[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | BAGELS and other things of Jewish interest |
| Notice: | 1.0 policy, 280.0 directory, 32.0 registration |
| Moderator: | SMURF::FENSTER |
|
| Created: | Mon Feb 03 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1524 |
| Total number of notes: | 18709 |
980.0. "Prager on J4J" by TAV02::FEINBERG (Don Feinberg) Mon Sep 24 1990 10:25
This article is a propos several more-or-less ongoing discussions in this
file. Therefore, I've placed it in a seperate note.
don feinberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Is There Such a Thing as a "Jew for Jesus?"'
Dennis Prager
Reprinted without permission from "Ultimate Issues"
Oct. - Dec. 1989
There is no such thing as a "Jew for Jesus." For both Jewish and
Christian reasons the term is simply deceitful. This is not meant
as an attack on the sincerity of those who call themselves "Jews for
Jesus," but it is possible to be both sincere and deceitful.
The deceit lies in the fact that these Jews who come to believe
in Jesus as their G-d, Savior and Messiah do not acknowledge that
they have become Christians. A Christian is defined as one who
believes in Jesus Christ. A Jew who comes to believe in Jesus
Christ is therefore a Christian. It is the denial of this that it
deceitful and that arouses such enmity among Jews.
Jews who call themselves Christians after converting to a
belief in Jesus merit Jews' intellectual respect. While all Jews
committed to Jewish survival are disturbed when any Jew leaves
Judaism, I do not know of a single Jew who would *resent* a Jew who
came to believe in Jesus and called himself a Christian. One of the
leading figures in the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of
Paris, Cardinal Lustiger, is quite revered by Jews, even though he
converted to Catholicism from Judaism.
"Jews for Jesus" are probably the only people in the world who
take on the beliefs of another religion yet deny that they have
converted to that religion.
Of course, "Jews for Jesus" and those Christians who support
them respond that a Jew who comes to believe in Jesus does not cease
being a Jew; indeed he has become a "completed Jew." A few responses
to this casuistry are in order.
First, quite aside from the question of whether a "Jew for
Jesus" is still a Jew, no Christian can deny that a Jew who comes to
believe in Jesus has become a Christian. After all, if a Muslim, or
a Hindu, or any other person comes to believe in Jesus, Christians
call this person a Christian. Only with regard to Jews to some
Christians hold that when a person takes Jesus as his savior is he
or she still a member of that religion. Singling out Jews from all
of humanity for such a dubious distinction leads any honest observer
to conclude that such an exclusion has an ulterior motive. There
are no "Muslims for Jesus" or "Hindus for Jesus" since no Christian
holds that one can be a Christian and a Hindu at the same time. Why
then can one be a Jew and a Christian at the same time?
"Jews for Jesus" answer that there is a difference - Jesus was
a Jew, not a Hindu or a Muslim, and the first believers in Jesus
were also Jews. But while this is of historical and theological
interest to Christians who wish to know their roots, it has always
been religiously irrelevant to Jews.
Christians ought to be able to relate to this. The first
believers in Joseph Smith and Mormonism were all Christians, and
Christians find that religiously irrelevant. The only difference is
that when Christians take on Mormon beliefs, Mormons have the
integrity to call these people Mormons, not "Christians for Smith"
(an equivalent form of "Jews for Jesus") or "Mormon Christians" (an
equivalent form of "Hebrew Christians"). And these Christians who
convert to Mormonism have the self-confidence to call themselves by
their new faith. Indeed, the very Christians who support such
notions as "Jews for Jesus" or "Hebrew Christians" are those who
protest the most vociferously when Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses
call themselves Christians.
The fact that the first Christians were Jews is pointless,
since the first Mormons were Christians, the first Buddhists were
Hindus, and the first Protestants were Catholics. Yet, neither
Martin Luther not the millions of Protestants to follow him called
themselves "Catholics for no Pope" or "Catholics for no Sacraments;"
Muslims do not call Jews who convert to Islam "Jews for Muhammad;"a
and Jews do not demean Christianity or Judaism by calling Christians
who convert to Judaism "Completed Christians" or "Christians without
Christ."
Why, then, among all religious groups in the world do some
Christians believe that there can be "Jews for Jesus?" The reasons
are not difficult to ascertain. "Jews for Jesus" know that the
number of Jews who will ever convert to Christianity is
infinitesimally small - indeed, in America, more Christians become
Jews than Jews become Christian. Even Jews who are completely
alienated from any Jewish identity, national or religious, prefer no
religion to conversion to another religion; and Jews with even the
most rudimentary sense of Jewish identity do not easily part from
that Jewish identity. Therefore, the only way to attract any number
of Jews to Christianity is to deceive Jews who are ignorant of
Judaism into believing that they can keep their Jewish identity
while adopting Christian beliefs: Take our Bible, our Messiah, our
apostles, our Savior and our Trinity, and still stay Jewish!
Christians who do not readily see the deceit in this approach -
which, incidentally, is terribly demeaning to Christianity (it is a
tacit admission that almost the only Jews who will accept
Christianity are those who refuse to call themselves Christian) -
can do so if they simply apply this thinking to their own beliefs.
Imagine how a Christians in a Muslim country would react if they
were told the following: Muhammad is the final and greatest prophet
who Christians had always been awaiting; Christians who do not
recognize that Muhammad was prophesied in their Bible do not
understand their own Scriptures; therefore to be a completed
Christian, a Christian must accept Muhammad and the Quran as his
prophet and Bible. Of course, he can still venerate Jesus as a
prophet of G-d, just as Muslims do, but he will have to forgo such
aberrations as belief in the divinity of Jesus and in the Trinity.
And then he is a "Christian for Muhammad."
A Christian would react to such claims by noting that any
Christian who came to such beliefs would no longer be a Christian,
he would be a Muslim. To which the Muslim could respond that the
Christian does not understand his own Bible, for Muhammad was
prophesied for all people, and the moment he came to earth,
Christianity was fulfilled and superseded.
At this point, the Christian would respond that this Muslim was
an arrogant fool for having the gall to tell Christians what defines
Christianity. Of course, that Christian would be right - which is
why it is accurate to characterize "Jews for Jesus" and other
Christians who tell Jews what Judaism believes in the same terms.
Christians define Christianity, Jews define Judaism, and
Muslims define Islam. Christianity believes in Jesus Christ, in his
atoning death and resurrection, in the Trinity, in the New
Testament, and in the virgin birth. Judaism does not.
"Jews for Jesus" are Christians who, either because that cannot
sever their emotional bonds to the Jewish people or because they
know this is the only way to get some Jews to convert to
Christianity, do not admit that they are Christians. This is
apparent to everyone but "Jews for Jesus" and their Christian
supporters (who, to their credit, are a minority among Protestants
and non-existent among Catholics). It is even apparent to the
children of "Jews for Jesus" who also see themselves as Christians
rather than Jews (which is why any Jews contemplating becoming "Jews
for Jesus" ought to understand that even if they believe in this
oxymoron, their children will know exactly who they are -
Christians).
If a Jew wishes to convert to Christianity, that is his right
which must be respected. We live, thank G-d, in a free and
pluralistic society. But those Jews who do convert to Christianity
yet continue to call themselves Jews deserve the contempt in which
Jews and Christians who honor their respective faiths hold them.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 980.1 | Christians becoming Jews? | MINAR::BISHOP | | Mon Sep 24 1990 17:15 | 5 |
| A side issue: in the article, Prager says that more Christians
convert to Judaism that _vice_versa_ in the US. Any numbers?
Any explainations? I'd never heard this before, and was quite
surprised.
-John Bishop
|
| 980.2 | I'm sure there are exceptions | ABACUS::RADWIN | I think, fer sure | Mon Sep 24 1990 23:40 | 5 |
| I hadn't thought about it before, but I know of at least 8 mixed
marriages. In four of these, the Christian partner has converted to
Judaism. In none of the cases has the Jewish p[artner converted.
Gene
|
| 980.3 | Thoughts. . . | BOSTRN::STEINHART | | Tue Sep 25 1990 20:49 | 62 |
| When I visited Thailand, I learned that many people there, who are
officially Buddhist (and usually quite devout), see no conflict in
celebrating holidays of other faiths. They believe there is truth in
every religion and the holidays are to be enjoyed. I have heard
(anectodally) that this is true in other Eastern cultures.
This is not to make an argument for Jews for Jesus, whom I too find
contemtible, but just to make the observation that it is only in
Western culture that religions claim a deadlock on truth; and that an
individual "converts" from one relgion to another, relinquishing all
claim to the former.
It's interesting to contemplate that we consider a person to "be" a
Christian, Jew, or Moslem. While there are very pious Buddhists or
Hindus who eschew any non-traditional practices or beliefs, for many
people in the East, a person cannot "be" a member of a relgion, but
rather "practice" their traditional or family religion, and admit other
practices or beliefs without a big conflict. There is no conversion
ritual I'm aware of in these relgions.
Another interesting thought, that Judaism did not set up the situation,
but rather the Christians and Moslems around us did. We do have
conversion, and strict rules about who is a Jew. But other than
monotheism and basic morality, we don't claim to have the truth for all
humanity, obviating all other relgious beliefs. This is a fundamental
difference. We don't aim to convert the world, but only to make
available the truths we see as universal, for the enlightenment of
those who would see them. A Hindu from India, with extensive religious
training, said to me that he sees the gods and goddesses as faces of
the real deity, and that they are used for the simple and as an aid in
meditation and visualization. So for the more thoughtful, if we probe
enough, we see they agree with the principle of monotheism. It is the
Christian and Moslem religions that claim to have "the" truth based on
their one true prophet, and that historically practiced forced
conversion. It's sad that the Jews and many others have suffered so
under dire situations set up by beliefs of the powerful.
I hope this world grows to a more accepting posture. The Jews for
Jesus seem mild compared to the Inquisition, but even they (or at least
their Christian supporters) can only remind us of centuries of pain.
Is the loss of our brothers and sisters today, any less painful?
Dennis Prager takes a nice American, open-minded stand with regard to
conversion or those Jews who practice Christianity without converting.
But for those of us whose brothers and sisters are among them, it is
hardly possible to minimize the pain and sense of loss. Our losses are
attributable to the power (in America read "social acceptability") of
the dominant religion, and to the negative stereotypes of ourselves. I
think that beliefs have relatively little to do with it. In a more
accepting world, our positive self-image as Jews would be enough to
retain those siblings, if not as fully practicing Jews, than at least
in the mishpocha. The strength of the pull of Christianity, both
subtle and explicit, is just too much for many Jews in America today.
If the proselytizers would only respect us and let us be, it would be
so much better for us here today.
I apologize if my train of thought seems rambling. These thoughts have
been rattling around for years, and this seemed the right place for
their expression. Likewise I apologize if anyone is offended. No
offense is intended, just a prayer for the pressure to be off our
backs and a true pluralistic society to grow here in the US and other
countries.
|
| 980.4 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Sep 25 1990 23:30 | 12 |
| re .3:
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thought some of Prager's
remarks were misguided. Not only does he seem to find it acceptable
that Jews convert to Christianity, but he thinks that Jews "revere"
Cardinal Lustiger.
I think there's an important lesson to be learned from Cardinal Lustiger.
If I'm not mistaken, he was raised by Catholics who hid him during the
war. A Jew raised in a Catholic environment, receiving a Catholic
education, becomes a priest. What does this forbode for Jews raised
with no Jewish education?
|
| 980.5 | Hints on combatting J4J | RACHEL::BARABASH | This note was written by TECO | Thu Sep 27 1990 21:53 | 129 |
| From: [email protected] (Jonathan Kaplan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Tips on Dealing w/J for J
Date: 18 Jul 90 02:48:52 GMT
Lines: 123
The Local Jewish Community Task Force on Missionary
Activities publishes a Brochure. Here are two excerpts (all
typos are my fault) from the latest one.
WHAT DO WE SAY WHEN...?
Jews for Judaism has developed the following five-step
method to guard against the abuses of Bible Roulette, a game
of chance in which no one wins. The following is reprinted
from one of their publications.
STEP 1: Does the verse even exist within our Hebrew
Scriptures?
Example:"Joseph came and resided in a city called Nazareth
that what was spoken through the prophets might be
fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'." (Matt, 2:23).
Nowhere does such a prophecy appear in our bible.
STEP 2: Is the verse being mistranslated?
An effective missionary will work with crude English
retranslations of earlier Greek mistranslations, and will at
all costs avoid a look at the original Hebrew
Example: Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes
Isaiah as saying, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he
will remove ungodliness from Jacob," thus establishing
Scriptural support for its view that the Messiah will take
away our sins. The original, however, Isaiah 59:20 says
exactly the opposite: "A redeemer will come to Zion and to
those who turn away from transgression in Jacob, declares
the Lord." The Messiah's role is not to take away our sins;
rather, when we turn away from our sins, the Messiah will
then come.
STEP 3: Has the context been distorted?
Example: Matthew 1:23 cites Jesus' "virgin birth" as
being the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isa. 7:14,
"Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son."
Aside from the inaccurate translation of the word "almah,"
meaning "young woman," not "virgin," we learn from Isaiah 7
that the context is that of a prophecy made to King Ahaz to
allay his fears of two invading kings.
STEP 4: Viewed in context could this verse possibly refer to
Jesus of the "New Testament?"
EXAMPLE: In Heb. 1:5, the verse from 2 Samuel 7:14, "I will
be a father to him and he shall be a son to ME", :is said by
the "New Testament" author to be a prophetic reference to
Jesus. But if we look at the verse from 2 Samuel in its
entirety, the verse doesn't end with the phrase quoted in
the "New Testament", but continues, "When he commits
iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men." Can this
possibly be referring to the "sinless" Jesus of the
Christian Bible?
STEP 5: Would we view this as a prophecy about Jesus without
the aid of the New Testament?
In many cases, the Christian missionaries employ actual
messianic prophecies in the conversionary efforts. These
usually take the following form:
a. The Hebrew Bible says ____________ about the
Messiah.
b. The "New Testament" says that Jesus fulfilled this
prophecy.
c. Therefore Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
The flaw in the logic here is that the "proof" only points
to Jesus if you already accept the "New Testament."
------------------------------------------------------
The Jewish Community Relations Council in New York has made
available the following resources on missionaries:
() QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON CULTS AND MISSIONARY GROUPS, a
comprehensive look at frequently asked questions and the
best way to answer them.
() THE RISE OF HEBREW_CHRISTIANITY, by Julius Berman
() A NEW DILEMMA: MISSIONARIES AND CULTS IN ISRAEL, by
Julius Berman
() THE JEW AND THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY: A JEWISH RESPONSE
TO MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY, by Gerald Sigal
() YOU TAKE JESUS, I'LL TAKE G_D: HOW TO REFUTE CHRISTIAN
MISSIONARIES, by Samuel Levine.
The JCRC of New York also offers videos produced by Hebrew
Christian groups which explicitly demonstrate their
missionary techniques. Please use discretion in showing
these films.
() "Jews for Jesus Passover film" (videotape)
() "Twice Chosen" -- a videotape produced by Assemblies of
G-d
() Jews for Jesus fundraising film (videotape)
() Video on proselytizing the Jewish people
To order any of these resources, please write to the Task
force on Missionaries and Cults, JCRC of New York,
12th floor, 711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Other resources available locally [Boston]:
() From the UAHC, THE TARGET IS YOU!, a 30 -minute videotape
alerting Jewish teenagers and their parents about the danger
posed by Hebrew Christian missionary groups.
() From the Bureau of Jewish Education, various publications
are available.
|