, I'll give my input on that.

I suspect most Jewish reactions to Christians learning and doing Torah and Passover would be generally positive. But there should be a distinction made between Jewish reactions for this as it relates to Christians verses Messianic Jews, and especially gentiles inside Messianic Jewish congregations.

Here's one anecdotal example: my wife was wearing her star of David and approached a couple of very Jewish looking/dressed men asking for directions to a synagogue. They were very friendly and helpful, and desired to strike up a conversation with her. But, when in this conversation she mentioned she was Messianic Jewish, things immediately took a radical change. They basically went "Blakkkh" made ugly faces and stormed away. However, if my wife was not wearing a star of David, but a crucifix and told then she was a Christian, their first reaction might not have been as friendly, but their last reaction certainly wouldn't have been as offensive.

Why the difference? Like many things, that's multifaceted. But generally Messianic Jewish and gentile participants in Messianic Jewish congregations are noticeably more rejected by Jews than are Christians. This may be do to a latent reaction to the "Jews for Jesus " that was perceived as converting Jews away from their faith. Messianic Jews seem to be considered more "subversive " to Jews than does Christians. That is likely due to the fact that they perceive Messianic Judaism as a bigger "threat " to convert Jews due to their similarity to Jewish culture and traditions, whereas Christianity is considered less of a threat given the negative history Christianity has had with Jewish people and their "odd" looking "rituals " that bear little resemblance to Jewish liturgical life and seem more pagan influenced (which they are), thus presenting much less of a threat to win Jews over to converting to their faith.

Just my $0.02.

I again respectfully ask for definitions.

Quote:

---

Messianic Jewish

---

Are not those particular Jewish people you wrote of, Win, correct in some way to be confused / upset?

Meaning - these 2 words are inherently contradictions, since the massive break of 70? Is not the choice Logos of Christ Incarnate, or the re-constitution of the term, which underwent massive change as Titus and his father fully decimated the very center and heart of Jewish life?

Is not the foot of the Cross a gigantic dividing line?

Help me understand how the two words fit. I don't see it at all.

You're losing me a bit on this confusion. In the simplest form Messianic Judaism, is a genetically Jewish person, who believes Jesus is the Messiah, and practices that faith by following all the Torah that Yeshua told His believers to follow in Matthew 23:23, just as it is believed by them (but denied by you) that the Apostles such as Peter, Paul, John and James followed all their lives. (And gentiles who attached themselves to this branch, just as we see in scripture)

People who do this will look very Jewish, because they are doing many of the same things, such as keeping Passover. So, it's just another understanding of the truth of the scripture taught in Jewish synagogues just as Paul is seen doing throughout the book of Acts.

And I disagree that 70AD was the only and final separation between Christians (both Jewish and gentile), and Jews. This, like everything that involves large groups of people happen in a spectrum over a period of time. For example, there were gentile believers in Yeshua who separated themselves first from Jews. This came during Roman persecution of Jews before 70AD, when gentiles desired to avoid that same persecution by avoiding the Jewish synagogues where they had previously met. 70AD was a big event, to be sure, but it wasn't a finality of separation, because Jewish believers in Yeshua and gentile believers in Yeshua continued to congregate in synagogues after 70AD. The more final split occurred after the last Jewish revolt called the Bar Kokhba revolt that ended in 136AD. He was given the title of Messiah be most Jews, which those who believed Yeshua was Messiah could not support. The Jews blamed the revolts failure on the Messianic Jews and purged all of them out of their synagogues at that time. Since then they they have met apart from each other and the Messianic congregations became more gentile, were wrestled away from their Jewish roots and incorporated pagan practices that they assigned new meaning to Jesus to become the Christian churches we know today. This is interesting history, but I don't see how it has substantial bearing on this definition at hand.

That is why can't a branch of Judaism exist called Messianic Judaism be equally valid as Reformed Judaism, or Orthodox Judaism, or Conservative Judaism, or any of branch of Judaism that exists?

Redstone said:

---

Definition time. Specifics are necessary, especially when terms can be deployed to convey "you are a bad person."

What is Jewish?
What is Semitic?

As for me, I utterly reject the inventor of this term as it is sadly deployed now (anti-Semitic) -

Wilhelm Marr, the 19th Century German socialist upset that Jews were betraying revolutions due to ethnic-centricism. He though it was a genetic defect.

I REJECT THIS.

I accept the Catholic view: the only unifying characteristic of this large, diverse term is to reject the Messianic claim of the Nazarene, which should be accepted by all. This became irrevocable after Titus smashed Herod's Temple, and now the Apostolic faith has the true Temple (body), the true priesthood, the true Sacrifice (Mass).

---

Judaism is an ethno-religion. It relies on a very ancient idea of peoplehood in which group membership is familial and often, though not exclusively, religious. Converts don't just become religiously Jewish but are seen as members of the ethnic group as well; that membership remains even if the convert eventually rejects the religion. It is also far, far more than just rejection of Christianity. To claim that is to ignore thousands of years of history in non-Christian lands and the genetic links between Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews.

Additionally, the theology of modern Judaism and the orthopraxy grew from the Pharisee sages and traditions that existed during the Second Temple era. Clearly there were significant changes that occurred and had to occur in a state of exile. But to claim it is not somehow true Judaism because of the changes is just more Christo-centric, supersessionist b.s.

ethno-religion
- accurate IMO if ethnic is not defined here racially (abstractly, the term can be racial, because ethnic means shared characteristics)
"genetically"
- here's the disagreement
If the top geneticist in the world, Harvard's David Reich, would not characterize (his own group) Jewish this way, then….

Thank you gentlemen, I'll return when not on mobile

Quote:

---

But to claim it is not somehow true Judaism because of the changes is just more Christo-centric, supersessionist b.s.

---

Yes, that is exactly the claim.

This view has been shared by MANY former Jews that converted to Catholicism, including …
After WWII, the chief Rabbi of Rome, for much of his life one of the most prominent Jews in the world
Israel Zolli

I'd also look into Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, who became Brother Daniel.
Hitler murdered much of his family, and then Israel refused his entry…..

Quote:

---

for much of his life one of the most prominent Jews in the world

---

He was certainly not. You may want to look at non-Catholic sources once in awhile. And yes, there have been long, contentious debates in Judaism about when and if someone loses connection to the Jewish people. Adopting a faith seen as idolatrous is often held as a red line.

And Jews and mainstream religious scholars would disagree with you.

The long-term leader of a major European congregation, and then a worldwide news story. Ok.

Redstone said:

---

ethno-religion
- accurate IMO if ethnic is not defined here racially (abstractly, the term can be racial, because ethnic means shared characteristics)
"genetically"
- here's the disagreement
If the top geneticist in the world, Harvard's David Reich, would not characterize (his own group) Jewish this way, then….

Thank you gentlemen, I'll return when not on mobile

---

The genetic evidence is clear that modern Jews share common ancestry from the region. Reich himself has done a lot of the recent work demonstrating that.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/ancient-dna-provides-new-insights-ashkenazi-jewish-history?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020221201%20(1)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-31/ty-article/.premium/jews-and-arabs-share-genetic-link-to-ancient-canaanites/0000017f-eb8f-d4a6-af7f-ffcf4f190000

Of course there's genetic evidence. I never have and never will deny that. ANY self-selecting group in relative isolation for generations will develop genetic markers. That's how evolution works.

Reich has done amazing work. He can trace how far?

The question is BEST DEFINITIONS.

Go ahead and look up his quotes about who MAY be more related to 1st Century Levant Jews……

Quote:

---

That is why can't a branch of Judaism exist called Messianic Judaism be equally valid as Reformed Judaism, or Orthodox Judaism, or Conservative Judaism, or any of branch of Judaism that exists?

---

It can, as long as the Messiah isn't Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth. There are still Lubavitchers who are Hasidic Jews that believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah. They are considered a bit wacky, but no one would say they aren't Jewish. However, believe that Yeshua is an entirely different thing. I think this goes back to a lot of what Redstone says about Rabbinic Judaism being almost a counter-movement to early Christianity.

Redstone said:

---

The long-term leader of a major European congregation, and then a worldwide news story. Ok.

---

Long term? He was appointed with fascist support in 1940 after the fascists forced out the-then chief rabbi of Rome. Zolli had changed his name to sound more Italian, agreed with a number of fascist programs, and was intensely disliked by his congregation. And it wasn't a "worldwide news story" until his autobiography was published in the 2000s.

In sum, best definition of this large, diverse term is NEGATIVE
The Nazarene is not the Messiah.

Tell me, what else unites the many atheists that founded the nation-state Israel, and Orthodox, and all the many in between?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is why can't a branch of Judaism exist called Messianic Judaism be equally valid as Reformed Judaism, or Orthodox Judaism, or Conservative Judaism, or any of branch of Judaism that exists?

---

It can, as long as the Messiah isn't Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth. There are still Lubavitchers who are Hasidic Jews that believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah. They are considered a bit wacky, but no one would say they aren't Jewish. However, believe that Yeshua is an entirely different thing. I think this goes back to a lot of what Redstone says about Rabbinic Judaism being almost a counter-movement to early Christianity.

---

There may be aspects of that, but the history is far more complex. Scholars of early Christianity and its break with Judaism shade everything with that lens. Rabbinic Judaism had other concerns and centers of scholarship away from any Christian centers for centuries. The Babylonian Talmud wasn't compiled in a Christian community.

Italian Fascists - many of whom hated the alliance with NDSP by the way - had much support among Jews in Italy. It's true, look er up. Giovanni Gentile, the main philosophical influence, wanted that as well.

Zolli and his family and ancestors were prominent. I'll argue that if you want, but it's a side issue.

Quote:

---

The Babylonian Talmud wasn't compiled in a Christian community

---

Exactly the point, isn't it? Christianity is older than Judaism, which underwent a MASSIVE re-definition.

Jews came to Jerusalem from all over the "world" from the 1st Temple rebuild to 70 why?

Gigantic differences from then to post-Church period.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is why can't a branch of Judaism exist called Messianic Judaism be equally valid as Reformed Judaism, or Orthodox Judaism, or Conservative Judaism, or any of branch of Judaism that exists?

---

It can, as long as the Messiah isn't Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth. There are still Lubavitchers who are Hasidic Jews that believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah. They are considered a bit wacky, but no one would say they aren't Jewish. However, believe that Yeshua is an entirely different thing. I think this goes back to a lot of what Redstone says about Rabbinic Judaism being almost a counter-movement to early Christianity.

---

Well, I guess that's true if how others define you is what defines you and not how you define yourself. Messianic Jews (even genetic Jews with all 4 grandparents in Jewish cemeteries) are not allowed to make Aliyah to Israel. There was a lady from our congregation who married a Jewish Israeli citizen, but she had to be very careful to hide any belief in Yeshau or connection with our congregation in order to be allowed to be his wife in Israel.

As you stated, a Jew can believe any radical man to be the Jewish Messiah and still be considered a Jew and accepted by Jews, except for one man only; that being Yeshua. So, yes, Messianic Jewish congregation participants are not only rejected by Christianity, they are also more rejected by most forms of Judaism than just about any other religion. It's a narrow way to walk and not many are they who find it.

Jesus crystallized two religions at the same time. To say that Judaism descends from the Pharisees and that mentioning Jesus is just 'christianizing it' misses the whole boat. The reason the Pharisees are the line of modern Judaism is because they were the main players left and distilled with people who of rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

The other big player, the Sadducees, were wholly corrupted to running temple scams/theft. When the temple was destroyed so was the Sadducees power base. The Pharisee's were already turning their nose up at a corrupt temple and were ambivalent towards temple sacrifices because of it.

Redstone said:

---

Quote:

---

The Babylonian Talmud wasn't compiled in a Christian community

---

Exactly the point, isn't it? Christianity is older than Judaism, which underwent a MASSIVE re-definition.

---

No, it isn't. This is such a bizarre argument to make and the only point I can see is to delegitimize Jewish beliefs vs Christian ones. Yes, rabbinic Judaism is different from Second Temple Judaism, but it is not something completely new, anymore than post-Constantine Christianity is a completely new faith from the early Church. Rabbinic Judaism grew on traditions that well preceded the destruction of the Temple and oral traditions that were popular across the Jewish world. Diaspora was not new to the Jews. Babylon had a Jewish community since the original captivity and large communities existed across Greece, Egypt, and the Mediterranean. They had traditions and worship different from that at the Temple. The destruction of the Temple caused a major re-evaluation of the focus of their worship and the methods. The rise of Christianity and the growing persecution of the Jews forced different approaches and theological arguments. The biggest change is that the orthodoxy of post-Temple Judaism was more cohesive than before, because the Pharisees were not tied purely to Temple worship like the Sadducees or militant messianic beliefs like the Zealots.

Quote:

---

The destruction of the Temple caused a major re-evaluation of the focus of their worship and the methods.

---

So, we don't have much of a disagreement.

Especially given that:
- I've recognized that Pharisees re-organized into Rabbinic Judaism, from the literal ashes of the Temple, in over 20 years posting on this forum.
- The MANY and VARIED populations that converted to what was once a proselytizing faith, 2nd to 5th Century, which I'll detail from academic sources this week.

Christianity is the older faith tradition.

Redstone said:

---

Quote:

---

The destruction of the Temple caused a major re-evaluation of the focus of their worship and the methods.

---

So, we don't have much of a disagreement.

Especially given that:
- I've recognized that Pharisees re-organized into Rabbinic Judaism, from the literal ashes of the Temple, in over 20 years posting on this forum.
- The MANY and VARIED populations that converted to what was once a proselytizing faith, 2nd to 5th Century, which I'll detail from academic sources this week.

Christianity is the older faith tradition.

---

What reorganization? The sages of the Pharisees were the leaders of the majority of the Jews during the Second Temple era and after. There was intellectual, political, and cultural continuity before, during, and after the first and second Jewish revolts. Heck, the title "Rabbi" didn't become common as a title for these leaders until centuries later. They were still known under their traditional titles. Saying practices changed or one orthodoxy became dominant is one thing. Saying they created a completely new faith requires a certain lack of continuity or a complete change in the population. There's no evidence of either.

Were not the Temple sacrifice, the festivals, the teachers and prayerful maidens of the Temple, the weeks of activity - especially Paschal lamb of Passover - the very heart and center of Jewish faith and practice, and for ALL variants of Judaism?

Even for the Essenes of the countryside (who probably converted to Christ en mass, btw) ?

Again, as with racial markers and defining large, difficult terms (please see my above post about this), we are discussing BEST definitions.

Redstone said:

---

Were not the Temple sacrifice, the festivals, the teachers and prayerful maidens of the Temple, the weeks of activity - especially Paschal lamb of Passover - the very heart and center of Jewish faith and practice, and for ALL variants of Judaism?

Even for the Essenes of the countryside (who probably converted to Christ en mass, btw) ?

Again, as with racial markers and defining large, difficult terms (please see my above post about this), we are discussing BEST definitions.

---

The Temple was not all there was. The Jews of Babylon and Alexandria and Greece did not center their worship entirely on the Temple. And the post-Temple traditions certainly built on existing symbolism to keep the memory of Temple Judaism alive. They didn't drop all discussion of the Temple or drop a hope to return to those laws.

As for the ethnic component, we have genetic data linking modern Jews across the world to each other and historical evidence of continuity amongst various communities despite intense persecution. It's essentially the definition of an ethnic group with a unique religious identity.

As for the Essenes, what evidence are you using? It wouldn't surprise me if a number converted given some philosophical similarities, but to say "en mass" would require significant evidence.

Appreciate your engagement. I'll respond in more detail when on my computer.
Quickly, on the racial connections: how far back does Reich trace? My point is this: Khazarian theories have such currency, in no small part, for genetic reasons. (I'm agnostic here but interested, and have read both Koestler and Brooks)

Again, self-selecting populations in relative isolation over generations will develop genetic markers.

We can't trace these populations back, at present, to before Khazaria disappeared. This is why Reich has joked, on multiple occasions, that his parents generation may not want to know who is "more related" to 1st Century Levant Jews, Israelis or Palestinians.

None of the genetic studies in the last 5-10 years have supported the Khazarian theory. Quite the opposite. The recent study on a German Jewish community from the 14th century is quite clear about Ashkenazi origins: Palestine to Italy to Germany.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01378-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867422013782%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

A journalist approach to the study:
https://www.science.org/content/article/meeting-ancestors-history-ashkenazi-jews-revealed-medieval-dna

Those two links actually fortified my points, even if we take the early 900 date of your second link. And:

Quote:

---

Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) emerged as a distinctive ethno-religious cultural group in the Rhineland in the 10th century

---

I don't have a position on the Khazarian thesis, although I will say that Koestler - for all the criticism he took - wrote a very dense and detailed little book, which surprised me.

That said, the quote above fits the possibility of Westward mass migration of Turkic converts, which is why Shlomo Sand takes it seriously as a possibility.

Edit:
So does Yuri Slezkine by the way

Regarding autosomal markers and haplogroups on the X and Y chromosomes and mtDNA - in the Italian primarily maternal context:

Conversion to Rabbinic Judaism was widespread for about 500 years from the 3rd Century - even in Yemen! - and further supports what I've written about here this week.

Redstone said:

---

Those two links actually fortified my points, even if we take the early 900 date of your second link. And:

Quote:

---

Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) emerged as a distinctive ethno-religious cultural group in the Rhineland in the 10th century

---

I don't have a position on the Khazarian thesis, although I will say that Koestler - for all the criticism he took - wrote a very dense and detailed little book, which surprised me.

That said, the quote above fits the possibility of Westward mass migration of Turkic converts, which is why Shlomo Sand takes it seriously as a possibility.

Edit:
So does Yuri Slezkine by the way

---

None of the historic and genetic evidence really suggests widespread Khazarian conversion or Ashkenazic origins in Khazarian culture. There's no historical evidence of a mass conversion nor of a mass migration into Europe. Linguistically, Yiddish is a blend of German and Hebrew with local variation depending on the community, but no baseline Caucus Mountain language. And genetically there is zero evidence of Turkish or Caucus Mountain populations in any well-regarded, mainstream studies. Every study in the last 10 years has found plenty of Middle Eastern and Southern European genetics, but nothing to hint at a founding Khazarian event in the 9th century or so. And the genetics researcher most connected with promoting the theory has significant questions about his modern proxy selections. Essentially, modern DNA can get you back reasonably far, but direct ancestry of 1,000 years and further requires DNA from much older populations. That's why the study I linked is so important. It takes Ashkenazi genetics back before the bottleneck event.

The Khazarian theory started for political purposes. Jews were emancipated in Europe around the time "scientific racism" became en vogue. Some Jews in Russia theorized about Khazarian origins in order to claim Ashkenazi Jews were not foreigners, but an integral part of Russian history. Later interwar researchers proposed the theory to undercut fascist claims about racial antisemitism (the claims worked for some Karaite Jews). More recently it's been used to deny Jewish claims in Israel and by more extreme offshoots of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement.