By Drashi
Michael L. Brown
From http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJgeneralPF.htm
vol. 1, pp. 7-9 wrote:Objection: 1.4. “Doesn’t belief in Jesus mean that you’re no longer Jewish? As I understand it, belief in Jesus and Jewishness in any form are incompatible.”
Answer: “You have unknowingly repeated one of the great lies of the Inquisition, namely, that one can be faithful to Jesus only by totally repudiating one’s Jewishness. To the contrary, everything about belief in Jesus was and is Jewish, in the purest and most biblical sense of the word.”
(Somebody copied most of these pages and posted them at this web site. Just scroll down until you see "Doesn't belief in Jesus mean you're no longer Jewish?" and read until the type turns black. It leaves out several paragraphs, but you will get the general idea.)
In this statement he continues to use terms about Gentiles, like "goyyische" to show that Jesus is not about them, but is for the Jews. He then says that using a term like "Jews for Jesus" is not a lie, but a proclamation that a Jew is doing the most Jewish thing possible.
He does seem to believe that Jesus came into the world to save it, but then adds that it was only after we rejected him as a nation, and tejected Torah and the prophets, that his message went to the Gentiles.
But the problem with this statement is that he mentions more than once that there have always been Jewish believers in Jesus, but here he says that there was a time when the entire nation rejected him (he emphasizes "nation" with an italics), which would indicate that there were not always Jews who accepted him.
It seems to be a contradiction.
Furthermore, he is obviously talking about Paul who created Christianity and took his attention to the Gentiles. But during that time there were Pharisees, the great Rabbi Gamliel is mentioned in the Christian texts, and great leaders of Torah knowledge survived and from them Rabbi Akiva created a Rennisance of Judaism.
Yes, the temple fell, but to say that the entire nation rejected the Torah and the prophets is not only a gross generalization, but a misrepresentation as well.
In any case he goes on to say that it was wrong that the Gentiles took over what was meant for the Jews and considered it to be theirs. And so the Jewish believers were oppressed because the Christians would not accept them and neither would the Rabbinical Jews (as he calls "modern Judaism". You had to either renounce Judaism or Jesus. Pick one.
He then compares the Jews (who supposedly existed) that believed in Jesus (worshipped) to the Vietnam Vets who were not welcomed back home when the war was over. It seems to be a very strange comparison.
He then goes on to complain about Jews who wanted to learn about Jesus (who were these people?) having to convert and violate the Torah to do so.
Although, interestingly enough, he does quote pope Bernard of Clairvaux who was allegedly born a Jew but converted, saying "To the shame of Christ, a jew occupies of the seat of Saint Peter!" But as far as we can tell, Bernard never called himself a Jewish believer in Christ, (nor has any other high Church official who had a mother who was born a Jew). Furthermore, that particular pope was born and raised in a Christian home and there is no indication that anything Jewish was related to him.
In fact, that quote makes him sound as though he despised the Jews, when, in reality he saved the Jews time and time again, came to their defense, halted the Crusades actions against them, and on and on. He was a doctor and a healer before he was a pope and a man of peace.
I also cannot find that quote anyplace, nor does Michael Brown state where it came from. But he does admit that the man allegedly was a Jew, but since none of the Catholic biographies refer to this at all (and they love to include such things), it was probably meant as a "slander" because he helped the Jews so much.
Michael Brown skips that part of history, but just uses an anectdote to say that Jesus is for Jews, and that Paul was a Jew. He goes on to try to Judify Paul, but ignores that he spoke in Phillipians that to embrace a Christ, one needed to cease clinging to Jewish things!
He then touches on an emotional spot, the Inquisition, which was evil because they were rooting out Maranos as one of the purposes, and then says that any Jew who says that a Jew who believes in Jesus isn't Jewish is repeating their same lies. 8O
He also states that Jewish believers in Jesus are walking in truth. Then he presents the opposite, which seems to flow right from those Jews who would be like the inquisitors. He speaks of religious Jews who were taught to pray three times a day to curse Christians, especially converts, but he doesn't present the Berachot HaMonim as having been written by Shmuel HaKatan (he doesn't mention that) or even the events sorrounding it's creation, or it's purpose, simply, from his point of view, it's a curse against people like himself. He just notes that Rabbinical leaders created a curse.
But the key is his ending. He speaks of the "real Jesus" and not the ones that the Christians created from their traditions. He declares that a Jew who embraces Jesus is more Jewish than one who denies him. And he ends with this:
Just ask any of a thousand Jewish followers of Jesus what happened in their lives once they believed in him. You'll be amazed what you hear. The bottom line is this: Being a faithful Jew and believing in Jesus the Jewish Messiah are totally compatible.
Style: Blame. It's not really the fault of the Jews, but those bad Christian and Jewish leaders who made all of this mess. Think for yourself and reject them and believe me.
Comments.............
