Tikkun Olam doesn't require any individual address idol worship, as far as I know. Tikkun olam typically refers to acts one can do to benefit society. Presumably, in Jewish tradition, if the world was fully repaired, everyone would worship their god, which would eliminate idol worship.
Believing a human man is the literal son of God and worshipping him is idol worship to us, yes. However, this belief did not come about until way after Jesus' death and is primarily the product of attempting to convey Jewish concepts through a gentile pagan lense.
The sect of Jesus wasn't really anything unique during the era in which it emerged. It diverged extremely when they brought in this whole "grafting gentiles into the new covenant" nonsense. Jewish members were overshadowed and the beliefs derived from this sect rapidly took a very non-Jewish turn.
> It diverged extremely when they brought in this whole "grafting gentiles into the new covenant" nonsense.
This happened pretty early on. Paul's mission to the Gentiles probably started in the early 50's and the book of Acts talks about Gentile converts prior to that. Even earlier if you count the Samaritans.
>Gentile converts prior to that. Even earlier if you count the Samaritans.
And both are not Jewish, so yes, it's understandable where you got this stuff from.
Pretty great addition.
I wouldn't count the Samaritans as addressing those who had priority only known idolatry.
People like Jesus would have regarded the Samaritans as Jews.
They might have been viewed in Jesus time and region as step-siblings of mixed parentage but they were people Jesus was trying to incorporate into Judaism.
https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
In fact, I gave over the majority of my new preface* to correcting my own fatal error in the original -- not taking the Samaritan claims of Jewish ancestry as seriously as I should have.
________
* To the 20th Anniversary Edition of my series on Exotic Jewish History https://ydydy.substack.com/p/exotic-jewish-history-20th-anniversary
I'm astonished and impressed to read someone who actually knows this.
I'm a Rabbi who lectures on these subjects and I think you might enjoy these.
https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg
https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
Also, here's my substack. Be blessed.
https://ydydy.substack.com/
> this belief did not come about until way after Jesus' death and is primarily the product of attempting to convey Jewish concepts through a gentile pagan lense.
These things are consistently taught throughout the New Testament (most of which we believe were written by Jewish individuals).
The Gospel of Matthew is very clearly a writing from a Jew primarily directed towards a Jewish audience (this is something scholars largely agree on). Matthew constantly mentions texts from the Hebrew Scriptures connecting them to Jesus. Such as when the Father says during the baptism of Jesus “This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased” (which strongly appears to be based on Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1).
John the Baptist is also described as being “a voice calling in the wilderness” and a “messenger” “preparing the way of the Lord”. Matthew (and the other Gospels) mean this as John preparing the way for Jesus, yet the verses they cite (Isaiah 40:3-5 and Malachi 3:1) were talking about the Lord God having the way prepared for Him. Thus using Hebrew verses to equate Jesus to God.
We have a pretty good idea that the things we believe about Jesus matches the things He taught Himself. The [epistle of Polycarp](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm) was written by a student of the apostle John (who was as close to Christ as can be) and the Christology of the writing matches our modern one (alongside recognizing various New Testament books as Scripture, which also clearly teach these things).
Jews believe Christianity is idol worship FOR THEM (Jews). Jews are strict monotheists.
Jews do not necessarily believe Christianity is idol worship for CHRISTIANS. Christians proclaim they are monotheist and the Trinity is "one God." No, Jews don't understand the concept but it seems to Jews that Christians can't explain it either. Hence looking at Christianity, Jews see one God with two partners who assist him, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not acceptable for Jews (hence we stay out of churches) but marginally ok for Christians. Sort of monotheism with training wheels.
Jews call this partnership "shituf." I've heard Muslims hold a similar view regarding Christianity.
>The Meiri says it’s not at all
Yes, because HaMeiri, like many of his contemporaries (such as Ibn Magash and Ibn Ezra) was influenced by the same polemical perceptions about Islam spread in High Medieval, Crusader Europe. But the Rambam, because he was the authority who had the most contact with Islam, refuted all the reservations that the previous rabbinic authorities had, which when we read about them now seem hilarious. In fact, Rambam withstood many challenges because of his opinion about Islam, but as the centuries passed, almost all rabbinic authorities ultimately acknowledged his opinion.
Monotheistic... Not according to recent archeological that demonstrate early Jews worshiped a male and a female gof until the sacking of the temple. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/entries/28ab2e0d-0a82-3b84-91cb-2c45033235c2 I'm not one for conspiracy theories, nor am I one for absolutism. If archeological evidence is supporting this, it's something to explore academically. Sorry to all the Abrahamic religions for busting your bubble.
I'm confused. What Jewish or Abrahamic beleive do you think you are challenging? The fact that Jews used to be polytheistic is in the bible. Some Jews might say that Jews were monotheistic and then deviated and returned, which is slightly different than what historians say happened, but it doesn't challenge any core belief of Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion,
I'm not actually challenging anything intensely, only pointing out what we know as a fact, and what many American Abrahamic followers fail to realize or haven't been taught. That is all
I'm telling you that we do know this and have been taught about it. At least Jews are. All Jews will be taught (at least if they learn about the bible) that Jews have never been 100% monotheistic and that there were idols in the temple. Many Jews (including myself) will also be taught that Jewish monotheism developed over time and that the bible itself is not fully monotheistic.
You claimed to be "bursting our bubble." I'm telling you, no, bubbles burst. Also, in your original post, the context made it seem like you were saying that contemporary Jews aren't monotheistic, but then you said we were so IDK.
No…we would prefer to not be relevant. It certainly would mean less of us dying.
Most Jews where taught about the fact that the Tanakh is an ethnicity/nation/peoplehood originating document. We are aware that archeological evidence might look different. It doesn’t make us less Jewish and we’re taught to not take things (including our own scripture at face value)
I think maybe you’re confusing Jews for other faiths that require more absolutism.
Huh? Why would you respond to me like that?
No where did I bring up the war. All I said was Jewish history has shown the “relevance” of Jews to typically lead to death and expulsion.
This is academics. Jews are taught to engage critically with our own texts and we are also taught Jewish history including discussions on archeology. The point being none of what you said changes our perspective nor do we somehow walk around thinking we walked out of the womb monotheistic. Our formation as a people is metaphorically and poetically written down in the Torah. Like other cultures it’s both literature and something to be engaged with critically.
So again. This isn’t “popping” out bubble. I think you’re confusing us with another faith or tradition.
I mention relevance. Of which Jews aren’t looking to be relevant. Not like Christianity and not like Islam are. We are much more in line with Druze and Samaritans in terms of wanting to keep to ourselves.
Yes, praying to a human is idol worship
We ~~can~~ cannot step foot inside of a church. When I was visiting London I went on a tour of St Paul's (technically shouldn't have)
That's very interesting! Is there a similarly standard position on other religions (e.g. Buddhist temples, Hindu mandirs, Chinese ancestor/spirit/sage/god temples), or is it up to the individual? I'm curious since those religions are less similar than Islam, and arguments for being monotheistic/polytheistic could go either way.
>Buddhist temples, Hindu mandirs, Chinese ancestor/spirit/sage/god temples
For those examples we also wouldn't be allowed. Anything with an attempt to physically represent a deity would be considered idol worship
Hi, all of these places that you mentioned are, in principle, forbidden for us to enter, and concerning places of worship that *according to the standards of Jewish law* are monotheistic, in fact, the Islamic mosque is the only place that was discussed positively, therefore, we can say that Islam is the only non-Israelite religion in which a Jew is allowed to enter its places of worship and even pray there.
Another point: The fact that a place has monotheistic worship still doesn't make it **absolutely** permissible for a Jew to pray there. For example, there are a few churches in the world that embrace Biblical Unitarianism, which according to the standards of Jewish law, there may be nothing theoretically preventing entry there. **However, even so**, we still practically have not to enter for fear of an ignorant Gentile who is not familiar with all these details- become confused and think that the Jews have a general relationship with all churches, because we are also obliged to 'avoid suspicion'.
Thanks for all the info!
> the Islamic mosque is the only place that was discussed positively, therefore, we can say that Islam is the only non-Israelite religion in which a Jew is allowed to enter its places of worship and even pray there.
I deeply hope that things like this will help foster the harmony and healing between Jews and Muslims that is sorely needed.
>We can step foot inside of a church, but we cannot pray there. When I was visiting London I went on a tour of St Paul's
**Clarification:** We are not allowed even to step foot into a church.
My position as an architect who studied architectural history. Is I will address that on Yom Kippur. But me being able to study these spaces and see them means I become a better designer.
Also I want to see some of these structural marvels. Like the duomo in Florence was the largest dome at the time and is two domes that interlock so that it’s all supporting itself. I mean. I gots to see that.
I won’t pray there. So at least that’s something.
Jewish law is so strict on this subject that it's not only the church that we must avoid entering, but also the entire town if there is one. So yes, we are **really** not allowed in even for non-religious purposes (such as admiring the architecture), though, regarding your studies, I will have to pass the answer on to your rabbi *(although I'm sure he'll probably say no as long as the issue isn't TOO crucial or he's not Orthodox)*.
I think my rabbi is fine with it. He was very supportive of me being an architect. We’re also reform so it’s less of an issue. I mean if we’re also going off the “don’t enter a town with a church” most of everywhere is a problem even to just live in. So how doable that is in modern day is a question.
>We’re also reform so it’s less of an issue.
Oh, then, there is no issue at all.
>I mean if we’re also going off the “don’t enter a town with a church” most of everywhere is a problem even to just live in. So how doable that is in modern day is a question.
Rambam also told us as Jews that since the idolaters are in charge in this era we are forced to coexist with them but save the original law.
The ruling is that all Jews who live in the diaspora are under a state of duress and thus have no choice in where they live.
Also, many Jews who lived in Christian land did not adopt the position that Christians were idolaters for precisely this reason. Accepting the stance that Christians are idolaters makes living amongst, doing business with, and maintaining peaceful relations incredibly difficult. The most forceful descriptions of Christians as idolaters come from Jews living in the Islamic world. Jewish communities that lived very close to or within Christian communities often took the stance that Christianity was idolatry for Jews, but not fo gentiles. (Becouse the rules of monotheism are stricter for Jews then for gentiles).
>we are **really** not allowed in even for non-religious purposes
I realize this is reddit and not a treatise on halakhah, but the whole topic is more complicated than stated, starting with the question whether Christians and their churches are to be equated to pagans and their temples. Also the statement that we are "not allowed in even for non-religious purposes" should be looked at carefully. There is a whole halakhic literature on entering a church (and/or a church social hall which is not a sanctuary but connected to a sanctuary) for non-religious purposes, like voting, to receive a vaccination, to attend a town hall meeting, to attend an AA meeting, to receive food from a food pantry, and to study "avodah zarah" so that we know what to respond to a heretic.
>I realize this is reddit and not a treatise on halakhah, but the whole topic is way way more complicated than stated
And since it's Reddit and not a treatise for halacha, the most appropriate answer is the most correct or closest to correctness. Redditors here are not interested in dealing with all the halachic literature, rabbinic dialogues, broad and sidelines, rules, and exceptions. Rather, they aspire to straight answers, as they find in other religions, something that, as you know, is rare in Judaism, so we are forced to understand and deal with that.
>in fact, there is a whole halakhic literature on entering a church (and/or a church social hall which is not a sanctuary but connected to a sanctuary) for voting, to receive a vaccination, to attend a town hall meeting, to attend an AA meeting, to receive food from a food pantry
Yes, and that is why I added the rest of the halacha that 'since the idolaters are the ones in charge in this era, we are forced to coexist with them and deal with many things that are naturally prohibited but with saving the original law', and that is also why I referred the answer to their rabbi when they told about their architectural studies because I know there are compelling exceptions, but I don't know how critical their condition is.
Even when I said "non-religious purposes", I did not really intend to include those exceptions but obviously gave the example of a natural condition like "admiring architecture".
But yes, thanks for your useful input.
A couple of points about the topic in its historical context
1. Rabbinic authorities were incredibly pessimistic about the ability of Jews to resist the influence of anything outside of Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism emerged as a remnant of Jewish Civilization. Most of the descendants of the Jews alive at the time of the destruction of the Temple were not Jewish. Especially in the early period of Rabbinic Literature, the Rabbis were in siege mode. You also get a ruling that clearly thinks that many Jewish people cannot be in the presence of gentile women without sleeping with her and similar things to that.
2. The concept of secular tourism was completely non-existent at the time. If you were going to a house of worship, you are going there to worship. The idea of aesthetic appreciation as separate from religious appreciation was not present for the Rabbis. Weddings and funerals were religious worship services, and there was no concept of just "obserbving the service." If you attended a Christian service, you would be pressured to participate, and the Rabbis did not trust the Jewish people of the time to resist the pressure because most of them did not.
Many contemporary authroities have loosened the prohibition to allow for entering a Church to fulfill a civic duty (like voting or attending a town hall) or receive a service (like health care)
Yes, G-d looks at our hearts, and He is the one who commanded us to completely stay away from all places where idols are worshiped, even if we would not enter to worship them, and the Gentiles must not see us as Jews entering such places.
We must preserve our value as a people chosen by the Holy One, blessed be He- to be the furthest souls from corruption.
How would entering cause corruption? I remember my Jewish friend wasn't even willing to walk on the same sidewalk as a church if he was able to avoid it
>How would entering cause corruption?
The simplest example of corruption in our vision when a Jew enters there is that perhaps an ignorant Gentile will notice him and think that the Jews have a relationship with those places or the idols that are worshiped in them.
Actually, even without entering there, the Gentiles already believe that we worship the same deity as them because we are 'Avrahamic'.
>I remember my Jewish friend wasn't even willing to walk on the same sidewalk as a church if he was able to avoid it
Yes, it's that serious and crucial for us. I don't want to surprise you but personally speaking, I wouldn't walk on the same street if I could.
It's not just about that.
If a jew enters to a church and another sees him there, they might think he converted, or maybe non jews will see him and say, look at those jews they also worship whatever inside
It's more that no human is worthy of being prayed to. Only HaShem is worth being prayed to — and trying to create something to resemble their likeness is directly prohibited
I mean it’s venerating a human as a g’d. So no not narcissism. It’s against our theological beliefs to venerate a human as a g’d as we only believe in one g’d that isn’t split into different entities.
Yes, but why is Judaism opposed to idol worship? The story of the golden calf is meant to convey that idol worship leads to madness.
Yet if you go into it more abstractly the concept of a god choosing a people to worship him is itself idol worship, just reversed. In Christianity idol worshipping is also condemned, yet it’s said that Jesus died for the world, so in itself imitating the Jewish god’s call to be worshipped by choosing a people — the difference being that it’s the whole world.
This all seems to be an in-group out-group thing, where every holy thing that is determined to be out of the group is deemed an idol, but also about not choosing an idol, but letting oneself be chosen by one.
Because we are a strict monotheism. We don’t believe in anything but one g’d. So we don’t believe in idol worship as we put g’d above all else.
And our definition of what constitutes idol worship is just not the same as what Christianity allows per its theology because we’re different religions.
Also that’s not the implication of the golden calf story. At least in Jewish theology. The implication wasn’t madness. It was putting another thing above g’d. And for that the Jewish people where punished to wander for 40 years.
Isn’t it that there were orgies around the calf? It was a sort of Dionysian cult. The idols of the ancient world always led to madness, human sacrifice, etc.
I wouldn’t call an Orgy a sign of madness. The issue was venerating something else over g’d. Doing other things that where kind of debaucherous where much less of an issue fundamentally. And also again. For Jews we only have our g’d. Other religions don’t see themselves as idol worshiping. So I wouldn’t go around calling a Hellenistic Pagen crazy or mad because they “idol worshiped”
So? That doesn’t make Polytheists and pagans crazy. Also again I wouldn’t classify consensual sex (I mean barring incest and underage sex) as something that is a sign of madness.
Religious orgies can’t be compared to sex, it’s something else. It’s an erasure of boundaries, a sort of self trashing. That’s why the golden calf is associated with great shame.
not about orgies, the golden calf is a reference to El, often depicted as a bull. Jewish traditions developed partly around distinguishing themselves from other cultures, rivals, neighbors, etc.
the development of why they came to the conclusion against idol worship is long and complex but the abridged summary is at some point the tradition of worshiping in the abstract as opposed to using an image or item to worship became popular and then codified into jewish traditions. they started to develop a strict relationship with Y-WH, and a number of customs that focused on separating from the customs of others grew.
Praying to a human IS idolworship, but that isn't an essential part of Christianity to many modern Christians.
https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg
https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
A couple of things I think are getting missed in some of these comments, so I wanted to bring them up.
> Tikkun Olam is to destroy idol worshipping
The concept of Tikkun Olam has gone so far away from its very specific theological origins that it's become basically a synonym for "good deed." If you think that destroying idol worshipping is a "good deed." then I see how you could easily get to it being an act of tikkun olam. If you don't think it's a good deed (like me), then it's not an act of tikkun olam. As a kid, I thought that tikkun olam was recycling and voting Democrat, I feel like view you heard is the inverse of that. Neither is well supported in the though of HaAri or Hayim Vital.
> because Christians are idol worshippers.
There are two major opinions about this in Judaism, the second of which I think has not been brought up here yet, so I wanted to highlight it.
The first is the view most people on this thread are presenting (which I actually think is actually the minority view amongst Jews, but not among Rabbis who think about this) is that because of the trinity and the incarnation, Christianity is Avodah Zarah (Strange or Foreign Worship) and thus forbidden for everyone. In other words, Christians worship a God that is not the same God as our God, and as such, Jews are restricted from specific business and social relations with Christians. It's important to know that this basically always comes up in the context of regulating the behavior of Jews, not in imposing anything on non-Jews. There is certainly a biblical president for the commandment to rid the land (the land of Israel specifically) of Avodah Zarah, but only extremists think that is a live command in the present.
The other view is that Christianity is Avodah b'Shituf (worship in combination). This is the idea that Christians believe and worship the same God we do, but then also worship Jesus. According to this view, while Christians are incorrect that Jesus is God, Messiah, Son of God, or worthy of worship, the worship of something "along aside" God is not technically prohibited for Gentiles, and thus Christians are not committing Avodah Zarah. This view was always a minority view among Rabbis, mainly because it seems to rellies on thinking Christians subordinate the Son to the Father, which most Christians would strongly reject. However, it means that all of these restrictions on relations with Christians would not apply, so it was widely accepted among Jewish communities that lived among Christianities.
However, this view is clear that Avodah b'Shituf is acceptable for Gentiles; it is forbidden for Jews, and thus a church remains a house of idolatry for Jews.
Out of curiosity, how do these two opinions / concepts that you shared (Avodah Zarah and Avodah b’Shituf) apply to the LDS, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
The LDS 1st Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”
It is the belief that God, the Eternal Father, is quite literally the God of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob / Israel, etc), and that Jesus is his Son and subordinate.
This stands in contrast to beliefs of the Trinity, and it is the believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) are three separate beings who are one in purpose. This is one of the most poignant contradictions that other Christians point to with regard to LDS belief.
How does this apply to both Avodah Zarah and Avodah b’Shituf?
From what I understand, Jesus to the LDS is and functions exactly like or at minimum similar to the Messiah in Jewish belief if he would have been accepted as such. As well, all the functions and activity of Jesus in the messianic era is generally speaking believed to be the same or similar for Jews and LDS, at least as far as my understanding from the Old Testament.
This seems to apply at least directly to the second, Avodah b’Shituf, but I am not sure about that or Avodah Zarah.
I am not very familiar with Hebrew / Jewish belief following the second temple era, or at least that following the Old Testament. I have started some research to connect the dots, but I am starting at the beginning of history and working my way up from a perspective of Hebrew, Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, and other world history, but with regard to each group’s internal beliefs and to secular archaeology historical record. I am trying to see both the biased and unbiased perspectives.
I realize the sensitive nature of my query. Any insight would be much appreciated, and I ask with all due respect and solemnness. Much respect.
Honestly, I don't care that much. I mean, none of these concepts were really part of my jewish upbringing. I only learned about them about 5 years ago. I guess If I had to choose, I think I'd be closer to Shituf because I generally default to believing people when they tell me about their beliefs (in this case, they think they worship the same God as me)
My understanding (which is not extensive) is that Mormonism would receive whatever classification the rest of trinitarian Christianity gets. I understand that whether or not Mormonism is trinitarian is not settled, but from a Jewish perspective, three *things* (whatever you want to call them), sharing the title God, means trinitarianism. Because of Jesus sharing the title of God, and because of Jesus being understood as the "son" of the Father, I think people who beleive mainstream trinitarianism is Avodah Zarah would apply that to Mormonism.
There is at least one opinion from an 18th century Rabbi named Jacob Emden that sees the trinity as only not Avodah Zarah because of the belief in the consubstantial and hypostatic unity of the Godhead (thus not actually three Gods), and therefore, the main problem from a Jewish perspective is the incarnation. He says this mainly to defend concepts of God in Jewish Mysticism that talk about ten emanations or aspects of God (most Kabbalists, however, rejected the analogy). In which case, it seems like Mormonism would be clearly Avodah Zarah in that view, but it's not a well-known opinion.
My understanding, though, is that Mormonism thinks that the Father is a physical body. If that's true, that might put it in the Avodah Zarah category.
I'm skeptical that Jesus functions precisely like the Messiah in Judaism, primarily because the Messiah in Judaism is not in any sense the Son of God and will not die or otherwise leave Earth before finishing the job. But believing in a false messiah does not give gentiles the status of Idolater.
This is all really a theoretical discussion for me. I don't think that the historical circumstances that created the restrictions on interacting with practitioners of Avodah Zarah and entering houses of Avodah Zarah are present anymore, and thus, I don't follow those prohibitions and don't generally think much about if the people I meet are or are not idolaters.
Very interesting. I appreciate the response and insight.
I have been dabbling further into language due to translation issues with regard to scripture, so I have reopened my Latin study as well as started study of Greek and Hebrew so that I can access information from source material etc.
You are right about the LDS belief of God having a physical body, though the three is decidedly different than the Trinity.
The LDS believe Jesus and the Holy Ghost / Spirit to be distinctly separate from God. The LDS outright say we don’t believe in the Trinity, due to these differences. It is similar to the Arians, some Gnostics, and other sects before the Council of Nicaea firmly cemented the Trinity for the majority of other Christians after that, though it is quite a different theology than most of if not all Christians.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this difference between God and the Spirit is different in Judaism as well, though I am not sure.
I figured that the function of Jesus for the LDS and the Messiah in Judaism has differences, hence my addition of “similar”, especially since LDS understanding of Judaism’s Messiah essentially is concluded with only the Old Testament and I would assume that may not be all the information regarding the matter.
As far as the similarities, Jesus doesn’t die or leave again regarding the Messianic era, or the Millennia Era by LDS terms. Though he does do all the things mentioned in the shared portions of the Old Testament. Once I dive deeper into my research I will have a better grasp on the differences, if such is the case.
There is a quote from LDS scripture that points to Judaism functioning as is even within the Millennia / Messiah era, “Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!”
As far as I understand it, in LDS during the Millennial / Messiah era the two faith sort of meld and function in unison, though I have yet plenty of research to do.
And as you said, this is also a theoretical discussion for me too as there are tenets of each faith that I am unsure of regarding the pertinent subjects.
Again, I appreciate your insight and am aware of the sensitive nature of the topics being discussed.
I have an immense amount of respect for Judaism, and your willingness to indulge my questions and curiosities furthers that respect. Many thanks.
>There is at least one opinion from an 18th century Rabbi named Jacob Emden that sees the trinity as only not Avodah Zarah because of the belief in the consubstantial and hypostatic unity of the Godhead (thus not actually three Gods), and therefore, the main problem from a Jewish perspective is the incarnation. He says this mainly to defend concepts of God in Jewish Mysticism that talk about ten emanations or aspects of God (most Kabbalists, however, rejected the analogy).
That's very interesting and seems consistent to me.
If incarnation is problematic, how does Judaism understand revelations of God such as the burning bush or the Ancient of Days? Or the Angel of G-d who is sometimes interchangeable with G-d himself in Scripture?
I would agree mostly with what u/nadivofgoshen, although I would argue that there are traditions that are very similar to incarnation in Judaism but never of people. The burning bush might be one of them, but that is probably closer to a theophany. The angel encounter stories are read as allegorical; either the whole thing is allegorical, or the confusion in the text is because the angel is a representative of God (in some contemporary literature, it is the contention to refer to the messenger of a King by the King's name, so it's that sort of deal).
The closest thing that I think could be called incarnation is the Torah itself, which in Proverbs is pre-existent and the partner of God in creation, and then in later literature (party because God cannot have a partner in creation) becomes a manifestation of God themself. There are parrelels of this in Islamic Theology too I believe.
If you want a really deep dive into this, check out this article:
Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God by Elloit Wolfson.
[](https://ucsb.academia.edu/ElliotWolfson?swp=tc-au-3326960)
>The closest thing that I think could be called incarnation is the Torah itself, which in Proverbs is pre-existent and the partner of God in creation, and then in later literature (party because God cannot have a partner in creation) becomes a manifestation of God themself. There are parrelels of this in Islamic Theology too I believe.
This is very similar to in Christianity where we understand the incarnation to be of the Word of God, through whom God created the world, and is in some sense unique from the Father, while still being God.
Yes, the big difference is that we take the "word" part of this very literally, and while many traditions and theological consider the Torah as an extension of God, we do not worship the Torah or refer to it by the title God. Also, I should just state this because I forgot to do it before, this is an area where Judaism is completely non-dogmatic. Many would firmly reject this tradition, others accept it but both are within the tent of Judaism.
There is a difference between 'manifestation' in Judaism and 'incarnation' in Yeshuism. Manifestation doesn't benefit unity (neither outwardly nor inwardly). Rather, G-d remains a separate being from in which He manifested, but only reveals Himself through it.
Therefore the result becomes also different, as the result of the Yeshuist incarnation is that Yeshu is divine and human, whereas the Jewish bush was always and remained a bush.
>Or the Angel of G-d who is sometimes interchangeable with G-d himself in Scripture?
Angels in Judaism are angels, messengers that G-d uses as instruments to speak on his behalf.
>From what I understand, Jesus to the LDS is and functions exactly like or at minimum similar to the Messiah in Jewish belief
Not really, the Moshiach is not a Son of G-d nor he's even divine.
He won't preach 'Gospels' and will not redeem humanity from 'Original Sin'. And when he dies, he dies, and will not rise again or return after that.
Regarding Avodah Zarah or Avodah b'Shituf, when assuming the legitimacy of Avodah b'Shituf in the first place, the Mormons are closer to Avodah b'Shituf *(even closer to it than mainstream Christians)*. But in any case, it was a medieval intellectual attempt and is no longer widely considered by rabbinical authorities. Either monotheism or nothing.
Interesting. I appreciate the insight.
As I said in an above response, I am working on my Latin, Greek, and Hebrew language studies, so that I can work with source material.
I figured there would be difference regarding the LDS belief of Jesus and the Judaism belief of the Moshiach. The similarities would only be those as mentioned in the shared portions of Old Testament.
As for the, other portions of the discussion, I kind of figured the LDS would be reckoned in a way similar to what you mentioned.
I don’t really know much beyond the shared Old Testament, though I plan on delving further to gain knowledge and insight.
I look forward to further study. I have immense respect for Judaism, and appreciate your willingness to discuss such sensitive matters. Many thanks.
No, I do not think so. Noachides have no special halakhic status in Judaism. They were made up in the 70s. Noachides are gentiles, and whatever is permissible for gentiles is permissible for them
I'm not talking about the modern movement, but rather the faith identity of Bnei Noach, the Gerei Toshavim, the righteous among the nations who have adhered to the Seven Mitzvot since ancient times. They must first be straightened out about faith in HaShem to adhere to the rest of the mitzvot.
Believing that HaShem is dual, triune, quaternary, or that Yeshu is G-d corrupts your faith as a Ben Noach.
[Rabbi Tovia Singer also responded to this question and said that if it's not a matter of extreme concern then he must not step foot either.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxtKivEf50&t=188s)
>Noachides have no special halakhic status in Judaism
Then, read Melachim uMilchamot (c. 8-10) in Mishneh Torah.
It’s far worse than you think. It’s not just the Jesus stuff. Look at Roman Catholics in places like South America. They have many statues of the Saints & Virgin Mary. They pray and light candles to them and have all this stuff in their church. There’s many people there that admit they have seen not Jesus nor G-D but the Virgin Mary…
But yes your right I’ve never stepped foot in a church & never will but I would be perfectly fine with going to Mosque and praying there.
I was going to say that Jewish rules are for Jews but I forgot the Noahide rules of which the top of the list is no idol worship..... so yeah. They are idolators according to Jewish custom.
I’m gunna be honest and say I know very, very little about Islam. However I am certain Allah & Hashem (G-D) is the same G-D of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. I know very prominent Rabbi’s who have said the same too.
It’s also very well known that if Jews were forced between Islam v Christianity we would almost always pick Islam.
So there’s a classical Jewish answer to this; the traditional ruling is that going into a church is avodah zara (idol worship, essentially, at least from the perspective of Jews being opposed to it) whereas going into a mosque is not. Islamic prayer does NOT fulfill the Jewish obligation to pray three times a day and so it was held that there’s nothing meritorious about going to a mosque but there’s nothing theologically WRONG with Islam.
Muslims and Christians both THINK they worship the same God as Jews, the God of Abraham. So regardless of what the three religions think of each other, in the eyes of the worshippers themselves, they are all worshipping the same God.
>Isn’t Allah a different god?
"Allah" literally means 'G-d' in Arabic, and not really, they worship our G-d.
If what Muslims worship was a different deity to us, we would not be allowed to pray in their places of worship.
>His mandate is different: Sharia, different inheritance laws, prohibition of loans at interest, polygamy.
We still do not believe that He legislated these enactments.
They believe that Abraham was a Muslim and that the Jews veered from the path. That’s to say, that Mohamed received the same word that Abraham did, while Jews and Christians were corrupted.
But where does the mandate come from? Abraham did not submit to the same god Mohamed did, even if that’s what’s claimed. The beliefs are different.
It’s all well and good to acknowledge there’s only one god, but this god can be attributed any values and laws.
It depends on the individual "Christian". The word has historically meant so many different things to so many different people.
Check out these two videos of a Rabbi's take on this specific subject.
https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg
https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
It's not about what we think, it's about what it says in Scripture. By all definitions, modern Christianity is not just idol worship but also flips the commandments and in many cases, does the complete opposite of everything the bible instructed. Rebels without a cause.
The belief in a divine trinity is an idolatrous concept, since it is a belief that God (or according to some, a second separate divinity) has characteristic features, and the characteristics of a body.
It’s idol worship for us, but a perfectly respectable choice for anyone else.
For what it’s worth I don’t personally object to people worshipping graven images or representations of the divine. But our religion mandates we relate strictly to the formless Gd.
No absolutely not. This is blatantly untrue and over the line.
Not all religions or peoples want to destroy others. Implying somehow Jews would if given enough power slaughter a bunch of people and kill them all in the name of our religion, frankly feels like it fuels bigotry and antisemitism against Jews.
Don’t speak for us. Especially when what you have to say will engender people to actually perpetuate harm against us.
Sometimes it’s better to not speak when you know you don’t have knowledge on something.
A few fringe weirdos saying “burn it all” does not a mainstream opinion make. And as such it shouldn’t be justification for somehow either keeping Jews a smaller people or fueling antisemitism.
Also just because Jews see human veneration as idol worship doesn’t mean squat for anyone else. It just means Jews can’t pray in a church.
So yes I’m right. And don’t speak for us.
You did.
You said “I think most Jews don’t like Christianity at all”
You said “if Jews had enough power today they would probably do the same thing again” (in reference to us slaughtering people if we’re too “powerful”
And then you proceeded to site two Haredi Jewish rabbis who are not considered mainstream majority opinions for all of the Jews around the world and then implied that the goal Jews would have would be to destroy Christian houses of worship.
You did say one thing right. You don’t know enough about Judaism. So don’t speak for us or act like you understand us and our perspectives. Jews really don’t think too much about other religions. Yes there are things about Christianity we don’t like (specifically the parts that are predicated on antisemitism, like supersessionism and replacement theology) but otherwise as long as we’re left alone we don’t care.
Don’t speak for others. Especially when it encourages people to hate the group your speaking on behalf of.
Do you know how many antisemites I have heard use that reason to justify their hatred? Answer, a lot. And the justification isn’t just not liking us. It most often results in mass casualty events.
Fair but that doesn’t mean his opinion is a majority held opinion and you shouldn’t be speaking on what Jews believe or don’t believe.
You’re not us and you don’t have enough knowledge on Jewish perspectives to speak for us either.
The real issue here was you implying jews would somehow slaughter people if we get too powerful. That’s so gross.
Take the critique and do better next time. You’re not improving your case here as you already stepped over the line.
Tikkun Olam doesn't require any individual address idol worship, as far as I know. Tikkun olam typically refers to acts one can do to benefit society. Presumably, in Jewish tradition, if the world was fully repaired, everyone would worship their god, which would eliminate idol worship.
Believing a human man is the literal son of God and worshipping him is idol worship to us, yes. However, this belief did not come about until way after Jesus' death and is primarily the product of attempting to convey Jewish concepts through a gentile pagan lense. The sect of Jesus wasn't really anything unique during the era in which it emerged. It diverged extremely when they brought in this whole "grafting gentiles into the new covenant" nonsense. Jewish members were overshadowed and the beliefs derived from this sect rapidly took a very non-Jewish turn.
> It diverged extremely when they brought in this whole "grafting gentiles into the new covenant" nonsense. This happened pretty early on. Paul's mission to the Gentiles probably started in the early 50's and the book of Acts talks about Gentile converts prior to that. Even earlier if you count the Samaritans.
>Gentile converts prior to that. Even earlier if you count the Samaritans. And both are not Jewish, so yes, it's understandable where you got this stuff from.
I understand that Samaritans are not Jews. In the New Testament they are not really depicted as Gentiles either, so I don't know how you view them.
>so I don't know how you view them. Gentile Israelites.
Pretty great addition. I wouldn't count the Samaritans as addressing those who had priority only known idolatry. People like Jesus would have regarded the Samaritans as Jews. They might have been viewed in Jesus time and region as step-siblings of mixed parentage but they were people Jesus was trying to incorporate into Judaism. https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc In fact, I gave over the majority of my new preface* to correcting my own fatal error in the original -- not taking the Samaritan claims of Jewish ancestry as seriously as I should have. ________ * To the 20th Anniversary Edition of my series on Exotic Jewish History https://ydydy.substack.com/p/exotic-jewish-history-20th-anniversary
I’d say anti-Jewish
I'm astonished and impressed to read someone who actually knows this. I'm a Rabbi who lectures on these subjects and I think you might enjoy these. https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc Also, here's my substack. Be blessed. https://ydydy.substack.com/
> this belief did not come about until way after Jesus' death and is primarily the product of attempting to convey Jewish concepts through a gentile pagan lense. These things are consistently taught throughout the New Testament (most of which we believe were written by Jewish individuals). The Gospel of Matthew is very clearly a writing from a Jew primarily directed towards a Jewish audience (this is something scholars largely agree on). Matthew constantly mentions texts from the Hebrew Scriptures connecting them to Jesus. Such as when the Father says during the baptism of Jesus “This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased” (which strongly appears to be based on Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1). John the Baptist is also described as being “a voice calling in the wilderness” and a “messenger” “preparing the way of the Lord”. Matthew (and the other Gospels) mean this as John preparing the way for Jesus, yet the verses they cite (Isaiah 40:3-5 and Malachi 3:1) were talking about the Lord God having the way prepared for Him. Thus using Hebrew verses to equate Jesus to God. We have a pretty good idea that the things we believe about Jesus matches the things He taught Himself. The [epistle of Polycarp](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm) was written by a student of the apostle John (who was as close to Christ as can be) and the Christology of the writing matches our modern one (alongside recognizing various New Testament books as Scripture, which also clearly teach these things).
Jews believe Christianity is idol worship FOR THEM (Jews). Jews are strict monotheists. Jews do not necessarily believe Christianity is idol worship for CHRISTIANS. Christians proclaim they are monotheist and the Trinity is "one God." No, Jews don't understand the concept but it seems to Jews that Christians can't explain it either. Hence looking at Christianity, Jews see one God with two partners who assist him, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not acceptable for Jews (hence we stay out of churches) but marginally ok for Christians. Sort of monotheism with training wheels. Jews call this partnership "shituf." I've heard Muslims hold a similar view regarding Christianity.
The Meiri says it’s not at all The Rambam says it’s completely assur (even for them) (old manuscripts which were later changed)
>The Meiri says it’s not at all Yes, because HaMeiri, like many of his contemporaries (such as Ibn Magash and Ibn Ezra) was influenced by the same polemical perceptions about Islam spread in High Medieval, Crusader Europe. But the Rambam, because he was the authority who had the most contact with Islam, refuted all the reservations that the previous rabbinic authorities had, which when we read about them now seem hilarious. In fact, Rambam withstood many challenges because of his opinion about Islam, but as the centuries passed, almost all rabbinic authorities ultimately acknowledged his opinion.
Monotheistic... Not according to recent archeological that demonstrate early Jews worshiped a male and a female gof until the sacking of the temple. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/entries/28ab2e0d-0a82-3b84-91cb-2c45033235c2 I'm not one for conspiracy theories, nor am I one for absolutism. If archeological evidence is supporting this, it's something to explore academically. Sorry to all the Abrahamic religions for busting your bubble.
Monotheism is something that developed overtime . 5,000 years is a long time
Yep. Thank you for adding that timeline.
Sorry, I said Jews "are," present tense. What has that got to do with archeology?
No. I hear you mate. But do you realize how few Jews, Christians, and Muslims in America know this?
I was literally taught this in Jewish School. I don't know why you think it challenges anything
... Because most Jews in America practice monotheism and believe it's the context for their relevance...
I'm confused. What Jewish or Abrahamic beleive do you think you are challenging? The fact that Jews used to be polytheistic is in the bible. Some Jews might say that Jews were monotheistic and then deviated and returned, which is slightly different than what historians say happened, but it doesn't challenge any core belief of Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion,
I'm not actually challenging anything intensely, only pointing out what we know as a fact, and what many American Abrahamic followers fail to realize or haven't been taught. That is all
I'm telling you that we do know this and have been taught about it. At least Jews are. All Jews will be taught (at least if they learn about the bible) that Jews have never been 100% monotheistic and that there were idols in the temple. Many Jews (including myself) will also be taught that Jewish monotheism developed over time and that the bible itself is not fully monotheistic. You claimed to be "bursting our bubble." I'm telling you, no, bubbles burst. Also, in your original post, the context made it seem like you were saying that contemporary Jews aren't monotheistic, but then you said we were so IDK.
Well... You could make a mint doing a tour of synagogues and churches across the states. Edit: of course contemporary Jews are monotheistic.
I'm not following the train of this conversation at all.
No…we would prefer to not be relevant. It certainly would mean less of us dying. Most Jews where taught about the fact that the Tanakh is an ethnicity/nation/peoplehood originating document. We are aware that archeological evidence might look different. It doesn’t make us less Jewish and we’re taught to not take things (including our own scripture at face value) I think maybe you’re confusing Jews for other faiths that require more absolutism.
Nope. Also I don't excuse what happened 90 to 80 years ago... Just like I don't excuse 8 or 9 months ago. So let's stick to the academics.
Huh? Why would you respond to me like that? No where did I bring up the war. All I said was Jewish history has shown the “relevance” of Jews to typically lead to death and expulsion. This is academics. Jews are taught to engage critically with our own texts and we are also taught Jewish history including discussions on archeology. The point being none of what you said changes our perspective nor do we somehow walk around thinking we walked out of the womb monotheistic. Our formation as a people is metaphorically and poetically written down in the Torah. Like other cultures it’s both literature and something to be engaged with critically. So again. This isn’t “popping” out bubble. I think you’re confusing us with another faith or tradition.
You said dying. We're having a discussion and you mention that ... Persecution... So we can talk persecution if you want...
I mention relevance. Of which Jews aren’t looking to be relevant. Not like Christianity and not like Islam are. We are much more in line with Druze and Samaritans in terms of wanting to keep to ourselves.
The Tanach records us worshiping idols and being bad. That wasn’t the real religion. Sorry to burst your religion bursting bubble
I mean you didn't. You just proved my point. I didn't realize this was a fight against the entire Zionist Jewish movement here.
Wdym?
Yes, praying to a human is idol worship We ~~can~~ cannot step foot inside of a church. When I was visiting London I went on a tour of St Paul's (technically shouldn't have)
How is stepping inside of a mosque seen?
Completely fine
That's very interesting! Is there a similarly standard position on other religions (e.g. Buddhist temples, Hindu mandirs, Chinese ancestor/spirit/sage/god temples), or is it up to the individual? I'm curious since those religions are less similar than Islam, and arguments for being monotheistic/polytheistic could go either way.
>Buddhist temples, Hindu mandirs, Chinese ancestor/spirit/sage/god temples For those examples we also wouldn't be allowed. Anything with an attempt to physically represent a deity would be considered idol worship
Hi, all of these places that you mentioned are, in principle, forbidden for us to enter, and concerning places of worship that *according to the standards of Jewish law* are monotheistic, in fact, the Islamic mosque is the only place that was discussed positively, therefore, we can say that Islam is the only non-Israelite religion in which a Jew is allowed to enter its places of worship and even pray there. Another point: The fact that a place has monotheistic worship still doesn't make it **absolutely** permissible for a Jew to pray there. For example, there are a few churches in the world that embrace Biblical Unitarianism, which according to the standards of Jewish law, there may be nothing theoretically preventing entry there. **However, even so**, we still practically have not to enter for fear of an ignorant Gentile who is not familiar with all these details- become confused and think that the Jews have a general relationship with all churches, because we are also obliged to 'avoid suspicion'.
Thanks for all the info! > the Islamic mosque is the only place that was discussed positively, therefore, we can say that Islam is the only non-Israelite religion in which a Jew is allowed to enter its places of worship and even pray there. I deeply hope that things like this will help foster the harmony and healing between Jews and Muslims that is sorely needed.
No it’s not. The Rambam only says it’s ok not ideally
And mainstream contemporary rabbinic authorities acknowledge it.
Not even for a wedding or a funeral of a friend?
In these cases, we rely on our friends' actual knowledge that we are Jews and cannot come.
>We can step foot inside of a church, but we cannot pray there. When I was visiting London I went on a tour of St Paul's **Clarification:** We are not allowed even to step foot into a church.
Oops. I guess that's what Yom Kippur is for... :(
Sorry, mate, Halacha is Halacha!
No need to apologize! Thems the rules — I now have an extra thing to feel bad about during Yom Kippur
My position as an architect who studied architectural history. Is I will address that on Yom Kippur. But me being able to study these spaces and see them means I become a better designer. Also I want to see some of these structural marvels. Like the duomo in Florence was the largest dome at the time and is two domes that interlock so that it’s all supporting itself. I mean. I gots to see that. I won’t pray there. So at least that’s something.
A fellow Yom Kippur feel-bader 🤝
Jewish law is so strict on this subject that it's not only the church that we must avoid entering, but also the entire town if there is one. So yes, we are **really** not allowed in even for non-religious purposes (such as admiring the architecture), though, regarding your studies, I will have to pass the answer on to your rabbi *(although I'm sure he'll probably say no as long as the issue isn't TOO crucial or he's not Orthodox)*.
I think my rabbi is fine with it. He was very supportive of me being an architect. We’re also reform so it’s less of an issue. I mean if we’re also going off the “don’t enter a town with a church” most of everywhere is a problem even to just live in. So how doable that is in modern day is a question.
>We’re also reform so it’s less of an issue. Oh, then, there is no issue at all. >I mean if we’re also going off the “don’t enter a town with a church” most of everywhere is a problem even to just live in. So how doable that is in modern day is a question. Rambam also told us as Jews that since the idolaters are in charge in this era we are forced to coexist with them but save the original law.
Haha fair enough.
Even in medieval Europe, how were you supposed to live or do business in any major town?
The ruling is that all Jews who live in the diaspora are under a state of duress and thus have no choice in where they live. Also, many Jews who lived in Christian land did not adopt the position that Christians were idolaters for precisely this reason. Accepting the stance that Christians are idolaters makes living amongst, doing business with, and maintaining peaceful relations incredibly difficult. The most forceful descriptions of Christians as idolaters come from Jews living in the Islamic world. Jewish communities that lived very close to or within Christian communities often took the stance that Christianity was idolatry for Jews, but not fo gentiles. (Becouse the rules of monotheism are stricter for Jews then for gentiles).
>we are **really** not allowed in even for non-religious purposes I realize this is reddit and not a treatise on halakhah, but the whole topic is more complicated than stated, starting with the question whether Christians and their churches are to be equated to pagans and their temples. Also the statement that we are "not allowed in even for non-religious purposes" should be looked at carefully. There is a whole halakhic literature on entering a church (and/or a church social hall which is not a sanctuary but connected to a sanctuary) for non-religious purposes, like voting, to receive a vaccination, to attend a town hall meeting, to attend an AA meeting, to receive food from a food pantry, and to study "avodah zarah" so that we know what to respond to a heretic.
>I realize this is reddit and not a treatise on halakhah, but the whole topic is way way more complicated than stated And since it's Reddit and not a treatise for halacha, the most appropriate answer is the most correct or closest to correctness. Redditors here are not interested in dealing with all the halachic literature, rabbinic dialogues, broad and sidelines, rules, and exceptions. Rather, they aspire to straight answers, as they find in other religions, something that, as you know, is rare in Judaism, so we are forced to understand and deal with that. >in fact, there is a whole halakhic literature on entering a church (and/or a church social hall which is not a sanctuary but connected to a sanctuary) for voting, to receive a vaccination, to attend a town hall meeting, to attend an AA meeting, to receive food from a food pantry Yes, and that is why I added the rest of the halacha that 'since the idolaters are the ones in charge in this era, we are forced to coexist with them and deal with many things that are naturally prohibited but with saving the original law', and that is also why I referred the answer to their rabbi when they told about their architectural studies because I know there are compelling exceptions, but I don't know how critical their condition is. Even when I said "non-religious purposes", I did not really intend to include those exceptions but obviously gave the example of a natural condition like "admiring architecture". But yes, thanks for your useful input.
Even as a kid who grew up in a secular home, where my parents had no problem visiting churches as tourists, I always felt it's wrong.
But why? Stepping in a church doesn't make you christian, doesn't God look at the heart? What is the reason of this?
A couple of points about the topic in its historical context 1. Rabbinic authorities were incredibly pessimistic about the ability of Jews to resist the influence of anything outside of Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism emerged as a remnant of Jewish Civilization. Most of the descendants of the Jews alive at the time of the destruction of the Temple were not Jewish. Especially in the early period of Rabbinic Literature, the Rabbis were in siege mode. You also get a ruling that clearly thinks that many Jewish people cannot be in the presence of gentile women without sleeping with her and similar things to that. 2. The concept of secular tourism was completely non-existent at the time. If you were going to a house of worship, you are going there to worship. The idea of aesthetic appreciation as separate from religious appreciation was not present for the Rabbis. Weddings and funerals were religious worship services, and there was no concept of just "obserbving the service." If you attended a Christian service, you would be pressured to participate, and the Rabbis did not trust the Jewish people of the time to resist the pressure because most of them did not. Many contemporary authroities have loosened the prohibition to allow for entering a Church to fulfill a civic duty (like voting or attending a town hall) or receive a service (like health care)
That makes sense.
Thanks
That’s interesting reply and it kinda takes a different approach than the other one, one that I personally can resonate more.
Yes, G-d looks at our hearts, and He is the one who commanded us to completely stay away from all places where idols are worshiped, even if we would not enter to worship them, and the Gentiles must not see us as Jews entering such places. We must preserve our value as a people chosen by the Holy One, blessed be He- to be the furthest souls from corruption.
Right, I remember, thanks
How would entering cause corruption? I remember my Jewish friend wasn't even willing to walk on the same sidewalk as a church if he was able to avoid it
>How would entering cause corruption? The simplest example of corruption in our vision when a Jew enters there is that perhaps an ignorant Gentile will notice him and think that the Jews have a relationship with those places or the idols that are worshiped in them. Actually, even without entering there, the Gentiles already believe that we worship the same deity as them because we are 'Avrahamic'. >I remember my Jewish friend wasn't even willing to walk on the same sidewalk as a church if he was able to avoid it Yes, it's that serious and crucial for us. I don't want to surprise you but personally speaking, I wouldn't walk on the same street if I could.
Ah gotcha thank you for answering
It's not just about that. If a jew enters to a church and another sees him there, they might think he converted, or maybe non jews will see him and say, look at those jews they also worship whatever inside
Is the belief that praying to a human causes narcissism?
It's more that no human is worthy of being prayed to. Only HaShem is worth being prayed to — and trying to create something to resemble their likeness is directly prohibited
I mean it’s venerating a human as a g’d. So no not narcissism. It’s against our theological beliefs to venerate a human as a g’d as we only believe in one g’d that isn’t split into different entities.
Yes, but why is Judaism opposed to idol worship? The story of the golden calf is meant to convey that idol worship leads to madness. Yet if you go into it more abstractly the concept of a god choosing a people to worship him is itself idol worship, just reversed. In Christianity idol worshipping is also condemned, yet it’s said that Jesus died for the world, so in itself imitating the Jewish god’s call to be worshipped by choosing a people — the difference being that it’s the whole world. This all seems to be an in-group out-group thing, where every holy thing that is determined to be out of the group is deemed an idol, but also about not choosing an idol, but letting oneself be chosen by one.
Because we are a strict monotheism. We don’t believe in anything but one g’d. So we don’t believe in idol worship as we put g’d above all else. And our definition of what constitutes idol worship is just not the same as what Christianity allows per its theology because we’re different religions. Also that’s not the implication of the golden calf story. At least in Jewish theology. The implication wasn’t madness. It was putting another thing above g’d. And for that the Jewish people where punished to wander for 40 years.
Isn’t it that there were orgies around the calf? It was a sort of Dionysian cult. The idols of the ancient world always led to madness, human sacrifice, etc.
I wouldn’t call an Orgy a sign of madness. The issue was venerating something else over g’d. Doing other things that where kind of debaucherous where much less of an issue fundamentally. And also again. For Jews we only have our g’d. Other religions don’t see themselves as idol worshiping. So I wouldn’t go around calling a Hellenistic Pagen crazy or mad because they “idol worshiped”
Dionysus was known as the god of wine and madness. Orgies were used to induce religious ecstasy, that’s where the association is to the calf.
It’s very likely that at the time the Golden Calf story was written the Hebrew scribes had no knowledge of Greek religion.
So? That doesn’t make Polytheists and pagans crazy. Also again I wouldn’t classify consensual sex (I mean barring incest and underage sex) as something that is a sign of madness.
Religious orgies can’t be compared to sex, it’s something else. It’s an erasure of boundaries, a sort of self trashing. That’s why the golden calf is associated with great shame.
not about orgies, the golden calf is a reference to El, often depicted as a bull. Jewish traditions developed partly around distinguishing themselves from other cultures, rivals, neighbors, etc. the development of why they came to the conclusion against idol worship is long and complex but the abridged summary is at some point the tradition of worshiping in the abstract as opposed to using an image or item to worship became popular and then codified into jewish traditions. they started to develop a strict relationship with Y-WH, and a number of customs that focused on separating from the customs of others grew.
Praying to a human IS idolworship, but that isn't an essential part of Christianity to many modern Christians. https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
A couple of things I think are getting missed in some of these comments, so I wanted to bring them up. > Tikkun Olam is to destroy idol worshipping The concept of Tikkun Olam has gone so far away from its very specific theological origins that it's become basically a synonym for "good deed." If you think that destroying idol worshipping is a "good deed." then I see how you could easily get to it being an act of tikkun olam. If you don't think it's a good deed (like me), then it's not an act of tikkun olam. As a kid, I thought that tikkun olam was recycling and voting Democrat, I feel like view you heard is the inverse of that. Neither is well supported in the though of HaAri or Hayim Vital. > because Christians are idol worshippers. There are two major opinions about this in Judaism, the second of which I think has not been brought up here yet, so I wanted to highlight it. The first is the view most people on this thread are presenting (which I actually think is actually the minority view amongst Jews, but not among Rabbis who think about this) is that because of the trinity and the incarnation, Christianity is Avodah Zarah (Strange or Foreign Worship) and thus forbidden for everyone. In other words, Christians worship a God that is not the same God as our God, and as such, Jews are restricted from specific business and social relations with Christians. It's important to know that this basically always comes up in the context of regulating the behavior of Jews, not in imposing anything on non-Jews. There is certainly a biblical president for the commandment to rid the land (the land of Israel specifically) of Avodah Zarah, but only extremists think that is a live command in the present. The other view is that Christianity is Avodah b'Shituf (worship in combination). This is the idea that Christians believe and worship the same God we do, but then also worship Jesus. According to this view, while Christians are incorrect that Jesus is God, Messiah, Son of God, or worthy of worship, the worship of something "along aside" God is not technically prohibited for Gentiles, and thus Christians are not committing Avodah Zarah. This view was always a minority view among Rabbis, mainly because it seems to rellies on thinking Christians subordinate the Son to the Father, which most Christians would strongly reject. However, it means that all of these restrictions on relations with Christians would not apply, so it was widely accepted among Jewish communities that lived among Christianities. However, this view is clear that Avodah b'Shituf is acceptable for Gentiles; it is forbidden for Jews, and thus a church remains a house of idolatry for Jews.
Out of curiosity, how do these two opinions / concepts that you shared (Avodah Zarah and Avodah b’Shituf) apply to the LDS, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? The LDS 1st Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” It is the belief that God, the Eternal Father, is quite literally the God of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob / Israel, etc), and that Jesus is his Son and subordinate. This stands in contrast to beliefs of the Trinity, and it is the believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) are three separate beings who are one in purpose. This is one of the most poignant contradictions that other Christians point to with regard to LDS belief. How does this apply to both Avodah Zarah and Avodah b’Shituf? From what I understand, Jesus to the LDS is and functions exactly like or at minimum similar to the Messiah in Jewish belief if he would have been accepted as such. As well, all the functions and activity of Jesus in the messianic era is generally speaking believed to be the same or similar for Jews and LDS, at least as far as my understanding from the Old Testament. This seems to apply at least directly to the second, Avodah b’Shituf, but I am not sure about that or Avodah Zarah. I am not very familiar with Hebrew / Jewish belief following the second temple era, or at least that following the Old Testament. I have started some research to connect the dots, but I am starting at the beginning of history and working my way up from a perspective of Hebrew, Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, and other world history, but with regard to each group’s internal beliefs and to secular archaeology historical record. I am trying to see both the biased and unbiased perspectives. I realize the sensitive nature of my query. Any insight would be much appreciated, and I ask with all due respect and solemnness. Much respect.
Honestly, I don't care that much. I mean, none of these concepts were really part of my jewish upbringing. I only learned about them about 5 years ago. I guess If I had to choose, I think I'd be closer to Shituf because I generally default to believing people when they tell me about their beliefs (in this case, they think they worship the same God as me) My understanding (which is not extensive) is that Mormonism would receive whatever classification the rest of trinitarian Christianity gets. I understand that whether or not Mormonism is trinitarian is not settled, but from a Jewish perspective, three *things* (whatever you want to call them), sharing the title God, means trinitarianism. Because of Jesus sharing the title of God, and because of Jesus being understood as the "son" of the Father, I think people who beleive mainstream trinitarianism is Avodah Zarah would apply that to Mormonism. There is at least one opinion from an 18th century Rabbi named Jacob Emden that sees the trinity as only not Avodah Zarah because of the belief in the consubstantial and hypostatic unity of the Godhead (thus not actually three Gods), and therefore, the main problem from a Jewish perspective is the incarnation. He says this mainly to defend concepts of God in Jewish Mysticism that talk about ten emanations or aspects of God (most Kabbalists, however, rejected the analogy). In which case, it seems like Mormonism would be clearly Avodah Zarah in that view, but it's not a well-known opinion. My understanding, though, is that Mormonism thinks that the Father is a physical body. If that's true, that might put it in the Avodah Zarah category. I'm skeptical that Jesus functions precisely like the Messiah in Judaism, primarily because the Messiah in Judaism is not in any sense the Son of God and will not die or otherwise leave Earth before finishing the job. But believing in a false messiah does not give gentiles the status of Idolater. This is all really a theoretical discussion for me. I don't think that the historical circumstances that created the restrictions on interacting with practitioners of Avodah Zarah and entering houses of Avodah Zarah are present anymore, and thus, I don't follow those prohibitions and don't generally think much about if the people I meet are or are not idolaters.
Very interesting. I appreciate the response and insight. I have been dabbling further into language due to translation issues with regard to scripture, so I have reopened my Latin study as well as started study of Greek and Hebrew so that I can access information from source material etc. You are right about the LDS belief of God having a physical body, though the three is decidedly different than the Trinity. The LDS believe Jesus and the Holy Ghost / Spirit to be distinctly separate from God. The LDS outright say we don’t believe in the Trinity, due to these differences. It is similar to the Arians, some Gnostics, and other sects before the Council of Nicaea firmly cemented the Trinity for the majority of other Christians after that, though it is quite a different theology than most of if not all Christians. It wouldn’t surprise me if this difference between God and the Spirit is different in Judaism as well, though I am not sure. I figured that the function of Jesus for the LDS and the Messiah in Judaism has differences, hence my addition of “similar”, especially since LDS understanding of Judaism’s Messiah essentially is concluded with only the Old Testament and I would assume that may not be all the information regarding the matter. As far as the similarities, Jesus doesn’t die or leave again regarding the Messianic era, or the Millennia Era by LDS terms. Though he does do all the things mentioned in the shared portions of the Old Testament. Once I dive deeper into my research I will have a better grasp on the differences, if such is the case. There is a quote from LDS scripture that points to Judaism functioning as is even within the Millennia / Messiah era, “Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!” As far as I understand it, in LDS during the Millennial / Messiah era the two faith sort of meld and function in unison, though I have yet plenty of research to do. And as you said, this is also a theoretical discussion for me too as there are tenets of each faith that I am unsure of regarding the pertinent subjects. Again, I appreciate your insight and am aware of the sensitive nature of the topics being discussed. I have an immense amount of respect for Judaism, and your willingness to indulge my questions and curiosities furthers that respect. Many thanks.
>There is at least one opinion from an 18th century Rabbi named Jacob Emden that sees the trinity as only not Avodah Zarah because of the belief in the consubstantial and hypostatic unity of the Godhead (thus not actually three Gods), and therefore, the main problem from a Jewish perspective is the incarnation. He says this mainly to defend concepts of God in Jewish Mysticism that talk about ten emanations or aspects of God (most Kabbalists, however, rejected the analogy). That's very interesting and seems consistent to me. If incarnation is problematic, how does Judaism understand revelations of God such as the burning bush or the Ancient of Days? Or the Angel of G-d who is sometimes interchangeable with G-d himself in Scripture?
I would agree mostly with what u/nadivofgoshen, although I would argue that there are traditions that are very similar to incarnation in Judaism but never of people. The burning bush might be one of them, but that is probably closer to a theophany. The angel encounter stories are read as allegorical; either the whole thing is allegorical, or the confusion in the text is because the angel is a representative of God (in some contemporary literature, it is the contention to refer to the messenger of a King by the King's name, so it's that sort of deal). The closest thing that I think could be called incarnation is the Torah itself, which in Proverbs is pre-existent and the partner of God in creation, and then in later literature (party because God cannot have a partner in creation) becomes a manifestation of God themself. There are parrelels of this in Islamic Theology too I believe. If you want a really deep dive into this, check out this article: Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God by Elloit Wolfson. [](https://ucsb.academia.edu/ElliotWolfson?swp=tc-au-3326960)
>The closest thing that I think could be called incarnation is the Torah itself, which in Proverbs is pre-existent and the partner of God in creation, and then in later literature (party because God cannot have a partner in creation) becomes a manifestation of God themself. There are parrelels of this in Islamic Theology too I believe. This is very similar to in Christianity where we understand the incarnation to be of the Word of God, through whom God created the world, and is in some sense unique from the Father, while still being God.
Yes, the big difference is that we take the "word" part of this very literally, and while many traditions and theological consider the Torah as an extension of God, we do not worship the Torah or refer to it by the title God. Also, I should just state this because I forgot to do it before, this is an area where Judaism is completely non-dogmatic. Many would firmly reject this tradition, others accept it but both are within the tent of Judaism.
There is a difference between 'manifestation' in Judaism and 'incarnation' in Yeshuism. Manifestation doesn't benefit unity (neither outwardly nor inwardly). Rather, G-d remains a separate being from in which He manifested, but only reveals Himself through it. Therefore the result becomes also different, as the result of the Yeshuist incarnation is that Yeshu is divine and human, whereas the Jewish bush was always and remained a bush. >Or the Angel of G-d who is sometimes interchangeable with G-d himself in Scripture? Angels in Judaism are angels, messengers that G-d uses as instruments to speak on his behalf.
>From what I understand, Jesus to the LDS is and functions exactly like or at minimum similar to the Messiah in Jewish belief Not really, the Moshiach is not a Son of G-d nor he's even divine. He won't preach 'Gospels' and will not redeem humanity from 'Original Sin'. And when he dies, he dies, and will not rise again or return after that. Regarding Avodah Zarah or Avodah b'Shituf, when assuming the legitimacy of Avodah b'Shituf in the first place, the Mormons are closer to Avodah b'Shituf *(even closer to it than mainstream Christians)*. But in any case, it was a medieval intellectual attempt and is no longer widely considered by rabbinical authorities. Either monotheism or nothing.
Interesting. I appreciate the insight. As I said in an above response, I am working on my Latin, Greek, and Hebrew language studies, so that I can work with source material. I figured there would be difference regarding the LDS belief of Jesus and the Judaism belief of the Moshiach. The similarities would only be those as mentioned in the shared portions of Old Testament. As for the, other portions of the discussion, I kind of figured the LDS would be reckoned in a way similar to what you mentioned. I don’t really know much beyond the shared Old Testament, though I plan on delving further to gain knowledge and insight. I look forward to further study. I have immense respect for Judaism, and appreciate your willingness to discuss such sensitive matters. Many thanks.
>and thus a church remains a house of idolatry for Jews. And for Noachides.
No, I do not think so. Noachides have no special halakhic status in Judaism. They were made up in the 70s. Noachides are gentiles, and whatever is permissible for gentiles is permissible for them
I'm not talking about the modern movement, but rather the faith identity of Bnei Noach, the Gerei Toshavim, the righteous among the nations who have adhered to the Seven Mitzvot since ancient times. They must first be straightened out about faith in HaShem to adhere to the rest of the mitzvot. Believing that HaShem is dual, triune, quaternary, or that Yeshu is G-d corrupts your faith as a Ben Noach. [Rabbi Tovia Singer also responded to this question and said that if it's not a matter of extreme concern then he must not step foot either.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxtKivEf50&t=188s) >Noachides have no special halakhic status in Judaism Then, read Melachim uMilchamot (c. 8-10) in Mishneh Torah.
It’s far worse than you think. It’s not just the Jesus stuff. Look at Roman Catholics in places like South America. They have many statues of the Saints & Virgin Mary. They pray and light candles to them and have all this stuff in their church. There’s many people there that admit they have seen not Jesus nor G-D but the Virgin Mary… But yes your right I’ve never stepped foot in a church & never will but I would be perfectly fine with going to Mosque and praying there.
Everything that you mention is by far not exclusive to South America, but to literally everywhere that Catholicism is present.
I was going to say that Jewish rules are for Jews but I forgot the Noahide rules of which the top of the list is no idol worship..... so yeah. They are idolators according to Jewish custom.
It’s kind of interesting, a lot of Protestants think Catholics are false Christians for the same reason.
Isn’t Allah a different god? His mandate is different: Sharia, different inheritance laws, prohibition of loans at interest, polygamy.
I’m gunna be honest and say I know very, very little about Islam. However I am certain Allah & Hashem (G-D) is the same G-D of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. I know very prominent Rabbi’s who have said the same too. It’s also very well known that if Jews were forced between Islam v Christianity we would almost always pick Islam.
So there’s a classical Jewish answer to this; the traditional ruling is that going into a church is avodah zara (idol worship, essentially, at least from the perspective of Jews being opposed to it) whereas going into a mosque is not. Islamic prayer does NOT fulfill the Jewish obligation to pray three times a day and so it was held that there’s nothing meritorious about going to a mosque but there’s nothing theologically WRONG with Islam.
Muslims and Christians both THINK they worship the same God as Jews, the God of Abraham. So regardless of what the three religions think of each other, in the eyes of the worshippers themselves, they are all worshipping the same God.
>Isn’t Allah a different god? "Allah" literally means 'G-d' in Arabic, and not really, they worship our G-d. If what Muslims worship was a different deity to us, we would not be allowed to pray in their places of worship. >His mandate is different: Sharia, different inheritance laws, prohibition of loans at interest, polygamy. We still do not believe that He legislated these enactments.
So Allah is legitimate but the Quran is not?
The Quran specifically says many times that Allah is the God of Israel. However, we don't accept the Quran.
They believe that Abraham was a Muslim and that the Jews veered from the path. That’s to say, that Mohamed received the same word that Abraham did, while Jews and Christians were corrupted.
I know what they believe. That the reason why we don't agree with the Quran
We believe Abraham was a Muslim in that he submitted himself to God completely, the literal definition of the word “Muslim”.
But where does the mandate come from? Abraham did not submit to the same god Mohamed did, even if that’s what’s claimed. The beliefs are different. It’s all well and good to acknowledge there’s only one god, but this god can be attributed any values and laws.
Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the One God and Creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews are on the same page regarding this concept.
But who knows the values of this god?
According to our beliefs, yes.
It depends on the individual "Christian". The word has historically meant so many different things to so many different people. Check out these two videos of a Rabbi's take on this specific subject. https://youtu.be/vKyqMk1tnVg https://youtu.be/U1Ua7XolInc
It's not about what we think, it's about what it says in Scripture. By all definitions, modern Christianity is not just idol worship but also flips the commandments and in many cases, does the complete opposite of everything the bible instructed. Rebels without a cause.
Yes because in Judaism g-d is not human, nor he is three, or divided into three, he is one and only .
The belief in a divine trinity is an idolatrous concept, since it is a belief that God (or according to some, a second separate divinity) has characteristic features, and the characteristics of a body.
It’s idol worship for us, but a perfectly respectable choice for anyone else. For what it’s worth I don’t personally object to people worshipping graven images or representations of the divine. But our religion mandates we relate strictly to the formless Gd.
Yep exactly.
[удалено]
> I don’t really know much about the Jewish religion And it shows! So why then answer and repeat some antisemitic tropes if you haven’t got a clue?
No absolutely not. This is blatantly untrue and over the line. Not all religions or peoples want to destroy others. Implying somehow Jews would if given enough power slaughter a bunch of people and kill them all in the name of our religion, frankly feels like it fuels bigotry and antisemitism against Jews. Don’t speak for us. Especially when what you have to say will engender people to actually perpetuate harm against us. Sometimes it’s better to not speak when you know you don’t have knowledge on something.
[удалено]
A few fringe weirdos saying “burn it all” does not a mainstream opinion make. And as such it shouldn’t be justification for somehow either keeping Jews a smaller people or fueling antisemitism. Also just because Jews see human veneration as idol worship doesn’t mean squat for anyone else. It just means Jews can’t pray in a church. So yes I’m right. And don’t speak for us.
[удалено]
You did. You said “I think most Jews don’t like Christianity at all” You said “if Jews had enough power today they would probably do the same thing again” (in reference to us slaughtering people if we’re too “powerful” And then you proceeded to site two Haredi Jewish rabbis who are not considered mainstream majority opinions for all of the Jews around the world and then implied that the goal Jews would have would be to destroy Christian houses of worship. You did say one thing right. You don’t know enough about Judaism. So don’t speak for us or act like you understand us and our perspectives. Jews really don’t think too much about other religions. Yes there are things about Christianity we don’t like (specifically the parts that are predicated on antisemitism, like supersessionism and replacement theology) but otherwise as long as we’re left alone we don’t care. Don’t speak for others. Especially when it encourages people to hate the group your speaking on behalf of. Do you know how many antisemites I have heard use that reason to justify their hatred? Answer, a lot. And the justification isn’t just not liking us. It most often results in mass casualty events.
[удалено]
Fair but that doesn’t mean his opinion is a majority held opinion and you shouldn’t be speaking on what Jews believe or don’t believe. You’re not us and you don’t have enough knowledge on Jewish perspectives to speak for us either. The real issue here was you implying jews would somehow slaughter people if we get too powerful. That’s so gross. Take the critique and do better next time. You’re not improving your case here as you already stepped over the line.