Song of Solomon 5:16 vs. Three Masters of Persuasion
The heart of Israel is bound up in a covenant relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth. Throughout the Scripture this relationship is compared to a marriage. How can I explain love? How can I put Israel’s yearning for God into words? David said: “Whom do I have in heaven? And aside from You I desire none on earth” (Psalm 73:25). Solomon wrote on behalf of Israel: “This is my Beloved and my partner” (Song of Solomon 5:16). There is no room in Israel’s heart for another. And the fire of this love is seared onto every page of Israel’s history with her very life blood.
Israel’s refusal to consider the attempt of the Church to divert their heart towards Jesus is rooted in this love. The story of Israel’s rejection of Jesus is a story of loyalty to the Creator of heaven of earth; it is a story of love and loyalty.
The masters of persuasion could not allow the world to recognize this truth. It would not look good for their missionary campaign.
They simply turned the story on its ear. Instead of a story of loyalty and love they invented a story of treachery and hate. In the very place that Israel’s loyalty to God shines so brightly these propagandists painted a picture of pure evil.
I present here the arguments of three of Jesus’s promoters; John, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Dr. Michael Brown. Each of these provides a “commentary” on the Jewish refusal to direct devotion to Jesus.
John 8:42-47
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
According to John it is simple mathematics. If you reject Jesus; this then “proves” that you are a child of darkness.
Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum – The Three Messianic Miracles
“Some time prior to the coming of Yeshua (Jesus) the ancient rabbis separated miracles into two categories. First there were those miracles anyone would be able to perform if they were empowered by the Spirit of God to do so. The second category of miracles were called “messianic miracles,” which were miracles only the Messiah would be able to perform. Yeshua did miracles in both categories: general miracles and also messianic miracles. So because of the rabbinic teaching that certain miracles would be reserved only for the Messiah to do, whenever He performed a Messianic miracle it created a different type of reaction than when he performed other types of miracles.”
Fruchtenbaum goes on to describe an elaborate procedure of “investigation” of these “messianic miracles” and he tells us that although Jesus successfully passed all the “messianic requirements” he was still rejected by the corrupt leadership of Israel.
Needless to say Fruchtenbaum has spun this tale out of thin air. There is not one source in the Bible or in the traditional writings for the concept of “messianic miracles” and the elaborate procedure that he attributes to the Sanhedrin that was activated upon report of these Messianic miracles is a figment of his imagination. This is just another attempt to slander the Jewish People.
Dr. Brown – Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 1, Page xx
“Sadly enough, the more religious a person is and the more time that person spent learning in a Yeshiva (a school for traditional Jewish studies), the more biased and distorted that person’s views will be concerning who Jesus is, what he taught, and how he and his followers lived.”
Here Dr. Brown is complaining that the study of Judaism in a Jewish context will distort a person’s views towards Jesus.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus is hardly mentioned in the writings of traditional Judaism. In all of the 2700 pages of the Talmud there are three paragraphs which some scholars understand as questionable references to Jesus. In all of my years in Yeshiva I never heard one lecture about Jesus. Jesus is a non-issue for most Jews loyal to God. Contrast this with the inordinate amount of time that the Christian Scriptures spend denigrating Judaism and her leaders to their reading audience.
So these are the tactics of the masters of persuasion. They first announce that anyone who disagrees with them is a child of the devil. They then go on to spin a tale about the corruption of their opponents. And finally; they complain about the negative rumors that their opponents are spreading about them.
With time the truth is revealed. The day will yet come when all of the world will see the righteous love of Israel towards her God (Isaiah 62:2) and they will identify her as the nation who remained loyal to her Divine Lover (Isaiah 26:2).
Thank you. I am having a discussion of what JC means to me, and to knowledgeable Jews in general. it helps.
Yechiel
Mm… when I was looking from within Christianity I thought about the passage from John 8 sometimes. I think I believed that it was not anti-semitic or even anti-rabbinic because Jesus was only speaking to some individuals; what if he was right about them in particular? But what you’ve pointed out here makes sense. Jesus, as described in the chapter, was calling people evil because they disagreed with him. Most people only read the New Testament because it tells the Christian story, so they wouldn’t be thinking about the Pharisees as people with their own experience of God and relationship with Him, or even perhaps people who were right in their relationship with their God.
As to Michael Brown’s statement, it’s interesting that he feels the need to explain what a Yeshiva is to some of the readers while speaking about people being ignorant of others’ beliefs. And I really see and agree with your response to it. From what I’ve known of Jews, those who are closer to the heart of Jewish prayer and learning and community are in a better place to think seriously and properly about the Christian claims. I feel sad for people who are outside of the heart of that community and who then come across the ‘Hebrew Christian’ message. That said, Dr. Brown is expressing something that he feels he has observed about religious Jews’ handling of historical data that he thinks is sound. I don’t believe that this is entirely circular, even though on some level his book is preaching ‘to the choir’ there.
I haven’t read the book of John for some months. I’m looking at chapter eight and there are some very strange things in it, which I haven’t noticed before.
It would be interesting to hear from a Christian familiar with Judaism… what is happening in verses 13 to 19?
“The Pharisees challenged him, ‘Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.’
“Jesus answered, ‘Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.’
“Then they asked him, ‘Where is your father?’
“’You do not know me or my Father,’ Jesus replied. ‘If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’”
I wonder… what was wrong with the objection that the teachers were trying to bring here? Jesus is described as talking about things and not giving any reason from the Torah for people to accept his claims. When the Pharisees (according to the story) challenged him with a thought from the system that God had put in place for them to test things with, Jesus said something vague about how it didn’t matter that there weren’t two witnesses because, despite their ability to hear it, God was a witness. But that clearly doesn’t fit with the intention of the law regarding witnesses. This law existed to allow humans to judge about a matter that God knows about but that a human court was still trying to gain fair evidence about. To claim your father as a witness is problematic enough, but to claim that God had affirmed you and others hadn’t heard it? On the one hand I get it; it’s a very pointed way of saying that God is speaking and that some people can’t hear Him. Which is a harsh attack on things that seem to have been of deep value to the teachers of that time. But really, it has no respect for the plain meaning and purpose of such a law, and it shows an attitude of ‘not needing valid evidence’.
By the way, even though I wasn’t there and don’t know exactly what happened, I want to be clear that I’m talking about the story in the gospel narrative here. I’m not trying to speak unfairly about the real historical man Jesus if he didn’t actually say the things recorded in his name in John. Nor am I taking it for granted that the Pharisees said those things to him. But it is interesting to go back and read things that I have never understood until now in this particular light.
Dear Annelise;
Thank you for your comments. They help to shed some light on how these verses can be viewed. I have to keep in mind,though, that there was the custom then of inserting one’s ideas into a known author, so your ideas could get some public reading.
I read two Jesus in the Gospel, one positive, the other negative. I think the negative was inserted as a bald-work against Romes’ attacks on suspected traitors. Like the trinity, show both sides; a multiple divinity so they did not feel uncomfortable with the Nazarene, and it based on a unity, so the original followers of Jesus would not depart the sect.
As for the legality Jesus is supposed to have practiced? The writer showed less competence than we would expect from one who showed such promised at age 12. But, he had to put his two lira worth in.
More on the inserting needs to be done, so we can know the real Jesus, as compared to the Roman version. Thank you;
Shalom;
Yechiel
The statement. “’You do not know me or my Father,’ Jesus replied. ‘If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’”. This is clearly telling those he is talking to that they worship the wrong g-d. Out with the old in with the new improved savior.
Annelise
The idea of “religious Jews handling of historical data” – I presume you mean the way religious Jews view the writings of the early Church (including but not limited to the Christian Scriptures) – try putting that in context of the way religious Christian “handle” the belief system of Judiams which is not “historical data” but alive and well today – the ease with which they dismiss Judaism on the basis of this “historical data” that Dr. Brown believes is sound – just compare these two attitudes (Christian of Judaism and Jew of Christianity) – and you can see what I am talking about
Yechiel, those are some interesting thoughts. It’s hard to speculate about the distant past and I’m cautious about stating alternative theories (even likely ones) as if they were the only possibility. But what you said about the account of Jesus at age 12 in comparison to the description of his teaching is interesting.
Larry, I agree with that. In this story, Jesus was telling certain Jews that they had a fake relationship with God.
Rabbi Yisroel, I meant the other things that Dr. Brown wrote on that page in AJO… his opinion that religious Jews don’t understand the basics of Christianity and that rabbinic Judaism only began a few hundred years before the Mishnah. I wasn’t saying I agree, because there are Jews who well understand Christianity and don’t accept it (Michael Brown knows this), though he’s right that many Jews don’t know all the details of Christian belief. And I don’t think that it’s historically sound to make a blanket statement about the formation of things in a period where so little is recorded in writing. But I was only trying to say that his rationale isn’t circular name-calling, at least on this level, because he does offer some things that he believes are actual evidence; things that are part of what holds him to his beliefs.
If you reply, I can’t reply for a while… I’ve got some pain/tiredness in my wrists, which I think is RSI (I’ve been typing more each week because of a new job) and am trying to type as little as possible for at least a week. This message I typed slowly… but anyway, i will try and remember
But Rabbi Yisroel, you’re right… I can see what you mean. It is hard because without taking down the walls and being part of what a community has experienced, you don’t get to see what is really experienced and held by it. But without having their faith challenged by something more accessible to them where they are, loyal Christians and loyal Jews can both not go into each other’s context with the belief that something fundamentally true is being deeply known.
i.e. Jews would feel a huge aversion to the worship of a human and the ignorance of the Jewish covenant testimony, and Christians would feel a rejection of Jesus that they weren’t willing to consider as maybe true.
talk more later maybe
Dear Annelise;
Sorry about yhour wrists hurting you. Hope it is short time and you shall be OK.
To put what I post in perspective; for 55 years I have studied some form of Christianity, from the Gospel to the texts of the Chursh Fathers.
Way i came about this interest is from being approached by peers to convert, Not always those who knew me, but the usual order of soul savers. They would bring up questions, I would research them, get to the basic what it is. So I have my knowledge rom what was written, and the re-writes.
I am not boasting but i made some soul savers upset with me, when I would use their Gospel book to show where i am right, or at least, where -d said what I shared, and they could not argue with me. After all, I was using the word of Jesus, his Descipes or Paul, and showing where they were the same, and where they were/are different.
One walked off in a huff, saying; “Well! It should not have been written like that!” A minister who approached me got the same treatment from his heros, and also was angry.
The next Sunday I saw him and went up to him to wish him a good Sunday. You should have seen the look in his eyes! Must have thought I was going to Circumcise him?
So I have a decent background, thanks to all the questions (which have been repeated by different persons) over the years. More I studied, the more I realized the Gospel was a mishmash, and unreliable as history, and also contradicted the Tanach in hundreds of places. G-d, for example, has His Moshiac bring peace, JC a sward. Hummmmm
So have a good day, and I hope alls well the wrists well.
Shalom;
Yechiel
“In this story, Jesus was telling certain Jews that they had a fake relationship with God”. I’m not sure you can water down “know my father” with “had a fake relationship with g-d. If you asked one on the Pharisee he was talking to the question, who is g-d, what do you think they would say? You could ask them do you know who g-d is. I imagine Egypt, Sinai, Torah would come up. That’s why when the idea he was g-d came up he was rejected. Ask any Christian if Christ claimed to be g-d. They will back it up with lots of scriptures and they are quite convincing to anyone who does not know Judaism teachings. Just like when Paul taught the Gentiles. It is still going on today, half truths, miss quotes, scripture taken out of context, original teachings never even understood or learned the way it is supposed to be, the original way.
Jesus is the most misunderstood person who ever lived on earth.Jesus didn’t say anything against Judaism didn’t does any thing against Judaism. The Jesus you see in the Gospels, the meaning you see for the words and deeds of Jesus in the gospels are the Christian version. It is not Gentiles who presented such a Jesus in the gospels, it is some of the Jews who did that.What was its result for Jews and Judaism? “The story of Israel’s rejection of Jesus is a story of loyalty to the Creator of heaven of earth; it is a story of love and loyalty.”. Christianity removed Jews who were not loyal to their God from Judaism . This was what apostles of Jesus did . What do you think? If this was the work what Jesus entrusted to his apostles why do you blame Jesus instead of appreciating Jesus ? Why can’t you accept the truth that apostles of Jesus did the work Moses foretold ” Duet.13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Before going to conduct this test upon Jews, Jesus told the Jews to pray to their God ” do not lead us into the test “. When Jews reject Christianity they are right but when they reject Jesus who claimed he is only a messenger of their God and not God or son of God as the Christians preach the Jews are doing a great blunder.
But “the Jews” did not reject “the Jesus” who taught what “the Jews” were taught from God’s Torah. You say also that he did not speak “against Judaism”or do anything against “Judaism” so how could they reject him? They only rejected the “Christian Jesus”, who spoke of the unkosher and ungodly “drinking his blood & eating his flesh”. Remember how they loved “the Jewish Jesus” & “swarmed around him so he found it difficult to be alone for a few minutes to pray to their God”, UNTIL the Christian Jesus appeared on the page? That is the only “real Jesus” you see in the “Christian Gospels”. You have not yet read about him in “the Jesus Gospels” or in Jewish writings. All of what you have read about Jesus in the “Gospels” that you have & most of what YOU understand about Jesus is the “Christian Jesus” who pagan Tyre & Sidon” could follow. It is a 2 or 1 dimensional, very foggy & barely visible, “Jewish Jesus” that you have found in a very few verses of the “Christian Gospels”. A few lines here & there to make Jesus look Jewish & therefore the Roman Church thought he might be made acceptable to “the Jews”. That “Jewish Jesus” is the Jesus that the Gospels showed that they followed up until “another Gospel” was taught which “was too difficult” for them follow because it was the words of pagan or Christian Jesus, who was the Jesus of Tyre & Sidon & Babylon & Rome. Keep researching for the Jesus who appears OUTSIDE of the Christian, Roman approved gospels, and then you will understand the pure, kosher, uncontaminated “real Jesus”.
Dear Naaria;
Jews formed the original Nazarine congrecation, with many G-dfearing Gentiles. Then, the Church in the third and fourth centuries Gentilized the faith, distroyed the Jewish componate, and hipocratically turned to us and on us, to accept their god.
I accept the Jewish Torah, not the Pagan Jesus. That is the bottom line.
Shalom;
Yechiel
The writings of the Gentile church was in the middle of the 2nd c.e. Those writers knew of no Jews who believed in Jesus. The Nazarenes came later than that. And according to Church historians, the Ebionites were both Gnostic & non-Gnostics who “kept some of the rituals/laws & some of the holidays”"of the Jews”. That did not mean that they were Jews, but that they practiced some things that Jews practiced, just like many non-Jewish Christians in “Hebraic Roots churches” today eat kosher food, sing songs in Hebrew, wear tallits & kippas, and celebrate Passover, Shavuot, the 10 Days of Awe, Sukkot, etc along with Christmas and “Resurrection Day”. That does not make them Jews.
I was one of those Christians who tried so hard to find the “Jewish Jesus” in the NT book of James, the non-canon gospels or other writings of James, Peter, the Ebionites, the Nazarene, the pseudo-Clementine writings, etc. I found no truly 1st c.e. writings and sparse 2nd century c.e. writings (I question much of those writings as well).
Dear Naaria;
The first followers of Jesus had to be enough knowldegable to understand the language and symbols used. Whom do you concider the best candidates?
To help you, I am posting one of many websites which discribed the first ones to concider Jesus someone to follow, as opposed to the many other messianic pertenders. (There were 40 who were crusified by Rome). I hope this helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
Many others also fell for the error, as because some who came after Jesus and his first disciples died, inserted anti-Jewish material to show they were in Rome’s ball park, not Jerusalem (which in the 70′s was destroyed in the rebellion.
When I post something, I try to contain myself with the writings of the period, or if no writings, then, what are the closest.
Shalom;
Yechiel
A little better website than the Wikipedia site, which has numerous errors, speculations & non-scholarly work (folks singing to the choir) is the website http://earlychristianwritings.com/. Most perceptions about the NT and early Christianity are based on accepting the modern canonical texts as true, unbiased history. Just as one searches for hints or clues of Jesus in the Torah, some seek a “Jewish Jesus”, a “pre-Christian or non-Christian Yeshua” in those same “Christian writings” they reject as untrustworthy. The more one searches for the “historical Jesus” the less historical Jesus appears. In the site above, the first couple writings are not actual texts and many others have dates which are guesses and are not based on found relics (for instance there is no known existing writings by Paul until the after about the middle of the 3rd century c.e.). Some are guesses have a range of a couple hundred years, with the early years being the most speculative. One must take into consideration that many Christian scholars (who have studied early Christianity & its texts in more depth than I have) believe only 7 of 14 Pauline writings are “authentically Paul’s”. Of course, Paul himself may not be a historical person. And according to Marcion, a Christian bishop of the 2nd century c.e., Jesus did not have a Jewish father or mother. The book of acts is believed by most scholars to be written long after the “authentic Pauline letters”. Acts also is much shorter today then it once was, and it most likely was written by at least 2 different authors (the 2nd part is almost exclusively pro-Paul, yet disagreeing with Paul’s letters in quite a few ways). Some believe “Luke” wrote Acts & they also believe that he was not Jewish (Theophilus was also much later than the 2nd century), so the first part of Acts contains some lack of knowledge of Torah or history, some ignorance of Jews, their culture & rituals, and has an almost anti-Jewish viewpoint (at least of those Jews who were not “Christians”).
Some of the many theories of who Jesus was or how Christinity started can be found at the above website, http://earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. For a more in-depth & scholarly study of early Christianity, go to ccel.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) and check out the 10 volumes of ante-Nicene writings, in particular Volume 1 which contains works by Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. A couple of them may not have been historical people, but more so than the truly speculative theories of “1st century Jewish Christians” and their non-existent writings.
For a little more on that we have the “Jesus Project” initiated by a historian of religion in 2007, (members came from either believing or skeptic viewpoints). They sought to improve upon what was seen as the failure of the earlier “Jesus Seminar” to determine what could be recovered about Jesus, using the highest standards of scientific and scholarly enquiry. After the project was terminated, the chairman, a believer in Jesus, argued that NT documents, particularly the gospels, “were written at a time when the line between natural and supernatural was not clearly drawn, and concluded that further historical research was not realistic”. “No quantum of material discovered since the 1940’s, in the absence of canonical material, would support the existence of an historical founder,” he wrote. But he also believed that nothing in the canon or church doctrine denied the existence of a “founder”. From “Jesus to Christ” (Jewish Jesus to gentile Christ) or “Christ to Jesus”, or both Jesus/Yeshua & Christ from the very beginning (whenever that beginning really began) could not be answered. Some (many) of the most convincing articles on the forum would argue against a “Jewish Jesus” with “mainly Jewish following”. That is why Josephus, Philo, & non-Jewish writers in the 1st century know nothing about anyone even closely resembling a “Jesus” – at least no one more influential than a Gamaliel or a ben Zakki. No story or written account about a Jesus seems to emerge until perhaps the middle of the 2nd century c.e. and those stories come from non-Jews. Marcion (& “Paul”) in his/their opinion, called some of his fellow believers, “Judaizers”, which indicates that it is probable that some were trying to make Jewish some person, spirit, belief, or idea, Jewish which started out not-Jewish (the “from Christ to Jesus/Iesous/Yeshua” theory). After the destruction of the temple (“God’s House”), when the “Jew’s God was also destroyed” as Titus & many other Romans believed, a new god could be offered. It is believed that Rome had over 30,000 gods, many which came from the people’s that they defeated in battle & rewritten. A new replacement god for a defeated people & their defeated God, but Rome was surprised that the Jews would not except “their new messiah” & still would not worship the god Caesar like good citizens (& those who were made slaves) should.
“When Jews reject Christianity they are right”.. There is no but. Whether in truth Jesus claimed to be god or not , that is what is presented in the new improved testment. Chritians believe he is god because in their bible he claims to be. The OT “original” testment, if you study it from a Jewish perspective, rejects even the idea of a g-d man. There is no honest search for Jesus in the OT, original testment from a Christian point of view. You must go to his chosen people, who He taught, and trusted to teach his ways.
I understand Jesus perfectly well. There is his version, and the Gentile version.
How do I distenquish between them? Easy; the positive Jesus is compatible with the Tanach, the negative Jesus is not. End of story. Anyway, he was one of over 40 messiahs whom the Romans crusified. But, he had Paul, whose writings are the basis for the negative Jesus. Read them, not argue, and you shall see that I am right.
Besides, why would he condemn his followers to hell-which Jews do not believe in-including his mother?
And, the biggie! Would your Jesus believe all who never heard of the Torah, but still lived Moral and Ethical lives be condemned? What charge? If you are right, you prove Jesus is not Kosher.
Shalom;
Yechiel
So you have an even newer religion. It rejects Christianity as not being true, it rejects Judaism by giving their own explanations of what is written by them 1000′s of years ago in the Torah. Thank g-d for picking a nation to protect his teaching.
This was written to Paul k….
What’s Jesus version? Since everything he supposedly said was written about what 80 years later. What’s the gentile version, what translation do you use? Jesus is compatible with the tanach, eat my body drink my blood, human sacrifice etc. ? By the way I have read them, I was christian most my life. It’s very hard to understand your questions.
Dear Larry;
You stated the answer to your question; >>>Jesus is compatible with the tanach, eat my body drink my blood, human sacrifice etc. ? By the way I have read them, I was christian most my life. It’s very hard to understand your questions.<<<
Not questions, but acceptance of the writer of the wy he sees the beliefs of Jesus. These are not compatable with the Tanach, thus we affirn G-d by afirning His word as true and the only word we guide our lives by.
Thank you for your comments; they help to bring up immportant items that we each look at, but through the prism of each one's faith.
Shalom;
Yechiel
hyechiel;
Sorry, about the comment, I thought you were a jews for jesus type, then I found out I misunderstood you.
Dear Larry;
I am neither prejudice, nor a Goy. G-d said some things He meams for us to take seriously. I do. But where I grew up, there are the usual soul savers. I learned at an early age to take what they said to me, and to track it down. The more I did, the stronger my ties to Torah and to HaShem became. I know from what is writen what is and what is not.
The post JC writers show that they did not, or try to sell us a bill of goods. Some bought, but must read the fine print and even at the cost of our lives, stay true to Him.
Thank you for checking it out. You meant no harm, and now, B”H, I have another witness besides the poor dudes on AOLA that I am a hard-headed Jew.
Shalom;
Yechiel