Posted on 08/27/2003 2:00:45 PM PDT by yonif
B'nai Brith Canada today announced the launch of a campaign to inform members of Toronto's Jewish community about the activities of "Jews for Jesus."
Calling it the "Proud to be Jewish" Campaign," B'nai Brith's goal is to warn members of the Toronto Jewish community about the presence and methods of the missionary group and to advise them of their rights.
"This isn't about free speech," said Rochelle Wilner, president of B'nai Brith Canada. "Targeted missionizing, especially when done in a manner calculated to deceive the unsuspecting, is offensive to our community. Christianity is not a branch of Judaism it's a different religion altogether, and any attempt to portray it as anything but a different religion is subterfuge. "The term 'Jews for Jesus' makes about as much sense as 'Baptists for Buddha' or 'Catholics for Krishna,'" she said.
"We didn't want this to be just another lesson in how to answer," said Frank Dimant, executive vice president.
"Some in our community are simply not capable of countering missionaries because they have received little formal Jewish education.
"We want members of our community to know that they don't have to defend Judaism to Christian missionaries they have an absolute right to not be subjected to these ministrations in the first place."
Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College and a leader in Canada's evangelical Christian community, spoke as well. "As a committed Christian I support the idea of preaching Christianity, but preaching Christianity under the guise of Judaism to those who are in fact seeking Judaism, is plainly wrong," said McVety.
"We unequivocally denounce any and all deceptive tactics."
Please tell us how they are trying to 'trick' anyone. I'd like some specific examples if you can provide them.
How so? They were born Jews, and they believe in Jesus. Is there any part that is not the truth?
Well, I've heard both the Orthodox and the RC churches claim this refers to them. Which is correct?
:-/
Tell me how that does not sound like something the "blacker-than-thou" folks would say about black identity! The same principle applies.
Check this out:
One is not merely aJewblack by merit of their birth, but also by a minimal standard of behavior. This standard even applies among secularJewsblacks. When aJewblack becomes aChristianconservative, it is a very personal attack onJewishAfrican-American identity. One cannot be both, as much as someChristiansconservatives try to sell the idea.
Do you see just how stupid that sounds?
But is perceived as less of a threat than Jesus.
Not so:
Conversion requires both circumcision and mikva for the male: The Conservative Jewish process of conversion requires candidates, .....to appear before a beit din, or rabbinic court, to explain... to commit themselves to live as Jews, observe the Commandments, and raise any children with whom they may be blessed in the Jewish community and faith. Male candidates are required to undergo circumcision or, if already circumcised, to have a symbolic ceremony. All converts complete the rituals of conversion by immersing themselves in a mikvah."
I found this item through a skeptical mind and google. Thanks for the good advice.
As in primitive Christianity, immersion marked a significant turning, a physical affirmation of an inner choice and commitment. Ritual purification was also used by those involved in the Temple worship.
Rabbi Myron Geller's article at www.interfaithfamily.com/article/issue21/mgeller.html
No, she should be corrected gently, WWJD.
Bacchus on the cross
I'm not sure I get the point of this: Bacchus is depicted on a cross, therefore that's where some Jewish fisherman got the idea of Jesus on a cross? I'm assuming this is how it goes.
The cross was the means of execution throughout the Roman Empire, and the Romans were prolific when it came to Executions. That the idea came from this kind of idea or image seems far-fetched. If Jesus is seen riding into Egypt on a donkey, and in China, a family is pictured ridng on a donkey, does that mean the idea came from China? Did Moses get the idea of a great flood from the Australian aborigines? Or the Lummi tribe of Native Americans?
Probably that image of Bacchus getting crucified was the first-century logo of Alcoholics Anonymous.
You don't know what you're talking about. The mikva is for ritual purification. Of anyone unclean. Including converts who are considered unclean because of their background. Here, here, here.
I don't have the time or interest to cover the rest for you.
Don't go making claims like that unless you're willing to back them up.
Totally different concept than baptism, other than both involving water.
Actually, there are only a few differences. We only use it for conversions (and everyone, even those with Christian parents, are considered to require conversion), not the other uses they have. And we don't require total immersion in the sense they do (not even Baptists), and some don't require it at all. The washing symbolism is superceded by death and resurrection symbolism.
Unquestioning devotion to your faith rather than rational inquiry coupled with limited knowlege blind you from being able to think rationally.
My knowledge is evidently a little less limited than yours.
Funny that you ignored the picture of the dionysus/bacchus crucifiction image...
Without context, it's meaningless.
Google and a skeptical mind are your friend. At least, they are mine.
You should have tried Googling "mikva".
Yes, it does sound stupid. Only because you are comparing a Jew, which is both a religion and nation to skin color only. In addition, you compare Jews and ultimately Israel (and its law of return) to separtist liberal Blacks in America.
Your example itself makes several assumptions, by themselves an attack on Judaism and by extension the law of return in Israel. If one could only be Jewish by birth, it would be comparable to race, but since one can make a choice to be Jewish there is no comparison.
Here is your example using another example:
One is not merely Christian by merit of their birth, but by a minimal standard of behavior. This standard even applies to more secular Christians. When a Christian becomes a Islamist it is an attack on American-Christian identity. One cannot be both, as much as Muslims try to sell the idea.
So "the church" was founded on a group of Jews, upon this foundation was laid the largely "judaized" gentiles and synagogue wannabees. These are the people who shaped the intellectual constrcts of early christianity, not some baccanalian band of bull-worshippers.
It's interesting to note that Paul, the self-described "Apostle to the Gentiles," spent most of his time hanging around in the synagogues of the diaspora. Why because that's where he found gentiles that were already pre-disposed to Jewish ways of thinking.
Now you are being dishonest. When I rewrote your own words substituting black for Jew, I did not say anything about any "separatist liberal Blacks." Those are not my words. You added them, and they are severely off the mark.
Are you sure that you want to take such a stance against Christians who stand firmly behind Israel? That's what you are doing. Your silence on athetist Jews and erasure of Messianic Jews is anti-Christian bigotry. Point blank.
Why? Many zionists were/are atheists. The land of Israel has for them nationalistic meaning as a craddle of Jewish nation.
Easy to find out - study the time of Great Schism (1054 AD, when they split) and judge for yourself :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.