Christians believe/claim they worship the same G-d as Jews--the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But from the Jewish perspective, Christians don't worship the same G-d, or at the very least, from the Jewish POV, Christians have attributed to G-d, acts and words the Jews do not accept as being from G-d.

Actually most Jews do believe that Christians (and Muslims) worship the same G-d. But you're right about Jews not subscribing to the acts and words attributed to G-d in the New Testament. Just as most Christians don't subscribe to the acts and words attributed to G-d in the Book of Mormon.

At the root of it, in Jewish thought, doesn't it have to be that Christians have accepted a (from the Jewish POV) false Messiah?

Well put more simply, if one religion is right, by definition the other ones are wrong to some extent. This does not preclude one viewpoint from respecting alternate viewpoints without subscribing to them.

What's more, Christians say that the one G-d became flesh--came as the messiah, Himself.

I was under the impression that at the outset, many Christians believed that Jesus was a prophet and the messiah but that he was not the son of G-d or G-d Himself, while many others believed he was. Is it universally accepted among Christians now that Jesus was G-d?

Isn't a human incarnation of G-d, fairly hard to reconcile to Jewish thought? So much of Christian art is representative of the incarnation in one way or another. From the Jewish perspective, it is false. What would it matter that the Christian artists were inspired to make the world holy with their work? In essence, isn't the Christian representation of this human incarnation of the one G-d blasphemy? Wouldn't it seem profane (not just when a Hassid paints crucifixions, but when even a gentile does), and really, must equal or at least not seem far off from idolatry, right? The Christians are trying to bring holiness into the world via the representation of something that, at its core, must seem profane to Jewish people.

Just because Judaism doesn't agree with the Christian view of Jesus, it doesn't make Christian art work blasphemy or profane. Certainly a Hasid painting crucifixes is distasteful to his community and would be deemed inappropriate, but not idolatrous. And Asher's family is more upset about the persecution done to Jews under the auspices of Christianity and the cross, and not so much the borrowing from another religion aspect.

And Anna is not an observant Jew and doesn't seem to have any affinity towards any religions. So her statement that art isn't about making the world holy isn't really a reference to Christian art being profane. To me it seemed dismissive of any artistic motives that differ from doing it for the sake of the art itself.

I was under the impression that at the outset, many Christians believed that Jesus was a prophet and the messiah but that he was not the son of G-d or G-d Himself, while many others believed he was. Is it universally accepted among Christians now that Jesus was G-d?

At the outset, yes, and there were a lot of debates and schisms over that issue. I would say that it's now been more or less settled in that direction as a matter of theology, but it's not quite that simple on the ground. Most people, I'd say, have sort of a dual notion - they believe in the 3 in 1, but also conceive of G-d and Jesus as individual entities.

Most people, I'd say, have sort of a dual notion - they believe in the 3 in 1, but also conceive of G-d and Jesus as individual entities.

Sooooo many schisms over this one in the West.

In the East, however, the Orthodox churches were content to consider it a mystery and just looked at us funny while we freaked.

Just finished The Gift of Asher Lev.

Such a good book. Not quite as good as the first.

Wolfram or Hil, (or anyone else), are the Ladover basically the Lubbavitcher? At one point Asher's father lists criticisms by other Hasids (too involved with the secular, too evangelical, a few others) that remind me of things I've heard. Also, Schneerson died without a successor... though that happened several years after the book was published and not unforseeable at the point that it was. Any thoughts?

Wolfram or Hil, (or anyone else), are the Ladover basically the Lubbavitcher? At one point Asher's father lists criticisms by other Hasids (too involved with the secular, too evangelical, a few others) that remind me of things I've heard. Also, Schneerson died without a successor... though that happened several years after the book was published and not unforseeable at the point that it was. Any thoughts?

Well it's difficult for me to tell since the book was written in 1972 and I'm not really familiar with the Lubavitchers from that time, although if you google "Ladover Hasid" you'll find a couple of websites that say just that. But the current Lubavitcher Hassidus has changed quite significantly since their Rebbe died.

But the current Lubavitcher Hassidus has changed quite significantly since their Rebbe died.

They have and ( GoAL Spoiler): the rifts seem similar to what Asher described as possible if he didn't let his son stay with his parents. Again, not unforseeable but a little spooky in light of the thing happening fifteen years after he wrote the book.

Trudy asked my question.

I am finding the book wonderful, but painful. I hurt so for young Asher, that I can't rush through it. And I hurt for his mother too, even though I wanted to shake her. And just reading about Siberia makes me wonder about the color of ice. And och.

I just checked. Menachem Schneerson died in 1994. The Gift of Asher Lev was published four years earlier.

I'm pretty sure the Ladover are supposed to be the Lubavitcher. In addition to a lot of other similarities, there's the phrase repeated several times of the Rebbe wearing an "ordinary dark hat." (In the forties and fifties, the Lubavitcher Rebbe deviated from tradition and started wearing a regular sort of hat, the kind most men wore then, while most of the other Chasidic sects were wearing the much older style of hats. There's a scene in The Chosen at somebody's wedding or bar mitzvah, where all the Rebbes from the various Chasidic sects in Brooklyn walk in, and they're described as mostly a crowd of old men in traditional clothing, and one younger man in an ordinary hat.)

Also, the few lines right near the end of My Name is Asher Lev, where Asher's father is talking about reaching out to questioning Jewish students on college campuses, is exactly what the Lubavitch were doing then.

I hate bringing up administrative stuff, but we still don't have a book to follow Small World. I think the last consensus was that we'd make a list of Buffistas who volunteer to choose a book for the club, and find some random way to choose one. Does that sound right?