Jenna Jameson converting to Judaism, cooking Kosher
48 replies, posted
[QUOTE]"Here is a little image from last Shabbat!!!" the 41-year-old mostly-retired actress wrote next to the photo she posted on Twitter and Instagram. "I made home made Chilean sea bass chraimeh, potato pancakes, Israeli salad and yummy challah!"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]When one follower invited her to visit Israel, she wrote in Hebrew: "I'm coming to Israel soon," and told another "b'ezrat Hashem." [/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Adult-film-star-Jenna-Jameson-starts-cooking-kosher-for-her-Israeli-fianc%C3%A9-405589"]http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Adult-film-star-Jenna-Jameson-starts-cooking-kosher-for-her-Israeli-fianc%C3%A9-405589[/URL]
I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, people do still convert to Judaism, but normally it's just so that they can marry another Jewish person.
I bet she's an expert on cooking Kosher sausage
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that I assume you mean that the supernatural elements of jesus' story, and not jesus himself - you surely aren't that ridiculous to believe that jesus didn't exist, right?
man like everything about your post is quite edgy
[QUOTE]While Jameson has in the past described herself as a devout Catholic, things are apparently taking a turn, as she wrote on social media that she is currently converting to Judaism for her Israeli-born boyfriend.
On Tuesday she posted a photo of a box of Strauss popsicles exported from Israel that she bought at a local market, writing in Hebrew that they were "taim" (tasty).
When one follower invited her to visit Israel, she wrote in Hebrew: "I'm coming to Israel soon," and told another "b'ezrat Hashem." [/QUOTE]
Definitely not for the religion but for the culture. Honestly, it looks like saying that she's converting is overkill. She's just trying to imitate Israeli/reform Jewish culture.
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.[/QUOTE]
Jews don't deny that the story of Jesus is real but that he's the Messiah.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;47930675]
Jews don't deny that the story of Jesus is real but that he's the Messiah.[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of people during that time who tried to ignite the passions of the people to try and get them to rebel against the Roman occupation.
There's no doubt someone fitting the description of Jesus was real. As to his actual personality and feats, that's where things get iffy. Was he a 35 year old married Jewish man who felt the rabbis were betraying the faith by their complacence and was eventually crucified for rabble rousing, or was he a 35 year old virgin who was literally God incarnate that was crucified for rabble rousing after healing the sick, raising the dead, and then afterward resurrected?
Idealized accounts done in the name of perpetuating a faith do not relate to the actual nature of the people they're praising.
[QUOTE=Pelican;47930659]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that I assume you mean that the supernatural elements of jesus' story, and not jesus himself - you surely aren't that ridiculous to believe that jesus didn't exist, right?
man like everything about your post is quite edgy[/QUOTE]
I mean the story of Jesus being the son of God and doing miracles etc.
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
Though it's not completely unreasonable to doubt the existence of Jesus altogether. But if there was a historical Jesus he'd have very little in common with the Christian/Biblical Jesus anyway, so his existence is not all that relevant.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47930827]There are a lot of people during that time who tried to ignite the passions of the people to try and get them to rebel against the Roman occupation.
There's no doubt someone fitting the description of Jesus was real. As to his actual personality and feats, that's where things get iffy. Was he a 35 year old married Jewish man who felt the rabbis were betraying the faith by their complacence and was eventually crucified for rabble rousing, or was he a 35 year old virgin who was literally God incarnate that was crucified for rabble rousing after healing the sick, raising the dead, and then afterward resurrected?
Idealized accounts done in the name of perpetuating a faith do not relate to the actual nature of the people they're praising.[/QUOTE]
You should read about the historicity of Jesus. You'd be surprised.
"Actress"
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.[/QUOTE]
From the article:
[QUOTE]Jameson's fiancé is reportedly 41-year-old Lior Bitton, a Herzliya native who works in the diamond business in Los Angeles, where they both live.[/QUOTE]
She's marrying a rich Israeli Jew.
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Svinnik;47930675]Definitely not for the religion but for the culture. Honestly, it looks like saying that she's converting is overkill. She's just trying to imitate Israeli/reform Jewish culture.
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
Jews don't deny that the story of Jesus is real but that he's the Messiah.[/QUOTE]
They don't? First time I'm hearing that claim.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age. Like in this case how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the story of Jesus isn't true, and at the same time still believe the stories of Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Like I can understand having a religion if you've been brought up that way, and and the belief is sort of ingrained in your mind. But why would you look at Judaism as an outsider and be like "yep this looks like it's true, unlike my religion or any other".
Though looking at her Instagram it looks like she just likes the culture, so she's probably converting because of that and not as the result of an actual reflection.[/QUOTE]
maybe they are just transjewish, you cisraced goy
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47930580]I can't fathom why people convert in this day and age.[/QUOTE]
I know a guy who converted to Mormonism because it was the only way he was ever going to get a girlfriend, that's a reason I guess.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47931099]From the article:
She's marrying a rich Israeli Jew.
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
They don't? First time I'm hearing that claim.[/QUOTE]
Generally, Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus existed but he was a false prophet for 2 reasons. First, he broke the rules of prophecy by saying the Torah was invalid, and second, prophecy left the world when the First Temple was destroyed.
[QUOTE]he era of prophecy officially came to an end some 23 centuries ago. The last generation of prophets were those who began to prophecy before the First Holy Temple was destroyed in 423 BCE, though a number of that generation survived the 70-year Babylonian exile and lived to see the building of the Second Temple. Most famously, Ezekiel prophesied in Babylonia, and three prophets, Chaggai, Zachariah and Malachi, were members of the "Great Assembly" that led the people in the first years of the return from Babylon. Mordechai and Esther were also members of the long-lived generation that mourned the destruction of the First Temple and witnessed the building of the second. With the demise of that generation, "prophecy departed from Israel."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47930827]There are a lot of people during that time who tried to ignite the passions of the people to try and get them to rebel against the Roman occupation.
There's no doubt someone fitting the description of Jesus was real. As to his actual personality and feats, that's where things get iffy. Was he a 35 year old married Jewish man who felt the rabbis were betraying the faith by their complacence and was eventually crucified for rabble rousing, or was he a 35 year old virgin who was literally God incarnate that was crucified for rabble rousing after healing the sick, raising the dead, and then afterward resurrected?
Idealized accounts done in the name of perpetuating a faith do not relate to the actual nature of the people they're praising.[/QUOTE]
There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;47931219]Generally, Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus existed but he was a false prophet for 2 reasons. First, he broke the rules of prophecy by saying the Torah was invalid, and second, prophecy left the world when the First Temple was destroyed.[/QUOTE]
You're right of course. I actually never heard it mentioned before, but I looked it up and Jesus is mentioned in Jewish writings like the Talmud and the Gmara.
With as much pork as she's eaten?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47931623]With as much pork as she's eaten?[/QUOTE]
or crabs
It never takes long for Explosions to come be atheist lol
[editline]11th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;47931704]or crabs[/QUOTE]
Crab sausage?
[QUOTE=Explosions;47931379]There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.[/QUOTE]
You're just plain wrong. Even secular scholars don't say that. Here's a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 15:
"3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."
This is undisputedly written by Paul and mentions the most fundamental fact of the historical Jesus: his death and resurrection. This segment also happens to be one of the earliest accounts of Jesus, going back to somewhere between months after his death to, at most, 5 years after his death. Note that this is secular scholarship, not just Christian bias.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47932055]You're just plain wrong. Even secular scholars don't say that. Here's a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 15:
"3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."
This is undisputedly written by Paul and mentions the most fundamental fact of the historical Jesus: his death and resurrection. This segment also happens to be one of the earliest accounts of Jesus, going back to somewhere between months after his death to, at most, 5 years after his death. Note that this is secular scholarship, not just Christian bias.[/QUOTE]
Adding on to this, Jesus is mentioned (not positively) in the Talmud.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud[/URL]
[QUOTE]Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[82] Here, Jesus is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned that leniency could not be applied because of Jesus' influence with the royal government (malkhut). The passages that specifically mention Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, are:[83]
Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b – "Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)
The entire passage is: Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Mattai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. [55][84][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Explosions;47931379]There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.[/QUOTE]
What exactly about the synoptic gospels is indicative of them being part of a mystery religion? Unlike an actual mystery religion story, like the rape of Persephone, the synoptic gospels give very good documentation about the times and places that events happened.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47932055]This is undisputedly written by Paul and mentions the most fundamental fact of the historical Jesus: his death and resurrection. [B]This segment also happens to be one of the earliest accounts of Jesus, going back to somewhere between months after his death to, at most, 5 years after his death. Note that this is secular scholarship, not just Christian bias.[/b][/QUOTE]
I can't find a source corroborating that. Can you help me find one?
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;47933967]I can't find a source corroborating that. Can you help me find one?[/QUOTE]
I can give you some prominent examples, definitely. Here are a few:
- Gary Ludmann, a critic of the New Testament Jesus said, "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE" ([I]The Resurrection of Jesus[/I], Gary Ludmann, pg. 38)
- Michael Goulder, another critic of the Biblical text said, "[the creed] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion." ([I]The Baseless Fabric of a Vision[/I], Michael Goulder, pg. 48)
Some other people who say the same are: A.J.M. Wedderburn, Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, The Jesus Seminar, Jack Kent, and G. A. Wells.
*For full disclosure, I'm getting this from Gary Habermas. He's read basically every scholar on the New Testament and created an argument based on nothing more than secular conclusions and textual criticism. ([URL]http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm#_edn7[/URL])
[QUOTE=Rocket;47934091]Jesus almost certainly existed. We don't have many records of Jesus when he was alive because he wasn't really that important when he was alive - but [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_did_jesus_exist.3F]there's still plenty of evidence for it[/url].[/QUOTE]
Read the top rated reply for the first question on that page [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rubhc/so_what_do_we_actually_know_about_the_life/"]"So, what do we actually know about the life, existence, etcetera of the man called Jesus Christ?"[/URL]
[QUOTE=sgman91;47934111]I can give you some prominent examples, definitely. Here are a few:
- Gary Ludmann, a critic of the New Testament Jesus said, "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE" ([I]The Resurrection of Jesus[/I], Gary Ludmann, pg. 38)
- Michael Goulder, another critic of the Biblical text said, "[the creed] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion." ([I]The Baseless Fabric of a Vision[/I], Michael Goulder, pg. 48)
Some other people who say the same are: A.J.M. Wedderburn, Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, The Jesus Seminar, Jack Kent, and G. A. Wells.
*For full disclosure, I'm getting this from Gary Habermas. He's read basically every scholar on the New Testament and created an argument based on nothing more than secular conclusions and textual criticism. ([URL]http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm#_edn7[/URL])[/QUOTE]
Full of speculation on top of speculation, sourcing the bible, assumptions out the wazoo.
Listen, I'm not saying "There is no way Jesus existed, mythical or not"
I'm saying there isn't definitive proof, like some of the previous posters imply.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;47934404]Full of speculation on top of speculation, sourcing the bible, assumptions out the wazoo.
Listen, I'm not saying "There is no way Jesus existed, mythical or not"
I'm saying there isn't definitive proof, like some of the previous posters imply.[/QUOTE]
If by "speculation, sourcing the bible, [and] assumptions out the wazoo" you mean textual criticism and secular scholarship, then sure.
There's no such thing as "definitive proof" for anything in the real world. All you can do is weigh the probability of one proposition over another. Anyone who denies, at the minimum, a man names Jesus who died around ~30 AD from crucifixion is going against basically all serious modern day historians who work in the field.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47934510]If by "speculation, sourcing the bible, [and] assumptions out the wazoo" you mean textual criticism and secular scholarship, then sure.[/QUOTE]
Not really, but we'll agree to disagree?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47934510]There's no such thing as "definitive proof" for anything in the real world. All you can do is weigh the probability of one proposition over another. Anyone who denies, at the minimum, a man names Jesus who died around ~30 AD from crucifixion is going against basically all serious modern day historians who work in the field.[/QUOTE]
I understand, taking things to their logical conclusions, you have to be agnostic about the existence of everything but your own consciousness. But you can't deny that we have more proof of Abraham Lincoln's existence then we do Jesus. A bad example, I know, being closer to us in history, among other things.
I just can't understand why people say things like "There's no doubt someone fitting the description of Jesus was real."
I see three major options. Either Jesus was a real dude, he was a culmination of a bunch of different people, or he was never real and it was a complete fabrication.
I think that one of the first two are probably right. Especially considering someone like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba"]Sathya Sai Baba[/URL], a man with many miracles attributed to him, existed in our lifetimes. It isn't hard to imagine that something similar happened in the past.
It's just the unfounded Gnosticism of Jesus's existence that bothers me. We really don't have as much proof as people think.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;47934747]Not really, but we'll agree to disagree?
I understand, taking things to their logical conclusions, you have to be agnostic about the existence of everything but your own consciousness. But you can't deny that we have more proof of Abraham Lincoln's existence then we do Jesus. A bad example, I know, being closer to us in history, among other things.
I just can't understand why people say things like "There's no doubt someone fitting the description of Jesus was real."
I see three major options. Either Jesus was a real dude, he was a culmination of a bunch of different people, or he was never real and it was a complete fabrication.
I think that one of the first two are probably right. Especially considering someone like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba"]Sathya Sai Baba[/URL], a man with many miracles attributed to him, existed in our lifetimes. It isn't hard to imagine that something similar happened in the past.
It's just the unfounded Gnosticism of Jesus's existence that bothers me. We really don't have as much proof as people think.[/QUOTE]
I would argue, along with (like I already said) the majority of secular New Testament scholars, that you're just plain wrong, but hey, believe what you want.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47931379]There are zero accounts of a historical Jesus outside of the gospels. All the gospels are based on Mark which is a clear metaphorical mystery cult story. Even Paul never mentions a historical Jesus but instead talks about a ghost Jesus who visits him in visions.[/QUOTE]
Seriously you're seriously trying to say Jesus didn't exist.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47935095]Seriously you're seriously trying to say Jesus didn't exist.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe he did.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.