Email Subscriptions. More Sites Today is Sun. Jewish Practice. Event 1. Related Topics. Show More. Missionary Impossible Audio. What religion should one choose? Does any other religion fit for the Jew?
In this fascinating lecture Rabbi Schochet, a leader in responding to missionaries, disputes their claims. Can a Jew believe in Jesus? I was accosted at the beach today by a guy from Jews for Jesus. He offered me a New Testament in Yiddish and said that many Jews have been "saved" by accepting Jesus as the messiah. My Jewish Soul was Crying. No matter how much I talked the talk and walked the walk, my inner soul was crying.
I married a non-Jewish man and had two sons. My soul cried out to me that they are Jewish! We sometimes have Jewish people attending, and I had been taught this was a universal prayer. Lately, by request, we have begun to con Nachmanides' Disputation Event.
The Battle for the Jewish Soul
His brilliant defense Explore halachic debates on the parameters of idolatry and the status of other religions. Resident volunteers and dozens of Jewish guests quickly joined him.
The monk was subsequently hospitalized for two days, along with a volunteer, for smoke inhalation. A delegation of German rabbis and Catholic bishops visiting Israel rushed to the site that morning, along with foreign media.
The rabbis denounced the attack, noting that German Jews had experience with the burning of their holy places in Nazi times. Reuveni and Yehuda Assraf will go on trial next year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly designated the fire as a terrorist attack, making the church ineligible to draw on insurance but paving the way for government compensation. Two months later, the Israeli Tax Authority declared that the violent event did not qualify as terrorism, and therefore could not receive government funding.
When Israeli President Reuven Rivlin visited the church in early September, just before meeting Pope Francis in Rome, he promised to help reverse that decision. Some Israelis fear that the small group of violent extremists, made up mostly of young West Bank settlers, has been emboldened by the lack of prosecutions. And there is certainly authority behind them, including rabbis they look up to.
Tag Meir director Gvaryahu was part of a legal effort to ban the volume, but the Israeli Supreme Court earlier this month rejected that plea as an infringement on free speech. There have been no major attacks since June. Givaryahu, Rabbi Goshen-Gottstein, and Father Nikodemus, however, are optimistic that prosecution of the suspects in the Church of the Multiplication case will put a damper on the rise in violence against minorities.
One of the two suspects is in jail, while the other is under house arrest. Since they were not the "ultimate" sacrifice, there wasn't any problem. In fact, had Sigal dug a little deeper, he might have found that some like the Glasers [Glas.
Editorial: Christian Mission and the Third Millennium
FFI, ] freely admit to precedents in the OT for atonement without blood sacrifice. When Sigal cites Lev. But even though there was no blood involved, the sacrifice was still required and had to be offered on the altar. It is not license for bloodless atonement outside the Temple service.
THE CHRISTIAN APPROACH TO THE JEWS
FFI, ] And if Sigal thinks otherwise, let him first argue with the rabbinic literature that, although it recognized the importance of a right-oriented heart, also insisted that "All must be performed as God had directed. AIMS, 81] -- then let him tell us what would have happened if everyone had tried to offer flour as a substitute for blood, regardless of their financial condition. Isaiah 53 is often pointed to as a section fulfilled by Jesus in his life and death, and it is one of the strongest fulfillments of Messianic prophecy available, so that although it is outside my normal subjective purview, I'd like to close this essay by addressing it briefly.
What can Sigal say in response to the claim that Is. He of course charges the NT writers with fabrication, and dismisses typological possibilities, but does go beyond that as well to try and show that Jesus did not fulfill certain aspects of Isaiah All Sigal can say here is that: There is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus was in anyway unsightly or unattractive -- which is not what this passage says; it only says that there was nothing that specially attracted attention, which the lack of physical description can only serve to corroborate.
That in Luke "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. The same sort of description is used of Moses by Josephus. Sigal, at any rate, reads too much into the text. The word "stature" helikia does not imply here that Jesus was tall; it simply means either age or size cf. The word "wisdom" sophia refers to "growth in moral and intellectual life" [Jns. Lk] of the sort that would also be expected from anyone like Jesus who grew older and as firstborn of Joseph and Mary received the most educational benefit possible. Finally, "grace" charis does not imply popularity at all, merely acceptance and favor.
Not that it matters if Jesus had some "popularity" -- for more on this, see the next entry. To do so he points to the many places in the Gospels where Jesus is well-received by people. That's all well and good, but such "positive" times were by far outweighed by the negatives. Simply making light of those who stayed on Jesus' side and did not despise or reject him, and interpreting these few followers as meaning that Jesus had popular support overall, doesn't do the job.
And really, it takes a lot of imagination to suppose that Isaiah is picturing someone whom everyone hates without exception: Isaiah's servant is rejected by "men of high status" -- to get to the point where such people know about you, you really have to start somewhere with at least a few well-placed people liking you. Nor does it do to cite Mark in this regard: After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.
- The Turk in America: The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Studies).
- Know How to Answer Christian Missionaries.
- Contemporary Design in Detail: Sustainable Environments.
- Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior.
- Physical Metallurgy?
Sigal thinks that this verse proves that Jesus had popular support so much so that he seems to adhere to the "Jesus as Zealot" thesis in some parts of his book , but the fact is that even if Jesus had as little as. The passage in no way implies that Jesus had popular support. Sigal is overplaying and magnifying Jesus' supposed support. Here the trial of Jesus plainly shows this to have been fulfilled, but Sigal disagrees.
Editorial: Christian Mission and the Third Millennium by The Editors | Articles | First Things
He is also lacking knowledge of the political, religious and social implications of Jesus' Temple claim and the witnesses' twisting of it. But the key of course is: Was Jesus silent before his accusers? Other than objecting to variations in the trial accounts although for the most part recognizing the truth about the nature of the trial[s], while still making a host of the usual mistakes - see here and our series on harmonization , Sigal can say nothing. He supposes that John , 33, and 38 prove that Jesus made no answer Matt. According to Roman procedure, the charges were normally read aloud before the accused.
He then argues that because Jesus answered the charges recorded by Luke in his speech to Pilate recorded by John that Jesus therefore was not silent before his accusers. But Pilate was no accuser of Jesus: He was a judge.
smtp.manualcoursemarket.com/43-comment-acheter.php Sigal further supposes that Jesus' silence before Herod is simply manufactured -- which is something that needs arguments to support, not a mere denial -- and implies that Jesus' statements to Pilate lacked humility and thus violated Is. But I have not a found a single commentator that agrees with this rendering.
Rather, it is agreed that "oppression" fits better with "judgment" in that the former is used to refer to arrest and imprisonment. All that Sigal can say otherwise, regarding an "oppression" rendering, is that such a prophecy could be "applied generally to many people who suffered persecution" , which is beside the point: The point is whether or not it can apply to Jesus, period For the rest of the passage, Sigal mostly simply offers his own interpretation, without refuting any application to Jesus, except for the last phrase of the verse, of which he says that Jesus' "afflictions came about, not because of the sins of other men, but because he pressed his messianic claims.
Sigal insists that the phrases regarding death "are not to be taken literally. But there is a major genre difference between Ezekiel apocalyptic vision and Isaiah prophetic poetry , as well as a difference in subject corporate Israel vs. There is reason to see metaphor in Ezekiel, but no reason in Isaiah, other than question-begging.
Related The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved