Does the term "Jewish Christian" make sense?

Post Reply New Topic

I do realize that. Really! But I don't know any other way to say it. It's a great, great tragedy, and it's very, very clear to me through much studying that it is the case. I'm not asking people to take my word for it -- that's why I'm laying out evidence in every one of my posts, and that's why I specifically called for all posts to include evidence and true thought. I will give you any piece of evidence you request that is within my power to provide for you.



It is genuine. I would be an awful person, and no Jew, if I didn't care!



Gentile Christians are only Jewish in that they have accepted the Messiah. Paul made perfectly clear that Gentiles have been "grafted into" Judaism, via their faith in the Messiah. But they are not Jews. They are not God's Chosen people. That status is always reserved for ethnic Jews. I want to make this perfectly clear, because there is a very dangerous doctrine going around some Gentile churches that the Christian Church is the new Israel. That is a usurping doctrine which has been devised in order to claim that God is finished with the Jews, and has disowned them. I know that that is false. Paul himself wrote, I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. (Romans 11:1) There is no replacing Israel with anything, or anyone. It is the "apple of God's eye", as Deut 32:10 says.

There is significant anti-Semitism within the Christian Chruch even today, I am sad to say. But all of it is directly against Yeshua's teachings and all New Testament doctrine. Anti-Semitism is patently un-Christian, and evil, and the New Testament backs up those claims all the way. People who slight the Jews are not practicing Christianity, period. One cannot have both love for God and hatred for His Chosen people.

So, no, I do not claim that Gentile Christians are Jews. I claim that Jewish Christians are Jews.



I don't take any of the evil that has been done in the name of Christ against the Jews lightly in any sense. What the Nazis did makes my blood boil to such an extent that it is as if the Jewishness within me is at full pique, and crying out for vengeance. And justice they will receive, without a doubt. (Unless one doubts that God is just, which I'm sure we both agree that He is the "righteous judge", fully just in all things, and that in the end, everyone will receive his just reward for the way he has lived his life.)

Source? We established that, at a minimum, he could be divine.


He was. Flesh and blood, born of a woman, and vulnerable to physical death, just like the rest of us. All those things were deliberate, so that God could walk among us, as one of us. Emmanuel means "God with us" (Is 7:14; 8:8).



Again, source? King David must have got it wrong, then, when he wrote Psalm 2:7. In response to Israel's enemies conspiring against her, David foretells of God's installing the Messiah on Earth to defend Israel: "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.



He fulfilled them all. Here's a partial list.



Wait for it. It will be established after the Messiah's return. Even now, the Temple Institute in Israel is preparing materials for the Third Temple to be constructed: http://www.templeinstitute.org/statement.htm.
Many of the Jews who rejected Yeshua as Messiah thought that the Messiah would conquer their enemies physically, as soon as He got here. Instead, Yeshua won the spiritual battle for mankind -- an eternity-defining victory that was far greater in scope and meaning. But upon His return, He WILL physically destroy Israel's enemies, as they converge from all over the world at once to attempt to utterly destroy the Jews once and for all. The world has always tried to destroy the Jews, and this will be their final and, for themselves, fatal attempt at it, since Yeshua will destroy the invading forces both instantly and supernaturally (Ezekiel 38:2; Revelation 20:8).



That is certainly easy to say!



They shouldn't pretend to practice Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform Judaism. Such is deception, and I am not affiliated with anyone who does this. Messianic Jews are Jews, though, and they should not pretend not to be.



True. Even Paul taught that. (Romans 10:12, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11)



Understandable, and completely so.

Yeshua was speaking to the Jews before His death, and he was speaking specifically under the condition of their rejection of him as their Messiah. Notice how scary he makes living under the law sound? Why would he make it sound scary, while telling them something they already knew? For, every Jew of the time knew that "keeping the law" meant keeping it all. So why the drama? Why did he emphasize the difficulty in keeping it all?
Because he was highlighting the only alternative to accepting Him as Messiah, the only one who could save them from their sins. And the alternative to that salvation, he said, is keeping the law -- perfectly. For, since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, there has never been, to this very day, a sacred altar upon which the Jews could sacrifice animals as sin offerings. Jesus prophesied that very destruction, in Matthew 23:37-39: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house [temple] is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


So, Yeshua was saying a sort of "Are you sure you want to reject me? Because the only alternative to my free Salvation is you living lives of moral perfection, starting from the day you last offered a sin offering, and extending until the end of your lives."




Also, I claimed that the Tanakh clearly predicts a new age of Judaism, markedly different from the first. Namely, the Age of Grace as chronicled by what Jeremiah called the "Brit Hadashah", readily translated as "New Covenant", aka the New Testament. Here is the main passage I was thinking of:

Jeremiah 31:31-35:
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What does this sound like to you? I know that I don't even have to tell you, because it's so wonderfully clear!
How utterly descriptive, in every detail, Jeremiah is when predicting the Messianic Age! An age of forgiveness, when every one will have the law (summarized by Yeshua as loving God and loving man) written, not on stone tablets or scrolls, outside of men, but inside them, "on their inward parts". The spirit of God's law is in our hearts once we accept Yeshua's Salvation. We're no longer made to do good by legalistic teachers, but want to do good, from the inside, outwardly. A "new covenant" which is "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers". This is so blindingly clear! So much so, that I fear that those Jews who read this Tanakh passage and still don't understand, may simply not wish to, for fear of being ostricized by their familes.

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 Mar 2008, 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

What are you saying is that after Jesus death and the alleged resurrection is that man would not have to keep jewish law anymore. And this is what all non-sabbatic denominations say. As it looks pretty well that lots of rituals were abolished when christianity came, the law that was the strongest, the ten commandments were the ones who were still observed, as it was the moral code, anyone would be inmoral, if not keeping the law, inmorals don't go to heaven, Jesus was about to reinterpret the law with the new religion rising, not to abolish it.

You made an explanation about how it was according to one and most accepted view, however, there is one thing that is missing, and is this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now Id like to hear how many interpretations are from that exact text, which it states that Jesus didn't come to change and abolish the law, doesn't seem to say that it was an alternative or that his death would change it, it says otherwise.

Last edited by greenblue on 20 Mar 2008, 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually it was early in his ministry, closely after he called his disciples. Chapter 5 out of 28 chapters.



I see no evidence of that whatsoever throughout his speech or at the end of it. To the contrary, Matt. 7:21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." In other words it's not so easy as simply believing. You have to do the will of God. Obey His law.

22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" It's not so easy as preaching and performing good works. Obey His law.

And he ends it with, 7:24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Puts the law of God into practice. As he was preaching the law. Not about belief or mercy or grace. The law. And he was not comparing it to such concepts.

and

If you have to wait for it, it is not completely fulfilled. Jesus is not only a failed prophet who failed to return quickly within those peoples life times that were alive back then as he prophesied, but he is a failed Messiah, as he didn't fulfill the Messianic requirements.

And this is exactly the problem I have with fundamentalist religion of any variety. I'm Jewish, and I certainly don't want Israel's enemies "destroyed." I want both sides to start taking responsibility for their actions and I want our elected officials to facilitate negotiations which will hopefully result in a two-state solution and actual peace. JMO.

Ragtime, you keep referring to yourself as Jewish. But traditional Judaism holds that one must be born to a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish. Modern variants of the religion have allowed for officially-sanctioned conversions, but I'd argue that the entire concept of "religion" is simply different than the Christian idea. You want to claim to be one of us, try acknowledging some of our practices.

The seven Noachide laws are for gentiles. They aren't all that difficult really.



Sounds like a prophecy for what will occur once God's kingdom has been set up, once the Messiah has gathered all His people together, once the whole world without question knows God. Knows, not believes.

As it says: "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD"

Guess what they're still doing? You see, if this new covenant had been ushered in by Jesus, we wouldn't have missionaries still going about teaching others about God. For they would all know.

What's your point? That I misspoke? Ok, you win, I misspoke. Good grief, do you have a real point to make, or not?
No, Yeshua did not fulfill the prophecies of both his first coming and second coming during his first coming. Why would he?

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 Mar 2008, 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wouldn't you have to reject much of the Tanakh in order to hold that position? Not only would you have to reject ways in which God is written to have dealt with Israel's ancient enemies, but also how God was prophesied that He will destroy them completely in the last days? What I'm saying is, are you letting the God of the Tanakh define you and your outlook, or are you deciding that God should be more pacifist than He is shown to be in the Tanakh -- both in the past and in the future? It all comes down to how liberally you wish to interpret the Scriptures. (And the religious Jews have three very differing opinions on that. They're not united in how to interpret the Scriptures. Am I a pot calling a kettle black, as a Christian? Yes, I am, but the kettle is still black. Christians have far too many denominations, but religious Jews are not united either.) How pleasant must God's personality traits be to satisfy you -- and why must the Scriptures about Him have modern, pacifist meanings injected into them, and certain passages utterly ignored altogether, to satisfy you. Does God define you, or do you define God? The Tanakh is not a political document. It is holy Scripture, and as such is not to be revised.


All innately Christian customs are Jewish. When I take communion, I'm celebrating Passover. When I accepted the Jewish Messiah, that could be nothing but accepting the King of the Jews! I pray to the God of Israel. If I received the Messiah, and those Jewish leaders who stirred up the people to call for Yeshua's execution rejected the Messiah in that act, who is more Jewish? The acceptor of the Messiah, or his rejectors? This may be "offensive" to you, but let's call things what they are. Paul called the Gospel "scandalon", which in the Greek means a "stumblingblock" (an impediment to understanding), or "rock of offense", which refers to stubbing one's toe against a desert rock while wearing open-toed sandals, no less! He recognized that the Gospel is offensive by its very nature! But its initial offensiveness doesn't work toward it being untrue. It's offensive to someone to inform them that they're not keeping all the law. Yet, that is, quite necessarily and intrinsically, the message of grace and forgiveness.

I think he put it best in this passage:

And just as Isaiah foretold, 'Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, we would have become like Sodom, and would have resembles gomorrah.' What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over he stumbling stone, just as it is written, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed' (Romans 9:29-33). (So we see here, by the second part of that sentence, that the offense does not last: It is only at first. Once we accept the fact of our sins, and turn to the Messiah to save us from their consequences, we are humbled, just as a victim who has been rescued by a hero, and our offense disappears.)

Now note Isaiah 8:13-15:
Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Ah-ha! So, the Messiah is, among his other attributes, a stumbling stone, which causes Israel not to understand him, and to be offended by Him! That is a clear Tanakh referrence of the Messiah not being embraced by Israel, because of the offensive doctrines He brings.

What happened was, the Jewish religious leaders of Yeshua's time were steeped so far in legalism and ritualism, that they had forgotten the spirit of the law -- the law's point: love of God, and love of man. Yeshua said they were like "whited sepulchres, on the outside clean and white, but inwardly full of dead men's bones and all corruption" (Matthew 23:27). Yeshua put it most simply when he said, You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' (Matt 15:7-8, referring to Isaiah 29:13).

His point was that there is no point in keeping the law if you've stopped loving God, and listening to Him (particularly heeding the messages of God's prophets). Religiosity is something altogether different from loving God. It is a system of rituals that can become completely empty in purpose and meaning, and falsely self-justifying, when its core and its focus is no longer there. If the majority of Jewish people have rejected the true Messiah, what a grave matter that is! Many practicing Jews secretly wonder whether Yeshua is the Messiah, but are afraid to even pursue that line of thought, for fear of where it will lead them: being at odds with (excommunicated from) the Jewish community. My dad was raised in Judaism, but discovered, through his own, private Bible readings, that Yeshua really was, and is the Jewish Messiah. His entire family disowned him upon his profession of this realization. He was snubbed at family reunions, etc, etc. Why the cruelty, for possessing a simple realization?

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 Mar 2008, 11:54 am, edited 18 times in total.

Read the verse right before what you just quoted. Here, I'll repeat it for you: 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel' after that time, declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.' (v.33)
The passage is clearly referring to the Jews, not all the people of the world. Obviously, not all people in the world will be Saved. Some people will go to Hell. Do you think Hitler's modern counterparts will be in Heaven?? Of course not.

Sigh. The Torah is a complex, at times self-contradicting document that has been re-copied and translated many times over the year. I'm sure you're completely fluent in Ancient Hebrew, so not a problem for you I guess. I believe it is folly to think that we can know God from the Scriptures alone, because one's personal beliefs and experiences will inevitably shape how one interprets the text. A certain degree of "projection" is inevitable. Your interpretation is your interpretation, too. I don't agree with everything Derrida says, but he undoubtedly has a point. We can't know for sure what the Torah, or the Constitution, "really" says and it is folly to pretend so. BTW, there aren't three Jewish interpretations of the Torah. There are about several million. Have you ever heard the saying that "where there's two Jews, there's three opinions"? There are four very loose "movements" in Judaism--Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstruction. Plus variants within these movements, as Hassidic Jews are hardly the same thing as Modern Orthodox. And each individual will undoubtedly have their own take. This is no different from any other religion, ever. All major religions today have differing interpretations within them. You may think this a bad thing, but I think it's only to be expected. BTW, it's a bit silly of you to say that the Torah isn't a political document. As though political documents and non-political documents could be easily divided. You seem to be pointing back thousands of years in the past to find "true" Judaism, when in fact Judaism has always been dynamic like any other society or ideology. Your choice is pretty arbitrary, if you ask me. As is your choice of scriptural interpretation. The Torah also tells us not to mix fabrics, or for a man to approach a woman when she's menstruating. We are going to have to do some degree of selective interpretation here, pretty much no way around it. It's a bit arrogant of you to disregard your own scriptural omissions while chastising others.

You seem to be expecting Jews to have kept their beliefs static, unchanging. This is not really possible for anyone, and certainly not for a group who has experienced the things Jews have experienced. After centuries of persecution, expulsion from Spain, bigotry culminating in the deaths of about a third of European Jews less than two or three generations ago...yeah, that kind of thing is going to influence theology. Your idea that Jews should just cling to an ancient past in light of all this is puzzling to me. Ancient Judaism was also shaped by its times.

I find your views of the current situation in the Middle East unbelievably disturbing. My own views were certainly shaped by my rabbi, BTW. If I'm practicing "fake" religion, I'm at least in good company. I am also very proud to have been raised within a religious movement which recognizes the equality of my gender. These are not tangential issues in a philosophical vacuum. In a real-world setting, they could not be more important. You're entitled to your beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't pick you as an ambassador to any Middle Eastern country. Sorry, I think war and poverty are great tragedies. Not any group's rejection of a certain theological symbol. What do you think will happen if all Jews wake up tomorrow and decide that Jesus is the messiah, anyway?

Please provide a source for your contention that most Jews have wondered about Jesus being the messiah. Sounds like projection, to me. Besides, wondering in passing is not necessarily equivalent to deep thought about the issue.

I'm sorry that your father experienced what he did. I don't condone snubbing family members for non-criminal activity. At the same time, it's a bit naive of you to not understand why this happened. Has it occurred to you that many of these family members probably experienced hatred and bigotry from Christians? In that context, joining up can't help but seem like a kind of betrayal. Religion is not like a Chinese menu where you can just pick your options. It is strongly rooted in social context, as I have been trying to tell you.

If the Torah is not entirely accurate, then to what degree is it trustworthy? This presumption opens a Pandora's box of an almost infinite almost of possible interpretations about the character of God, and even about His very identity, in that one can start almost any religion imaginable based on the premise of a faulty Torah, the errors in which are unable to even be charted so that a clear understanding of what God expects of us can be reached.

I am familiar with the ultra-meticulous methods of the scribes who copied the Torah.
The following excerpt explains the process rather well:


Source: http://www.layhands.com/ScientificEvidenceOfGod.htm




No doubt. Actually, I fully expect that I will be corrected on a multitude of minor doctrinal mistakes upon entering Heaven. After all, who am I to think I have God's doctrines entirely correct?

But careful, lifelong study of the Scriptures, with plenty of digging through extra-Biblical materials for historical referrence, can, I believe, provide a fairly close (close enough) interpretation of God's meanings. After all, God is all-wise and all-powerful, and furthermore, He is loving. Putting those attributes together makes for the inescapable conclusion that He would have preserved an understanding of His words -- which, after all, are only written for us human beings in the first place. So, why would God allow Scripture's only audience, humans, to all have false interpretations? Would that not negate the very point of His providing the Torah in the first place? He didn't write it for omniscient beings; He wrote it for us. And, to that end, meticulous study is its own reward.



I have heard that joke, from my dad.
But what I meant was that, in the most major sense, there are three sects of rabbinical Judaism. But yes, every rabbi disagrees with every other rabbi concerning certain teachings. The only thing I disagree with about rabbinical Judaism is the "rabbinical" part. Why may not you be allowed to read and study the Scriptures for yourself, and derive your own interpretations? Why do rabbis insist that you must be told by them what the interpretation is?



Ah yes, my mistake. My uncle is actually into the fourth, which is pretty out-there; I attened his congregation once, and was not impressed. This is sort of the "Is Pluto really a planet?" question all over again, in a sense. The "Is Reconstruction too out-there to be under the umbrella of modern Judaism?" question. Maybe that question has finally been answered, but only recently for sure, because last I heard there were only three sects of modern Judaism. Now, try imagining a Jew saying, "Bah, Reconstruction is just too strict for me," and forming an even-more liberal sect. We have those outer rims within what I call Christendom, as well; they're Christianity, however, remains in question. Especially those who teach Replacement Theology, and who teach there followers to divest from Israel.

But conservative Christians don't believe in our preachers interpretating the Bible for us. Rather, we are encouraged to test the preacher, and hold him accountable, by reading our Bibles for ourselves. And if the vast majority of the congregation finds him to be in error, he understands that he is subject to that majority opinion. If we feel he is bending the true meaning of the Scriptures, we are to object openly, and possibly even leave that church. Actually, that's probably why Christianity has so many denominations -- people are free to choose their own interpretations, and form new denominations if their interpretation is a new one.



Well, I don't believe that the Torah was conceived by man, but rather that it was conceived and given by God for men to write down, in a slightly-less-direct manner than the way the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments were written (by the actual hand of God).



Why the subservience? Why? A certain amount of subservience is good, but why is your rabbi's opinion automatically more valid than your own? What if he makes a mistake? Then you will learn that mistake. But if you study independently, you can check up on what he is teaching you, and if he's right, you'll know it. I don't believe in swallowing information whole before examining it. I know that is what you are taught to do, but it is right to have your thoughts created by others, rather than by you?

In summary, our major difference of opinion seems to be that you believe rabbinical opinion is at least equal in authority with the Torah, and that the Torah has errors, whereas I believe the Torah is in all cases superior to its interpreters, and that it has no doctrinal or historical errors. A misspelling here and there? Perhaps. But that is all.

Quick clarification: I'm not subservient to my rabbi. He merely presented me with one possible view on the Israel/Palestine conflict and after thinking about it I decided he was right. I form my own opinions with outside influence, like most people. My primary interests are not religious, so I do not devote much time to studying religion specifically. YMMV.

Your interpretation of rabbinical Judaism is odd, since rabbinical Judaism has always encouraged laymen (and more recently women) to read the texts themselves, as well as different rabbinical interpretations. This method has encouraged debate. I don't necessarily agree that "conservative" Christians don't allow their preachers to interpret for them. I'm no expert, but if that were the case then why would Pat Robertson be as powerful as he is?

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the "If I don't like it, it's not real Christianity/Judaism" position.

Well, people are swayed by nuts like Robertson, but the New Testament actively promotes self-study of the Bible above all. For instance, the Catholic Church teaches that a combination of itself and God saves a person, but this is inconsistent with many clear passages in the New Testament. (I won't go down that trail here and now.)
Saffice it to say, the Church can't give anyone salvation; only God can. But the New Testament is especially emphatic about the individual's direct relationship with God -- one that does not flow through any teacher, preacher or mentor. Christians far too often allow themselves to be swayed by a preacher while they seem unaware it's happening, but that goes for any audience who willingly and routinely gives a certain speaker the floor.

By the way, the speaker/audience method is not Christian. For several years, I attended a Messianic congregation that was intended to be modeled after the very first Christian churches. Therefore, there was no central speaker; we ALL spoke up equally, and the chairs were arranged in a circle, so that we were all equally facing each other, rather than the much more common layout of endless rows of pews all facing one man. (As respectful as that all-for-one arrangement is, it all too often leads to the opinion that the speaker is better or wiser than his audience, and that leads people to believe him blindly.) In Christian orthodoxy, a preacher is viewed as having a special gift of teaching and communicating, but is not viewed as necessarily more spiritually enlightened than the rest of his church.

Yes. Point being that there will be no need to believe, that in fact there is no need to believe. There is no precedent to believe that the Messiah would or will fulfill all the prophecies with a great big gap in between. No precedent to believe there is a first coming and then a second coming.



Well there you go then, shooting your own foot. First you claim this means those that accept Christ into their hearts: "An age of forgiveness, when every one will have the law (summarized by Yeshua as loving God and loving man) written, not on stone tablets or scrolls, outside of men, but inside them, "on their inward parts". The spirit of God's law is in our hearts once we accept Yeshua's Salvation." then you claim this is "clearly referring" to Jews. Well well.

Anyways, it still sounds like a prophecy for what will occur once God's kingdom has been set up. It goes along with this Messianic prophecy: The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance. Zechariah 8:23, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."

Of coarse it makes since. Judaism is not just a religion, it's in some ways a race, a bloodline, heritage. One can be atheist and come from a jewish bloodline. Einstein, well he didn't actually have a formalized, scripted religion like most people are used to, but he believed in a god. But he was jewish.