Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

The Jewish Roots of Christianity

by Julie Clawson 03-10-2010 | 4:00pm
Print
39 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

I was intrigued recently over a story I saw on the news about a Chicago man who faces possible jail time for taking his daughter to church. Apparently in the custody settlement with his ex-wife (a Jew), Joseph Reyes (a Catholic) was barred from exposing this daughter to anything but the Jewish faith. He then very publicly took his daughter to church and is now facing potential jail time for that act. While strong arguments could be made in this particular case that this man acted like a jerk and that custody rulings are often unfair to fathers, what I find most fascinating is the argument he is using in his defense. Basically, Reyes argues that he did not break any court order since Catholicism is a derivative of Judaism. He asserts that he simply exposed his daughter to the teachings of the greatest Jewish rabbi ever.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I saw his lawyer make that assertion in a TV interview, and the reporter could barely hold it together, saying "what idiot fed you that line?" The lawyer simply said that most Christian theologians would say that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, to which the reporter said something along the lines of "good luck with that."

On the human level, I wish these parents weren't using their daughter as a pawn in their bitterness and revenge games. I also don't claim to understand the struggles parents of differing traditions face in choosing how to expose their children to the diversity of their faiths. But on a theoretical level, I am interested in how this has played out. I know that the theological emphasis on the historical roots of Christianity is fairly recent, and that a willingness to see Jesus as the Jewish rabbi he was has been slow to emerge. But one would think there are enough of those cheesy "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter" bumper stickers around that the wider culture would catch on that Christians are finally acknowledging our roots. I honestly don't know of any Christian who wouldn't say that our faith is based in Judaism, worships the same God, and treasures at least some of the same scriptures (it is a very different story when it comes to acknowledging the mutual roots of our faith with those who practice Islam).

Granted, most of the public perception of Christians is that of hate-filled crusaders fighting to keep away those that are not exactly like them. Since there is such a poor history in how Christians have interacted with Jews in the past, no wonder people would be surprised to hear a Christian claim roots in Judaism (especially for such manipulative ends). I doubt this case will spark real theological dialogue, but I find myself wondering what can (or should) be done to help promote our commonalities. Christianity cannot be understood apart from Judaism (wouldn't exist apart from it). How can that best be discussed in the wider culture without prompting displays of incredulity?

Julie Clawson is the author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

39 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 9:38pm

Violating a restraining order from the court is hardly the voice of reason. I've read the story from both sides and the wife told the husband she wouldn't marry him unless he converted, which he did. He wasn't a Catholic when they married and it was only after they separated that his Catholicism seemed to mean so much to him. He knew how much her religion meant to her and that is why I believe he violated a court order in such a public way.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 11:30pm

The interview connected with the story link above seemed to be more explanatory as to his actions. From experience I know these issues can be tricky. Having married a divorced Catholic, I was pretty much welcomed by his family and expelled from my own.

I was desperate for acceptance especially after kids came along and would have done anything to make my husband somehow be acceptable. It took us 30 years before we realized the damage it did to our marriage and family to be stuck in this never ending and unwinnable scenario.

I also believe in these circumstances, it is the party with the most money and best lawyers that win these battles. According to this dad, civil disobedience was the most expedient way to force fair and equitable treatment of his parenting rights.

It appears that Rebecca did not practice her faith any more than he his prior to their seperation, and that his conversion had been an expedient way to get the in-laws off his back and out of their marriage. (I can deeply relate to this scenario which is why it may ring true to me)

Since it is all heresay and I wasn't there, I can only hope, a judge will assess both parents as adequate to making decisions about their child's social and cultural upbringing and it won't be an either or situation.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:53am

The father obviously underwent a forced conversion, which was recanted when the reason for it was removed.

Whatever additional "forced conversion" to Judaism was involved in the "settlement" this time concerning his daughter echoes so well the too-often typical Islamic/Judaism Middle Eastern intolerant response to Christianity, whether in Arab countries or Israel. Both religions' legalistic practitioners have a strong antipathy towards Christianity and Christ, sometimes to the point of intolerance and bigotry. How often have I heard snide remarks about Jesus' supposed illegitimacy and references to Him as "Jesus-Bar-Joseph" (Joseph's bastard)? Yet Christians in America or other western nations don't issue Fatwahs calling for anyone's death as do some Islamic religious leaders when much less is imputed to Mohammed than the sort of "Piss Christ" artwork that is extolled by some in our midst.

When it's a crime to tell your own child about Jesus in these United States of America, the law has gone too far in mixing government and religion. Such unconstitutional agreements ought to be as null and void and unenforceable as a "legal" agreement to sell your self into slavery is.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 5:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: automatic email responder

03-11-2010 @ 10:17am

automatic email responder...

Great post, bookmarked...

by: SPatel13

08-12-2010 @ 12:52pm

To Kawasaki- You completely distorted the facts. Joseph Reyes did not convert to Judaism to marry Rebecca Shapiro-Reyes. He did not convert until after their daughter was born, near the end of the marriage, primarily to save the marriage. Rebecca comes across as wholly manipulative (see 20/20 interview), so I am inclined to believe that she was coercive in getting him to convert.

I also think that calling in the media, and challenging the order was his only play. The Cook County court system is really corrupt, and Rebecca's father (the VP of Playboy) is incredibly politically connected (an aspect of the story that has not received enough attention). Having read the published court documents, every dirty legal tactic was being used against Joseph. Plus, three Jewish judges, all friends of Rebecca's family, were assigned to this case. As judges are to be randomly assigned, 1.) it is statistically impossible that such a thing would occur, and 2.) the judges should have recused themselves.

by: rankin

04-17-2010 @ 6:33pm

Dear Friends,
My name is Rankin Fisher. I have asked Vasu Murti to quit using my name for anything, as he has never in the twenty years he has been quoting me, been correct.

Finally, here is the actual description of the quote Vasu has mauled for years...
I was singing for a Methodist concert festival. The Methodist Bishop was preaching. He said 'Wesley said of his new church that 'We worship Jesus as GOD; but we follow the rules of St. Paul''.
So make of this what you will. Also, I was NEVER a Minister. I preached a little when I was 14, that's all.

Dear Vasu, please stop using my name in any of your materials!

Signed, Rankin Fisher.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:43pm

I agree, though I would point out that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in this case. I can't imagine that the reason the father loudly and publicly took his daughter to mass was just to expose her to an important rabbi. It just reeks of disingenuousness and I suspect that is what the reporter was reacting to.
Yes we have common roots, which we ought to nurture and explore. I'm a HUGE supporter of ecumenism in its most radical form. But those explorations need to be done with mutual respect, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

by: ckgmail

03-10-2010 @ 2:35pm

I think Julie is not arguing the legal merits of the lawyer's claim. The branch point is so far back in history that it would be difficult to argue that the man was really faithful to the intent of the custody settlement. It would be something like an Anglican-Methodist couple who agreed a child would only be taken to an Anglican church. Then the Methodist takes her to a Methodist church. After all, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, much more recently than Christianity is an offshoot of Hebrew religion. But the reporter in the incident seemed to be oblivious of the historical roots of Christianity in Hebrew religion. I would hold that both Christianity and Judaism have common roots in Hebrew religion.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:14pm

I would agree that indeed we Christians are the younger brothers in faith of Judaism. The rabbinic branch from which all modern Judaism springs dates a century or so before Jesus's ministry, depending on how one defines it.
Of course this is a ridiculous legal strategy since we Christians consciously and explicitly rejected Judaism (we don't call it the "Old Covenant" for nothing). To say nothing of the appalling history of antisemitism, which we have only begun to address in the last 60 years or so. So claiming that taking someone to Mass is the same as taking them synagogue, ummm no, not really.
By that reasoning, Protestants are really Catholics, Catholics are really Eastern Orthodox, Muslims are really Jews and Christians, U.S. Americans are really British, and Latin Americans are really Spanish.

by: makarios

03-10-2010 @ 4:56pm

Ya, kawaski has it right. This guy was trying to hurt someone (in this case his wife) and like too many before him, he was using religion to get it done. In reality, it is only followers of Jesus who are real Jews, real sons and daughters of Abraham. A point lost to the lawyer and if his hatred is any indication, lost on the father as well.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 4:27pm

The man didn't just take his daughter to church. He had her baptized. In light of a history of Catholics forcing baptisms on Jews I don't think this should be taken lightly. This man didn't do something he believed to be a continuation of Judaism. He did something to alienate his daughter from her Jewish lineage. And to spite his ex-wife in the process.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 7:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 5:19pm

If we were to carefully study the teachings and words of Jesus, we would see how often he quoted Old Testament, word for word as he responded to the people of his day. We absolutely cannot say Christianity is a new religion but a fulfillment of what the Old Testament taught about and proclaimed through prophets and history. Yay for having equal voice as a parent and for enriching a daughter's life by doing such. Hopefully all rancor and bitterness and angst can be kept from this father's voice as he discusses the ramifications of his decision with his child.

BTW Baptism is a uniquely Jewish custom, which Jesus was following.

by: squeaky

03-10-2010 @ 6:09pm

Actually, he may have used religion, but what he was really using was his own daughter. And that's the very sad, sad reality of the situation.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 6:46pm

So I clicked on this story and read the dad's interview. He seems to me, the voice of reason. I see an entirely different spin as to the why he did this, and I see his primary concern is to be a good father.

I encourage everyone to fully read his remarks in the story link above.

by: diomedea

03-12-2010 @ 12:34am

Interestingly enough, the author of "a Very Short Introduction to Judaism", Norman Solomon, writes that modern Judaism is actually the younger brother to Christianity, which is an older sect of Judaism. The distinctive form of modern Judaism was created after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

I do not approve of the father bringing "religion" into the custody struggle, but I also do not approve of the courts preventing him from introducing his daughter to Jesus. What on earth was going on there?

by: VasuMurti

03-11-2010 @ 8:36pm

Jesus was Jewish -- Paul invented Christianity.

The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said:

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.

I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 10:25pm

It's the version that was printed when this first happened a while back. At that time he admitted he had converted to Judaism.

Also, what was the urgency for getting his daughter baptized? Why violate a court order and invite the press if it was just him being a good father caring about his daughter's spiritual life?

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 9:57pm

You must have read a different version of the story than me.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 9:38pm

Violating a restraining order from the court is hardly the voice of reason. I've read the story from both sides and the wife told the husband she wouldn't marry him unless he converted, which he did. He wasn't a Catholic when they married and it was only after they separated that his Catholicism seemed to mean so much to him. He knew how much her religion meant to her and that is why I believe he violated a court order in such a public way.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:53am

The father obviously underwent a forced conversion, which was recanted when the reason for it was removed.

Whatever additional "forced conversion" to Judaism was involved in the "settlement" this time concerning his daughter echoes so well the too-often typical Islamic/Judaism Middle Eastern intolerant response to Christianity, whether in Arab countries or Israel. Both religions' legalistic practitioners have a strong antipathy towards Christianity and Christ, sometimes to the point of intolerance and bigotry. How often have I heard snide remarks about Jesus' supposed illegitimacy and references to Him as "Jesus-Bar-Joseph" (Joseph's bastard)? Yet Christians in America or other western nations don't issue Fatwahs calling for anyone's death as do some Islamic religious leaders when much less is imputed to Mohammed than the sort of "Piss Christ" artwork that is extolled by some in our midst.

When it's a crime to tell your own child about Jesus in these United States of America, the law has gone too far in mixing government and religion. Such unconstitutional agreements ought to be as null and void and unenforceable as a "legal" agreement to sell your self into slavery is.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 11:30pm

The interview connected with the story link above seemed to be more explanatory as to his actions. From experience I know these issues can be tricky. Having married a divorced Catholic, I was pretty much welcomed by his family and expelled from my own.

I was desperate for acceptance especially after kids came along and would have done anything to make my husband somehow be acceptable. It took us 30 years before we realized the damage it did to our marriage and family to be stuck in this never ending and unwinnable scenario.

I also believe in these circumstances, it is the party with the most money and best lawyers that win these battles. According to this dad, civil disobedience was the most expedient way to force fair and equitable treatment of his parenting rights.

It appears that Rebecca did not practice her faith any more than he his prior to their seperation, and that his conversion had been an expedient way to get the in-laws off his back and out of their marriage. (I can deeply relate to this scenario which is why it may ring true to me)

Since it is all heresay and I wasn't there, I can only hope, a judge will assess both parents as adequate to making decisions about their child's social and cultural upbringing and it won't be an either or situation.

by: SPatel13

08-12-2010 @ 12:52pm

To Kawasaki- You completely distorted the facts. Joseph Reyes did not convert to Judaism to marry Rebecca Shapiro-Reyes. He did not convert until after their daughter was born, near the end of the marriage, primarily to save the marriage. Rebecca comes across as wholly manipulative (see 20/20 interview), so I am inclined to believe that she was coercive in getting him to convert.

I also think that calling in the media, and challenging the order was his only play. The Cook County court system is really corrupt, and Rebecca's father (the VP of Playboy) is incredibly politically connected (an aspect of the story that has not received enough attention). Having read the published court documents, every dirty legal tactic was being used against Joseph. Plus, three Jewish judges, all friends of Rebecca's family, were assigned to this case. As judges are to be randomly assigned, 1.) it is statistically impossible that such a thing would occur, and 2.) the judges should have recused themselves.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:43pm

I agree, though I would point out that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in this case. I can't imagine that the reason the father loudly and publicly took his daughter to mass was just to expose her to an important rabbi. It just reeks of disingenuousness and I suspect that is what the reporter was reacting to.
Yes we have common roots, which we ought to nurture and explore. I'm a HUGE supporter of ecumenism in its most radical form. But those explorations need to be done with mutual respect, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 5:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: ckgmail

03-10-2010 @ 2:35pm

I think Julie is not arguing the legal merits of the lawyer's claim. The branch point is so far back in history that it would be difficult to argue that the man was really faithful to the intent of the custody settlement. It would be something like an Anglican-Methodist couple who agreed a child would only be taken to an Anglican church. Then the Methodist takes her to a Methodist church. After all, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, much more recently than Christianity is an offshoot of Hebrew religion. But the reporter in the incident seemed to be oblivious of the historical roots of Christianity in Hebrew religion. I would hold that both Christianity and Judaism have common roots in Hebrew religion.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:14pm

I would agree that indeed we Christians are the younger brothers in faith of Judaism. The rabbinic branch from which all modern Judaism springs dates a century or so before Jesus's ministry, depending on how one defines it.
Of course this is a ridiculous legal strategy since we Christians consciously and explicitly rejected Judaism (we don't call it the "Old Covenant" for nothing). To say nothing of the appalling history of antisemitism, which we have only begun to address in the last 60 years or so. So claiming that taking someone to Mass is the same as taking them synagogue, ummm no, not really.
By that reasoning, Protestants are really Catholics, Catholics are really Eastern Orthodox, Muslims are really Jews and Christians, U.S. Americans are really British, and Latin Americans are really Spanish.

by: makarios

03-10-2010 @ 4:56pm

Ya, kawaski has it right. This guy was trying to hurt someone (in this case his wife) and like too many before him, he was using religion to get it done. In reality, it is only followers of Jesus who are real Jews, real sons and daughters of Abraham. A point lost to the lawyer and if his hatred is any indication, lost on the father as well.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 4:27pm

The man didn't just take his daughter to church. He had her baptized. In light of a history of Catholics forcing baptisms on Jews I don't think this should be taken lightly. This man didn't do something he believed to be a continuation of Judaism. He did something to alienate his daughter from her Jewish lineage. And to spite his ex-wife in the process.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 5:19pm

If we were to carefully study the teachings and words of Jesus, we would see how often he quoted Old Testament, word for word as he responded to the people of his day. We absolutely cannot say Christianity is a new religion but a fulfillment of what the Old Testament taught about and proclaimed through prophets and history. Yay for having equal voice as a parent and for enriching a daughter's life by doing such. Hopefully all rancor and bitterness and angst can be kept from this father's voice as he discusses the ramifications of his decision with his child.

BTW Baptism is a uniquely Jewish custom, which Jesus was following.

by: squeaky

03-10-2010 @ 6:09pm

Actually, he may have used religion, but what he was really using was his own daughter. And that's the very sad, sad reality of the situation.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 6:46pm

So I clicked on this story and read the dad's interview. He seems to me, the voice of reason. I see an entirely different spin as to the why he did this, and I see his primary concern is to be a good father.

I encourage everyone to fully read his remarks in the story link above.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 7:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: rankin

04-17-2010 @ 6:33pm

Dear Friends,
My name is Rankin Fisher. I have asked Vasu Murti to quit using my name for anything, as he has never in the twenty years he has been quoting me, been correct.

Finally, here is the actual description of the quote Vasu has mauled for years...
I was singing for a Methodist concert festival. The Methodist Bishop was preaching. He said 'Wesley said of his new church that 'We worship Jesus as GOD; but we follow the rules of St. Paul''.
So make of this what you will. Also, I was NEVER a Minister. I preached a little when I was 14, that's all.

Dear Vasu, please stop using my name in any of your materials!

Signed, Rankin Fisher.

by: diomedea

03-12-2010 @ 12:34am

Interestingly enough, the author of "a Very Short Introduction to Judaism", Norman Solomon, writes that modern Judaism is actually the younger brother to Christianity, which is an older sect of Judaism. The distinctive form of modern Judaism was created after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

I do not approve of the father bringing "religion" into the custody struggle, but I also do not approve of the courts preventing him from introducing his daughter to Jesus. What on earth was going on there?

by: VasuMurti

03-11-2010 @ 8:36pm

Jesus was Jewish -- Paul invented Christianity.

The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said:

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.

I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 10:25pm

It's the version that was printed when this first happened a while back. At that time he admitted he had converted to Judaism.

Also, what was the urgency for getting his daughter baptized? Why violate a court order and invite the press if it was just him being a good father caring about his daughter's spiritual life?

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 9:57pm

You must have read a different version of the story than me.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:14pm

I would agree that indeed we Christians are the younger brothers in faith of Judaism. The rabbinic branch from which all modern Judaism springs dates a century or so before Jesus's ministry, depending on how one defines it.
Of course this is a ridiculous legal strategy since we Christians consciously and explicitly rejected Judaism (we don't call it the "Old Covenant" for nothing). To say nothing of the appalling history of antisemitism, which we have only begun to address in the last 60 years or so. So claiming that taking someone to Mass is the same as taking them synagogue, ummm no, not really.
By that reasoning, Protestants are really Catholics, Catholics are really Eastern Orthodox, Muslims are really Jews and Christians, U.S. Americans are really British, and Latin Americans are really Spanish.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:14pm

I would agree that indeed we Christians are the younger brothers in faith of Judaism. The rabbinic branch from which all modern Judaism springs dates a century or so before Jesus's ministry, depending on how one defines it.
Of course this is a ridiculous legal strategy since we Christians consciously and explicitly rejected Judaism (we don't call it the "Old Covenant" for nothing). To say nothing of the appalling history of antisemitism, which we have only begun to address in the last 60 years or so. So claiming that taking someone to Mass is the same as taking them synagogue, ummm no, not really.
By that reasoning, Protestants are really Catholics, Catholics are really Eastern Orthodox, Muslims are really Jews and Christians, U.S. Americans are really British, and Latin Americans are really Spanish.

by: ckgmail

03-10-2010 @ 2:35pm

I think Julie is not arguing the legal merits of the lawyer's claim. The branch point is so far back in history that it would be difficult to argue that the man was really faithful to the intent of the custody settlement. It would be something like an Anglican-Methodist couple who agreed a child would only be taken to an Anglican church. Then the Methodist takes her to a Methodist church. After all, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, much more recently than Christianity is an offshoot of Hebrew religion. But the reporter in the incident seemed to be oblivious of the historical roots of Christianity in Hebrew religion. I would hold that both Christianity and Judaism have common roots in Hebrew religion.

by: ckgmail

03-10-2010 @ 2:35pm

I think Julie is not arguing the legal merits of the lawyer's claim. The branch point is so far back in history that it would be difficult to argue that the man was really faithful to the intent of the custody settlement. It would be something like an Anglican-Methodist couple who agreed a child would only be taken to an Anglican church. Then the Methodist takes her to a Methodist church. After all, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, much more recently than Christianity is an offshoot of Hebrew religion. But the reporter in the incident seemed to be oblivious of the historical roots of Christianity in Hebrew religion. I would hold that both Christianity and Judaism have common roots in Hebrew religion.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:43pm

I agree, though I would point out that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in this case. I can't imagine that the reason the father loudly and publicly took his daughter to mass was just to expose her to an important rabbi. It just reeks of disingenuousness and I suspect that is what the reporter was reacting to.
Yes we have common roots, which we ought to nurture and explore. I'm a HUGE supporter of ecumenism in its most radical form. But those explorations need to be done with mutual respect, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

by: histrogeek

03-10-2010 @ 2:43pm

I agree, though I would point out that the reporter was probably closer to the truth in this case. I can't imagine that the reason the father loudly and publicly took his daughter to mass was just to expose her to an important rabbi. It just reeks of disingenuousness and I suspect that is what the reporter was reacting to.
Yes we have common roots, which we ought to nurture and explore. I'm a HUGE supporter of ecumenism in its most radical form. But those explorations need to be done with mutual respect, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 4:27pm

The man didn't just take his daughter to church. He had her baptized. In light of a history of Catholics forcing baptisms on Jews I don't think this should be taken lightly. This man didn't do something he believed to be a continuation of Judaism. He did something to alienate his daughter from her Jewish lineage. And to spite his ex-wife in the process.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 4:27pm

The man didn't just take his daughter to church. He had her baptized. In light of a history of Catholics forcing baptisms on Jews I don't think this should be taken lightly. This man didn't do something he believed to be a continuation of Judaism. He did something to alienate his daughter from her Jewish lineage. And to spite his ex-wife in the process.

by: makarios

03-10-2010 @ 4:56pm

Ya, kawaski has it right. This guy was trying to hurt someone (in this case his wife) and like too many before him, he was using religion to get it done. In reality, it is only followers of Jesus who are real Jews, real sons and daughters of Abraham. A point lost to the lawyer and if his hatred is any indication, lost on the father as well.

by: makarios

03-10-2010 @ 4:56pm

Ya, kawaski has it right. This guy was trying to hurt someone (in this case his wife) and like too many before him, he was using religion to get it done. In reality, it is only followers of Jesus who are real Jews, real sons and daughters of Abraham. A point lost to the lawyer and if his hatred is any indication, lost on the father as well.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 5:19pm

If we were to carefully study the teachings and words of Jesus, we would see how often he quoted Old Testament, word for word as he responded to the people of his day. We absolutely cannot say Christianity is a new religion but a fulfillment of what the Old Testament taught about and proclaimed through prophets and history. Yay for having equal voice as a parent and for enriching a daughter's life by doing such. Hopefully all rancor and bitterness and angst can be kept from this father's voice as he discusses the ramifications of his decision with his child.

BTW Baptism is a uniquely Jewish custom, which Jesus was following.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 5:19pm

If we were to carefully study the teachings and words of Jesus, we would see how often he quoted Old Testament, word for word as he responded to the people of his day. We absolutely cannot say Christianity is a new religion but a fulfillment of what the Old Testament taught about and proclaimed through prophets and history. Yay for having equal voice as a parent and for enriching a daughter's life by doing such. Hopefully all rancor and bitterness and angst can be kept from this father's voice as he discusses the ramifications of his decision with his child.

BTW Baptism is a uniquely Jewish custom, which Jesus was following.

by: squeaky

03-10-2010 @ 6:09pm

Actually, he may have used religion, but what he was really using was his own daughter. And that's the very sad, sad reality of the situation.

by: squeaky

03-10-2010 @ 6:09pm

Actually, he may have used religion, but what he was really using was his own daughter. And that's the very sad, sad reality of the situation.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 6:46pm

So I clicked on this story and read the dad's interview. He seems to me, the voice of reason. I see an entirely different spin as to the why he did this, and I see his primary concern is to be a good father.

I encourage everyone to fully read his remarks in the story link above.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 6:46pm

So I clicked on this story and read the dad's interview. He seems to me, the voice of reason. I see an entirely different spin as to the why he did this, and I see his primary concern is to be a good father.

I encourage everyone to fully read his remarks in the story link above.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 9:38pm

Violating a restraining order from the court is hardly the voice of reason. I've read the story from both sides and the wife told the husband she wouldn't marry him unless he converted, which he did. He wasn't a Catholic when they married and it was only after they separated that his Catholicism seemed to mean so much to him. He knew how much her religion meant to her and that is why I believe he violated a court order in such a public way.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 9:38pm

Violating a restraining order from the court is hardly the voice of reason. I've read the story from both sides and the wife told the husband she wouldn't marry him unless he converted, which he did. He wasn't a Catholic when they married and it was only after they separated that his Catholicism seemed to mean so much to him. He knew how much her religion meant to her and that is why I believe he violated a court order in such a public way.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 9:57pm

You must have read a different version of the story than me.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 9:57pm

You must have read a different version of the story than me.

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 10:25pm

It's the version that was printed when this first happened a while back. At that time he admitted he had converted to Judaism.

Also, what was the urgency for getting his daughter baptized? Why violate a court order and invite the press if it was just him being a good father caring about his daughter's spiritual life?

by: kawaski

03-10-2010 @ 10:25pm

It's the version that was printed when this first happened a while back. At that time he admitted he had converted to Judaism.

Also, what was the urgency for getting his daughter baptized? Why violate a court order and invite the press if it was just him being a good father caring about his daughter's spiritual life?

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 11:30pm

The interview connected with the story link above seemed to be more explanatory as to his actions. From experience I know these issues can be tricky. Having married a divorced Catholic, I was pretty much welcomed by his family and expelled from my own.

I was desperate for acceptance especially after kids came along and would have done anything to make my husband somehow be acceptable. It took us 30 years before we realized the damage it did to our marriage and family to be stuck in this never ending and unwinnable scenario.

I also believe in these circumstances, it is the party with the most money and best lawyers that win these battles. According to this dad, civil disobedience was the most expedient way to force fair and equitable treatment of his parenting rights.

It appears that Rebecca did not practice her faith any more than he his prior to their seperation, and that his conversion had been an expedient way to get the in-laws off his back and out of their marriage. (I can deeply relate to this scenario which is why it may ring true to me)

Since it is all heresay and I wasn't there, I can only hope, a judge will assess both parents as adequate to making decisions about their child's social and cultural upbringing and it won't be an either or situation.

by: liberalinlove

03-10-2010 @ 11:30pm

The interview connected with the story link above seemed to be more explanatory as to his actions. From experience I know these issues can be tricky. Having married a divorced Catholic, I was pretty much welcomed by his family and expelled from my own.

I was desperate for acceptance especially after kids came along and would have done anything to make my husband somehow be acceptable. It took us 30 years before we realized the damage it did to our marriage and family to be stuck in this never ending and unwinnable scenario.

I also believe in these circumstances, it is the party with the most money and best lawyers that win these battles. According to this dad, civil disobedience was the most expedient way to force fair and equitable treatment of his parenting rights.

It appears that Rebecca did not practice her faith any more than he his prior to their seperation, and that his conversion had been an expedient way to get the in-laws off his back and out of their marriage. (I can deeply relate to this scenario which is why it may ring true to me)

Since it is all heresay and I wasn't there, I can only hope, a judge will assess both parents as adequate to making decisions about their child's social and cultural upbringing and it won't be an either or situation.

by: automatic email responder

03-11-2010 @ 10:17am

automatic email responder...

Great post, bookmarked...

by: VasuMurti

03-11-2010 @ 8:36pm

Jesus was Jewish -- Paul invented Christianity.

The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said:

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.

I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

by: VasuMurti

03-11-2010 @ 8:36pm

Jesus was Jewish -- Paul invented Christianity.

The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said:

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.

I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

by: diomedea

03-12-2010 @ 12:34am

Interestingly enough, the author of "a Very Short Introduction to Judaism", Norman Solomon, writes that modern Judaism is actually the younger brother to Christianity, which is an older sect of Judaism. The distinctive form of modern Judaism was created after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

I do not approve of the father bringing "religion" into the custody struggle, but I also do not approve of the courts preventing him from introducing his daughter to Jesus. What on earth was going on there?

by: diomedea

03-12-2010 @ 12:34am

Interestingly enough, the author of "a Very Short Introduction to Judaism", Norman Solomon, writes that modern Judaism is actually the younger brother to Christianity, which is an older sect of Judaism. The distinctive form of modern Judaism was created after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

I do not approve of the father bringing "religion" into the custody struggle, but I also do not approve of the courts preventing him from introducing his daughter to Jesus. What on earth was going on there?

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:53am

The father obviously underwent a forced conversion, which was recanted when the reason for it was removed.

Whatever additional "forced conversion" to Judaism was involved in the "settlement" this time concerning his daughter echoes so well the too-often typical Islamic/Judaism Middle Eastern intolerant response to Christianity, whether in Arab countries or Israel. Both religions' legalistic practitioners have a strong antipathy towards Christianity and Christ, sometimes to the point of intolerance and bigotry. How often have I heard snide remarks about Jesus' supposed illegitimacy and references to Him as "Jesus-Bar-Joseph" (Joseph's bastard)? Yet Christians in America or other western nations don't issue Fatwahs calling for anyone's death as do some Islamic religious leaders when much less is imputed to Mohammed than the sort of "Piss Christ" artwork that is extolled by some in our midst.

When it's a crime to tell your own child about Jesus in these United States of America, the law has gone too far in mixing government and religion. Such unconstitutional agreements ought to be as null and void and unenforceable as a "legal" agreement to sell your self into slavery is.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:53am

The father obviously underwent a forced conversion, which was recanted when the reason for it was removed.

Whatever additional "forced conversion" to Judaism was involved in the "settlement" this time concerning his daughter echoes so well the too-often typical Islamic/Judaism Middle Eastern intolerant response to Christianity, whether in Arab countries or Israel. Both religions' legalistic practitioners have a strong antipathy towards Christianity and Christ, sometimes to the point of intolerance and bigotry. How often have I heard snide remarks about Jesus' supposed illegitimacy and references to Him as "Jesus-Bar-Joseph" (Joseph's bastard)? Yet Christians in America or other western nations don't issue Fatwahs calling for anyone's death as do some Islamic religious leaders when much less is imputed to Mohammed than the sort of "Piss Christ" artwork that is extolled by some in our midst.

When it's a crime to tell your own child about Jesus in these United States of America, the law has gone too far in mixing government and religion. Such unconstitutional agreements ought to be as null and void and unenforceable as a "legal" agreement to sell your self into slavery is.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 5:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 5:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 7:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: philhurst

03-12-2010 @ 7:24am

Re: Post of VasuMurti
I would like to take the time to reflect and respond to your comments at length and will save your post and do so,at least to myself as time permits. However, I would encourage readers to read your comments and the passages you cite, and research and reflect on them (and your comments on same), not only in context of the scriptures themselves, but also in the context of the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:18 et al).
Jesus' first sermon(on the mount - Mt.5) particularly verses 3-10
seem to me not to be anything related to "law". Jesus states the conditions: poor in spirit,meek,mourn,merciful,persecuted etc. and the consequences:kingdom of heaven,comfort,filled,mercy,sons of God,see God etc.
Isn't this a simple statement? If you do this you receive this.
Vs 11 - 12: Jesus doesn't say you will be blessed when people persecute you and say evil things against you etc because of God, or your relationship to God, or because you obey the law, or any other condition but one: "BECAUSE OF ME." Because of ME - Jesus, AND "rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven", if you be like me.
This is the preamble to the "Constitution of Christianity". All the rest "Christ"ianity...not "Paul"ianity".
Jesus says " "He who loves ME will be loved by my Father. I am in MY Father and you are in ME,and I am in you.
Remember Genesis 3:22: And the LORD GOD said, "The man (Adam, and Eve "out of man") has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Of what value was/is the law? - the precedent (also a legal prescription) had been established. Man had broken the only law there was - and had condemned himself and ALL his progeny to Death. The covenant of the Law had been broken - forever by MAN. Jesus was the son of God,(as we all are?) he had to be in order to have the authority as the example, the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a temporal man. A witness to and evidence of the Spirit of God. God's spirit in us.
Paul may have been the next great witness of the Holy Spirit after Jesus Christ, although there were no doubt others at the time, but if we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, as we must, we surely must cross the path of Paul at times too.

by: rankin

04-17-2010 @ 6:33pm

Dear Friends,
My name is Rankin Fisher. I have asked Vasu Murti to quit using my name for anything, as he has never in the twenty years he has been quoting me, been correct.

Finally, here is the actual description of the quote Vasu has mauled for years...
I was singing for a Methodist concert festival. The Methodist Bishop was preaching. He said 'Wesley said of his new church that 'We worship Jesus as GOD; but we follow the rules of St. Paul''.
So make of this what you will. Also, I was NEVER a Minister. I preached a little when I was 14, that's all.

Dear Vasu, please stop using my name in any of your materials!

Signed, Rankin Fisher.

by: rankin

04-17-2010 @ 6:33pm

Dear Friends,
My name is Rankin Fisher. I have asked Vasu Murti to quit using my name for anything, as he has never in the twenty years he has been quoting me, been correct.

Finally, here is the actual description of the quote Vasu has mauled for years...
I was singing for a Methodist concert festival. The Methodist Bishop was preaching. He said 'Wesley said of his new church that 'We worship Jesus as GOD; but we follow the rules of St. Paul''.
So make of this what you will. Also, I was NEVER a Minister. I preached a little when I was 14, that's all.

Dear Vasu, please stop using my name in any of your materials!

Signed, Rankin Fisher.

by: SPatel13

08-12-2010 @ 12:52pm

To Kawasaki- You completely distorted the facts. Joseph Reyes did not convert to Judaism to marry Rebecca Shapiro-Reyes. He did not convert until after their daughter was born, near the end of the marriage, primarily to save the marriage. Rebecca comes across as wholly manipulative (see 20/20 interview), so I am inclined to believe that she was coercive in getting him to convert.

I also think that calling in the media, and challenging the order was his only play. The Cook County court system is really corrupt, and Rebecca's father (the VP of Playboy) is incredibly politically connected (an aspect of the story that has not received enough attention). Having read the published court documents, every dirty legal tactic was being used against Joseph. Plus, three Jewish judges, all friends of Rebecca's family, were assigned to this case. As judges are to be randomly assigned, 1.) it is statistically impossible that such a thing would occur, and 2.) the judges should have recused themselves.

by: SPatel13

08-12-2010 @ 12:52pm

To Kawasaki- You completely distorted the facts. Joseph Reyes did not convert to Judaism to marry Rebecca Shapiro-Reyes. He did not convert until after their daughter was born, near the end of the marriage, primarily to save the marriage. Rebecca comes across as wholly manipulative (see 20/20 interview), so I am inclined to believe that she was coercive in getting him to convert.

I also think that calling in the media, and challenging the order was his only play. The Cook County court system is really corrupt, and Rebecca's father (the VP of Playboy) is incredibly politically connected (an aspect of the story that has not received enough attention). Having read the published court documents, every dirty legal tactic was being used against Joseph. Plus, three Jewish judges, all friends of Rebecca's family, were assigned to this case. As judges are to be randomly assigned, 1.) it is statistically impossible that such a thing would occur, and 2.) the judges should have recused themselves.