Yuku free message boards

Hello Moshe

I agree with everything you say 100%. Some messianic organizations were made to, and will assimilate many jews. But has anyone taken into account the amount of gentiles who will convert to authentic Judaism after being exposed to the messianic imposter.

I myself am a gentile who once attended a "messianic" assembly and believed that the NT Christian yeshu was the Messiah. Now having become familiar with the Tnkh, I see how that yeshu of the new testament couldn't possibly be G-d, or the Messiah. I also see that Rabbi Yeshua (though a righteous Pharisee like many other righteous Pharisees) whom the character of yeshu is based on also could not have possibly been the messiah, and would not even agree with 'messianic judaism'.

I myself plan on converting as soon as possible. Right now I go to community college, and live with my mother, far away fom any orthodox synogogues. It is right now impossible for me to adhere to halacha but as soon as I move, I will go through an orthodox conversion.

This experience is by no means unique to me. Both my girlfriend and myself, as well as many other "messianics" I know are also planning on converting to authentic Judaism (Which I feel is messianic, in that Israel awaits the TRUE messiah).

Keep in my mind that Jews for Jesus is not the only messianic Group out there. There are many groups of other Jews who sincerely (but wrongly) beleive that yeshu is the messiah, some of which who don't even agree with the idea of the trinity or even the virgin birth (i was part of one of these).

I feel that Christianity is a dying religion and won't be around in the future (taking into account the wealth of available information on it). Many christians will become muslim, new age religionist, or atheist. I feel that in the future Judaism will absorb much of Christianity (the christians sharing a version of the hebrew scriptures, though it is corrupt).

I'm new to this site so what I speak of is only from What I've seen. I think this site does a very good job exposing the Torah abiding/Torah breaking, ideal Jew/2nd person of the trinity, Pharisee/Saducee/Essene, Human rabbi/divine person of the virgin birth spoken of by Zoraster, Good example/Paul's Pagan Idol, all rolled into a Sun/Demi-god Angel messiah who died and was ressurected for our sins........ for what he really is, something that the hebrew scriptures never spoke of.
I just wish that the website would also focus on the historical Rabbi Yeshua on whom the impsoster was based. Dealing with him, rather than saying he didn't exist, would allow more christians to see that they should also follow rabbinical judaism as he did.

He is not G-d and certainly not messiah, but as a former messianic he is now like a father figure to me. I believe that other messianics who become aquainted with the Tnkh, as well as the origins of christianity, will eventually see the problems with NT and abandon their false religion.

I am not ignorant to the fact that there were always christians who converted to Judaism (Rabbinical rational always made more sense than christians doctrine), I just beleive that Messianic Judaism increased the number of once christian converts.

What does everybody think? I'd love a response, even if you don't agree.


Gabriel

Hello Moshe it's me again.

You seem a little annoyed with my post. I apologize
if I said anything stupid to make you upset. I also
apologize if you are not upset and were not annoyed
with my post. Sometimes I'm over sensitive and seem
to perceive things which aren't there.

Anyway It's understandable even if you were annoyed.
I'm annnoyed. Christianity/Messianic Judaism is
annoying. And even though I am not Jewish under
halacha, I beleive that some of my ancestors
had to have been Israelites, or converts to judaism,
and I feel that the blood of Jacob runs through my
veins. Even with that aside, my heart is connected to
Israel in a way much stronger than that of any blood
line.

With that said I'm annoyed at what christianity has
done to Jews historically. And if I'm annoyed, not
even have been brought up Jewish, How much more so
would a native jew be annoyed. I could understand if
a Jew didn't like jesus or anything related directly or
indirectly related to Christianity.

I don't like "jesus". I hate jesus. My mother and
the rest of my zealous Christian family says I'm going
to hell for rejecting the New Testament and rejecting
jesus. jesus is one of the reasons I'm getting ready
to be kicked out of my house and the reason why I no
longer have a good relationship with any of the idol
worshippers in my house.

With that said Yeshua is NOT jesus.

"You will encounter much discomfort and have
difficulty finding acceptance among the orthodox, and
will likely have difficulty finding a rav to oversee
you conversion if you still have such fond feelings
about Jesus."

I have jewish acquaintances who I've talked to about
the differences between Yeshua and jesus and they
understand perfectly where I am coming from. I find
no reason to believe that I would be uncomfortable in
the Orthodox community just because I believe Yeshua
was a good person.

"He wasn't a rabbi. Being a rabbi required ordination
from a preceding rabbi. There is no evidence he held
such an august status."

There are historical facts which point to Yeshua being
a Rabbi. This was short notice, and I don't have alot
of information but here are few excerpts from:

Maccoby, Hyam. "Jesus the Pharisee", Scm Press, London
2003.

(sorry for "" I don't know how to underline on the
forum. I'm not that experienced with forums, the internet and stuff.)

Begin Quote

Meanwhile it may be asked, 'If Jesus was indeed a Pharisee teacher, one of the sages (as they were called) and if there is continuity between the Pharisee sages and post-destruction rabbis why is it that none of Jesus' saying appear in the writings of second century rabbis? After all, many Pharisee sages (for example, Hillel and Gamalielare mentioned by name in the Mishnah and Talmud, and their syings are copiously recorded as treasures of the rabbinic movement itself. It is no answer to say that Jesus was primarily a messianic claimant rather than a teacher, for it is clear from the Gospels that he was indeed a teacher as well as messianic claimant. Here he differed from other messianic claimants, such as Bar Kokhba, who never claimed to be teachers, and whose sayings are therefore quite understandably do not appear in the literature.
The Main answer, of course, is that since Jesus (quite beyond his own intention) gave rise to a new religion which abrogated the Torah and produced Anti-Pharisee writings, the name 'Jesus' undeserrvedly fell into bad repute among the members the members of the rabbinic movement, and any sayings of his that had survived were erased from the tradition.
However this is not the shole story. One of Jesus rabbinic dicta does indeed appear in the rabbbinic literature, a curious relic of what was once probably a considerable body of dicta. For when, at the begining of the second century, the Jesus movement of the Jerusalem Church was declared by rabbis to be herectical (having been earlier accepted as an acceptable form of Judaism, unlike the Pauline Gentile Church which had always been regarded as outside Judaism altogether, and thereforeas not even heretical), Jesus himself lost his status as a rabbi of authority and his sayings were almost all suppressed. A similar case was Elisha be Avuyah, who was regarded at one time as highly respected rabbi, but turned to heresy and was excommunicated in his lifetime: his ayings were on the whole, suppressed, though some of them were preserved in the rabbinic writings. In Jesus' case, where he became regarded some after his death as the founder of a wholesale heretical movement, the suppression was more thorough, which make it all the more interesting that one saying of his, in his capacity of Pharisee rabbi, was preserved, though the content of the saying is nor very remarkable in itself, and may be imperfectly preserved.
This rare sying is found in the Babylonian Talmud, and also in some other rabbinic sources. It is related that Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, one of the most eminent of the rabbis, was arrested by the Roman authorities on suspicion of being a Christian (this was at a time of Roman persecution of Christians, probablyduring the reign of Trajan). Eliezer, however waas found innocent and released, but was vey upset at having undergone this unpleasant experience, thinking that this must be because of some sin he had committed of which this was a punishment. His pupil, Rabbi Akiva, attempting to put his mind to rest by locating the cause of his teacher s tribulation, said to him, 'Perhaps someone once quoted a saying of some heretic to you, and you received it with pleasure instead of repudiating it?' To this Eliezer replied that indeed something of the sort had happened. He had once met a disciple of Jesus called Jacob of Kefar Sakhnaya in a street on Sepphoris. They had a conversation, in the course of which, Jacob reported a saying of Jesus whicih was halackhic interpretation of the verse in Micah: 'for she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return it to the hire of an harlot' (Mic. 1.7, AV). Jesus interpreted this to mean that since the money originated in a place of filth , it could therefore be applied without conscientous scruple to a place of filth. Therefore, if the hire of a harlot were consecrated to the Temple, it should not be entirely rejected as unworthy, but should be used for the purpose of building a privy for the High Priest. Rabbi Eliezer reported that he found this interpretation pleasing; but afterwards, when he underwent certain sufferings, he blamed himself for having given the teaching of a heretic such a good reception and thought his suffering was a punishment for this (b. Avod. Zar. 16b).
The incident reflects a period when the Jesus movemen become heretical in the eyes of rabbinic Jews, but the rabbinic character of Jesus himself had not yet been totally forgotten. The incident is thus historically very significant. At first, the Jesus movement was regarded without animosity as a harmless variety of Judaism: this phase is seen in the New Testament itself in the reaction of the Pharisee leader Gamaliel to Peter and his companions (Acts 5). At this time, the insistence of the Jesus movement that Jesus was still alive and would shortly be returning to resume his career as king-messiah was not regarded as contradicting any principle of Judaism: Gamaliel's reaction was simply, 'Let's wait and see. Perhaps they are right.' As time went on, however, and Jesus did not return, the persistence of the Jesus movement began to arouse opposition. Moreover, the growth of a Gentile movement that dedicated to Jesus as a deified figure (under the influence of Paul) perhaps tended to turn Jewish opinion even against the Jewish Christians who still regarded Jesus as a human king: a movement that could have such deplorable consequences (including the publication of Anti-Jewish literature in the shape of the Gospels) could hardly be regarded with favor. Yet the Jewish Christians were still not banished altogether from the Jewish fold. They were regarded not as idolators (like the Pauline Christians) but as heretical Jews.
Furthering this development was the continuing reverence of the Jewish Christians for Jesus as their teacher. His sayings circulated among them as superior to the pronouncements of the rabbinic sages. In fact, the Jewish Christians cut themselves off from rabbinic developments in Judaism which took place after the destruction of the Temple. It was essential to rabbinic orthodoxy to accept the authority of rabbinic decisions, even though these were often arrived at by majority vote and were not regarded as infallible. To stand outside this process of law-making was to be like citizens of a democratic state who declared themselves unbound by the decisions of Parliament.
It seems also that though Jesus was not worshipped by the Jewish Christians as God (in the Pauline style), he was given a magical status that offended against rabbinic thinking. It seems from certain rabbinic passages that amulets circulated among the Jewish Christians inscribed with the name of Jesus, and these amulets were held to b efficacious as remedies for illness. This smacked of sorcery, and gave further offence.


End Quote

This is just a little bit of information to support what I'm saying (way too much to type), but the information is out there. And I believe that this information would be more useful in turning Jews away from Christianity than simply saying 'Yeshua did not exist' or 'You can't think Yeshua's a good person.'

With that said I admire alot of the things you post on the board and have the utmost respect for everyone here. I feel that even though the board could be more objective, it is very useful in destroying the corruption we call 'Messianic/Christianity'.


Gabriel

Hello Moshe,

It is yet another response from me

"No, there are not. As much as I respect Maccoby's work (I particularly enjoyed his book on Paul) his work that you quoted is mostly speculative, not facts."

Of course there is speculation when dealing with this subject. Even "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" (I'm with you on that, It is FABULOUS) was written in the same way, with portions of speculation. There are many conclusions scholars have, even when dealing with history, which, are also written from speculation or interpretation from limited amounts of data. However that doesn't mean that a scholars conclusion is wrong, especially if he has facts to support his conclusion. There is still enough information out there for me to still be comfortable in the belief that Yeshua was a rabbi.

My believes about Yeshua allows me to better argue (and obliterate) the beliefs of messianics. The fact that I believe that he was a rabbi allows me to make cases against messianics who belief that the Oral Torah is not biblical. The belief that he was a Pharisee also helps me to show others how anti-Jewish the new testament is.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel there is no way for us to discuss Yeshua being a rabbi without going back and forth. There are good arguments for both sides, though it seems that my side/belief is unfavorable on this website. From now on, I guess, Ill keep this belief to myself.

No matter what we disagree on, I do know that there is one thing we can agree on: That neither the historical Yeshua (rabbi or not) nor that... thing in the 'new testament' (whatever he or it is) could ever be the messiah.

Gabriel