yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/12/84)
From berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 > > Would someone please post a short article on just > exactly who was Yeshua? What was His relation to Jehohva(sp?)? > I would greatly appreciate it. > > Thanks, > > John, This message is a public annoncement by the YU Anti-missionary club. It saddens me greatly to see people confused and taken in by the latest missionary ploy (jewish christianity). An idea that started with Key-73, Jewish-Christianity is an attempt to convert the Jewish people by convincing them that Christianity is not fundamentally different from their present (Jewish) beleifs. Along these lines are organisations such as Jews for Jesus whose sole aim is to Jewify Christianity (in the true spirit of 'I am all things to all men.') One of their many ploys is to translate Jesus to hebrew giving the word Y'shua (saviour or salvation). Last Hanukah they carried a full page ad complete with a cute little girl standing in front of a menorah with the title "Y'shua said: I am the light of the world". Don't be fooled! The menorah does not nesessitate Jewishness. Micha B **************************** Yiri agrees: I agree. I think one point could be strengthened even more and a cautionary suggestion to take or leave. I think we must take great care not to give any fuel for anyone to portray us as anti-historical by denying the historical figure Y'shua (what the historical figure was is another matter). Micha, for example, was precise and correct. It then seems to me highly effective to point out to christians just how far removed they are both from that historical figure and (it follows) from Judaism. The basis of their argument (including the semitic christians - I won't use the term jewish in that context) is that since 'Jesus' is *represented* to have been jewish and to have taught christianity, then they maintain that christianity is a subset of Judaism no matter what you or I say. The weak link, it seems to me, is that there is no connection between the historical figure and the teachings unique to christianity. I have talked with Jewish kids who were taken in by these semitic christians and who had become regular church-goers. Several are now attending synagogues (either orthodox or conservative). None have returned to church. When they saw that even christian authors conceded these things how else could they respond? It was this supposed link which had persuaded them that christianity was jewish and the exposing of the flaw which brought them back. There is of course no connection between the semitic christians and the historical figure either. What they believe in is 'Jesus', NOT Y'shua the historical figure - even though they represent that they are the same simply because they translate to the same name and 'Jesus' was counterfeited from Y'shua. It is certainly no obstacle to distinguish which they believe in and deal with them. Simply point out how diametrically opposite the historical figure is from the christian counterfeit, and insist that they make a choice - acknowledge that christianity and 'Jesus' are counterfeits and abandon christianity or abandon their deceptive claims about Judaism. In this way, there is complete consistency regarding the mutual exclusivity of christianity and Judaism and the christians are forced to be anti-historical to defend their views - putting them in a very weak and indefensible position while we can call upon their own authors, historical data, logic, scholarship, etc. The drawback is that it does take a bit of preparation. In this regard, the approach may not be appropriate for those who have not put in the necessary study in this area. It should not be surprising to us to see such ads (repugnant, but not surprising) as Micha describes. The deceptive use of association is used by the semitic christians because they themselves don't see these flaws. They themselves are victims of the same deceptions (though perhaps compounded by their recognition and prestige in the christian community and their picture of themselves as some kind of religious champions). In summary, I think we are better off acknowledging the historical figure Y'shua (whatever that is) rather than a more simplistic (but more vulnerable to the criticism of being anti-historical) approach of allowing the confusion of the counterfeit with the historical and allowing historical arguments to be used to, supposedly, authenticate the counterfeit - which has NO legitimate historical connection to Judaism OR the historical figure. It follows then that THEY are therefore the anti-historical ones and that christianity and Judaism have always been mutually exclusive. (The details have been posted earlier on net.religion.) At the very least, there seems no good reason to ignore this great flaw. **********************