(December 27, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Cato Wrote: No Huggy, you Missed Min's point and in your typical fashion attempt to use one narrow sense of a word in an effort to score a meaningless debate point while losing sight of what is actually being discussed. People can and do convert to Judaism thereby becoming Jews. You're simply wrong, get over it.

Yes, and modern Judaism ordains female rabbis.....

 In case you missed it, we are discussing biblical JEWS, Which is NOT a religion the Bible any more than Christianity is. See if you can find "Judaism" or "Christianity" mentioned in the Bible.
 
The word Jew originally referred to the remnants of the nation of Judah. Judah is just ONE tribe, there were 12 tribes altogether, 10 were lost.

The tribe of Levi (who were put in charge of temple/priestly duties) would be the Levites, those from Judah became the Jews, it was originally an tribal/ethnic classification not religious.

Got it?

Once again you have been shown to be wrong and you are now desperate to constrain the conversation to save your lost point. You said either one was born a Jew or wasn't and that there was no conversion. You were shown to be wrong. That's all there is to it. We all know you'll never admit it and will continue to try an pull us down a rabbit hole.

(December 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Cato Wrote: No Huggy, you Missed Min's point and in your typical fashion attempt to use one narrow sense of a word in an effort to score a meaningless debate point while losing sight of what is actually being discussed. People can and do convert to Judaism thereby becoming Jews. You're simply wrong, get over it.

Yes, and modern Judaism ordains female rabbis.....

 In case you missed it, we are discussing biblical JEWS, Which is NOT a religion the Bible any more than Christianity is. See if you can find "Judaism" or "Christianity" mentioned in the Bible.
 
The word Jew originally referred to the remnants of the nation of Judah. Judah is just ONE tribe, there were 12 tribes altogether, 10 were lost.

The tribe of Levi (who were put in charge of temple/priestly duties) would be the Levites, those from Judah became the Jews, it was originally an tribal/ethnic classification not religious.

Got it?

(December 27, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Cato Wrote: Once again you have been shown to be wrong and you are now desperate to constrain the conversation to save your lost point. You said either one was born a Jew or wasn't and that there was no conversion. You were shown to be wrong. That's all there is to it. We all know you'll never admit it and will continue to try an pull us down a rabbit hole.

This is the last point I'll make since you insist on being obtuse.

If being a Jew had anything to do with "religion" why did Paul repeatedly reference that he was a Jew even though he followed the teachings of Christ?

(December 27, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If being a Jew had anything to do with "religion" why did Paul repeatedly reference that he was a Jew even though he followed the teachings of Christ?

The Argument from Incredulity is a logical fallacy, not a logically valid argument, Huggy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The Above Link Wrote:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

"If X is true then how come Y makes no sense to me?" is not a valid argument.

(December 27, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If being a Jew had anything to do with "religion" why did Paul repeatedly reference that he was a Jew even though he followed the teachings of Christ?

The Argument from Incredulity is a logical fallacy, not a logically valid argument, Huggy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The Above Link Wrote:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

"If X is true then how come Y makes no sense to me?" is not a valid argument.

(December 27, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Evie Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If being a Jew had anything to do with "religion" why did Paul repeatedly reference that he was a Jew even though he followed the teachings of Christ?

The Argument from Incredulity is a logical fallacy, not a logically valid argument, Huggy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The Above Link Wrote:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

"If X is true then how come Y makes no sense to me?" is not a valid argument.

No, it makes perfect sense if Paul is speaking of his ethnic background, not his religious one.

Quote:Galatians 2
15 We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles
16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Who gives a fuck what Paul says?

Huggy religion is like soda some times people get tired of drinking Coke then one day they are like hey
i want to try root beer for awhile and some other are like how about a blue berry cream soda. People can change
from different religions such as a christian converting into a jew it happens.

(December 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm)Evie Wrote: Who gives a fuck what Paul says?

Why care what anyone says then? Better yet, why are you even part of the discussion?