Why weren't the Jews told to spread the news of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gripper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s not an uncommon view among the orthodox. I probably first heard it from Rabbi Ken Spiro of Aish HaTorah, Jerusalem 20 years ago, where he was teaching that God gave Jews an extra soul and that they are essentially supercharged. Along with that teaching is the one that those who are capable of great holiness are capable of great wickedness and vice versa. This was echoed by those I learned with at the local Chabad shul based on the Tanya. And Aish is certainly not a Chabadnik operation.
meltzerboy2 said:
I have heard of Michael Brown, and, to me, his interpretation is, at best, wrong, and, at worst, a veiled kind of anti-Semitic rationalization.
Click to expand...
If people want to label it antisemitic, they’ll have to take it up with the semites who teach it, of which there is no shortage. I don’t think you can credibly call Chabad Chasidim, R’ Shneur Zalman of Liadi and Aish HaTorah antisemitic.
 
Last edited:
IIRC (and I might not, note it’s been 20 years), a convert is a Jew coming home, thus, they already have the extra soul. It’s that soul, or spark that is driving them to convert and rejoin the Jewish people.
 
Last edited:
Is this related to the concept of reincarnation in Judaism? Made the connection, just making sure.
 
Last edited:
It’s not. Dr. Brown is a Jew. He doesn’t resent Jews, he’s a defender of them.

What’s different when they say the same thing? Is this like when Joel Stein wrote that Jews really do run Hollywood or when Alan Dershowitz does the same and says Jews should be proud, but if someone who doesn’t like Hollywood and what it produces says it they’re an antisemite?
 
Well, crucial to the process is to invent the suitable ‘other’.

I remember looking over some bound copies of Punch magazine from the mid-1800s onwards and watched English cartoonists move from the Irish being incapable of anything other than tripping over their knuckles in front of their Anglo-Irish landlord betters to the Irish being crafty Fenian devils intent on massacring their Anglo-Irish landlord betters.

From a looking-back on it point of view, I don’t know whether being thought of as stupid (like the English generally viewed the Irish and other colonial peoples and the Germans viewed the Slavs) or too naughty for words (like loads of people viewed us Jews) was worse.
 
Gripper said:
I wondered why they weren’t but Jesus told us to spread the Gospel, why didn’t God tell the Jews to spread the news of Him and spread Judaism?

It seems that most of the world at the time were following false gods, why wouldn’t God want other nations to follow Him the same way as the Jews?
Click to expand...
There was no foundation in place to do any sort of large-scale evangelization. Things like monotheism, organized worship, and basic ethics among families and communities needed to be rooted down. Moses left his people for a brief time, and by the time he got back his own right-hand man along with the people were worshiping a golden calf. It’s easy to blow them off as being impious and foolish, but we are no better. How easily we wander off to make idols.

But, there are many examples of the ancient Jews evangelizing to aliens and surrounding cultures in the Old Testament in various ways, before the Great Commission ever took place. The apostles themselves struggled with the idea of taking the faith globally and it took a lot of inner conversion to make them adopt a new mindset and a new spirit. We see the drama unfold in the Gospel and in the book of Acts.
 
Last edited:
The 19th Century saw a huge industry in objectifying all sorts of people as ‘other’, didn’t it?

Part of the established order’s traditional rounding up of supporters in opposition to difference.
 
Last edited:
Such people have been ordered by their local police to take down British flags and St. George flags from their own windows.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not, my ancestors were ‘culturally’ German and Italian and managed to pick up a ragbag of traditional prejudices from their environment as an accompaniment to those they acquired as a reaction to their environment.
 
Very likely. This is a case of the nature of the relationship of culture and media. However, to deny the leading relationship of media in this relationship is foolish. Culture cannot, by definition, push its own boundaries. Media not only can, but does and you can map its trajectory through time.

Also true. Which is a problem of media using titillation to attract the eyeballs of those who lack virtue, which might be attributed to a state that does not use its authority to build virtue into its people by regulating entertainment media as it does other industries, but also panders to the same people who seek to be titilated.
 
Not from me. I’m too lazy to be a free researcher. Its obvious to me. I guess its not to you. I can accept that.
 
The libertarian/ine view does seem to be the predominant view presently. I understand it well, having held it and abandoned it.
 
I do agree that Judaism holds that its people should be the light unto the nations. However, this is NOT because they are better than other people. The meaning that “the chosen people” contains, or should contain (because some misinterpret, either intentionally or unintentionally, its true meaning), is the understanding that Jews, DESPITE their unworthiness, were chosen by G-d to spread His message to the nations, and because they were chosen, it is their responsibility to do so. This responsibility does not suggest superiority but rather obedience to G-d. There is even, among some, the notion that G-d chose the Jews LAST to spread his message due to the fact that other nations refused to take on such a responsibility. This message is also not unique to Judaism, for Christianity likewise believes, as you no doubt realize, that its message, the Gospel, is meant to be preached to all the nations of the world. So, do you also believe that when Christians are not practicing the message of the Gospel, they too are “poisoning the well,” so to speak, or does that claim apply only to the Jews?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Michael Brown is a convert to Christianity, and no longer a Jew. There is a difference according to the tenets of Judaism. He may regard himself as a Jew, a Messianic Jew, or a “fulfilled” Jew, but most, if not all, the streams of Judaism, no longer consider him one.
 
Last edited:
So Jeweishness is just a religion and atheist Jews don’t exist? Chabad should sell its Mitzvah-mobiles then.

I’m also not sure how that is supposed to address the double standard issue.
 
Last edited:
Judaism is peculiar on this point. One may be an atheist Jew, a secular Jew, or a cultural Jew, yet a convert to another religion means that the Jewish person forfeits his membership in the faith. And Orthodox Judaism, as a whole, is most adamant about the latter, as those people such as Michael Brown realize.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Judaism is peculiar on this point…And Orthodox Judaism, as a whole, is most adamant about the latter
Click to expand...
I’m well aware. It’s also very peculiar when it comes to conversion to Christianity. I don’t recall anyone saying Shabtai Tzvi wasn’t a Jew when he converted to Islam, though it was thought of as losing him his Olam Haba.

But again, how Jews view Michael Brown’s relationship to them has no bearing on the issue of a double standard when it comes to it being okay for Jews to talk about Jews and non-Jews not being allowed to say the same exact things. And from a non-Jewish perspective, saying he’s less Jewish than an atheist is just nonsense since both the atheist and the convert are culturally Jewish and neither are religiously Jewish. The only real world difference being that Dr. Brown can’t make aliyah.
 
Shabbetai Tzvi converted to Islam under pain of death, and supposedly practiced Judaism secretly while being a Muslim to the external world. He also had previously claimed to be the Messiah. Thus his case is unique. And, in general, conversion to Islam, while frowned upon, was not considered as negative as conversion to Christianity, due to the fact that Islam was viewed by Judaism as a monotheistic religion, whereas Christianity was not.

Those Jews who believe in such things as gossiping about other Jews as being “okay,” compared to non-Jews doing the same thing, really don’t know or misinterpret the religion. Gossip is expressly prohibited in Judaism, and is even considered by some as worse than stealing, for at least in the latter, tangible items can be returned, whereas spreading false rumors takes on a life of its own and can never be undone.

The atheist/convert issue is a complex one. My view is that perhaps if one is an atheist, there is still the hope of a return to the faith, whereas conversion is more final. Further, conversion entails following another Law, which will no doubt influence one’s everyday human interactions to negative effect. And then there may be a political aspect, in that it is unforgiveable to convert to a religion, such as Christianity or Islam, which has a history of persecuting one’s own people.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top