When Rabbi Shmuley Boteach approached me to read the manuscript of his newly published book "Kosher Jesus," I was reticent and even a bit cautious given the massive and diverse audience of people that would likely be affected by his unique perspective on the subject of Jesus. Upon completion of the book, however, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that his approach had resolved many outstanding questions that I myself have struggled with in my religious studies, particularly as they relate to Christianity and its impact on Judaism throughout history. Still, I felt the need to interrogate Rabbi Shmuley further in order to discover what his intentions had been for penning this latest work on a conspicuously controversial topic. As it turns out, Rabbi Shmuley's earliest efforts to uncover the real facts regarding the origin of Christianity stemmed from his exasperation by the treatment unsuspecting Jews received from Christian missionaries who would target them in an attempt to convert yet another Jew to Christianity. So alarmed was Rabbi Shmuley at the pervasiveness of this kind of missionary work that, as a young scholar learning in Yeshiva, he was often memorizing long passages of the New Testament in his Hebrew Bible classes, for how could he hope to counter the words of others if he had no real knowledge of what stood behind their arguments?
As I expected, in the past few weeks, the vitriolic attacks hurled at Rabbi Shmuley have been gaining momentum steadily and often seem to come from those who, themselves, have no real knowledge of Rabbi Shmuley's thesis or the scholarship behind his argument. Simply put, "Kosher Jesus" traces the Jesus narrative in its original sources and demonstrates how Jesus was, in fact, a Torah-observant Jew who fought to uphold Judaism in the face of pagan dominance and Roman persecution. Following the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 C.E., however, Jesus' followers began to strip him of his Jewish identity in order to sever any link between Jesus and the increasing Roman animosity against Jews. With the passage of time and the rising hegemony of Christianity, an alternate narrative of Jesus ultimately prevailed, one in which Jesus is depicted as an enemy to his people and was eventually killed by them. Not only has this thoroughly Christian narrative caused centuries of Jewish persecution, it has also offered a distorted view of Jesus that perverts the very essence of Jewish monotheism. Yet Jews have fallen for this depiction of Jesus so thoroughly that his name has been all but blotted out from the Jewish vocabulary.
Rabbi Shmuley takes on these issues without pulling any punches, aiming the purpose of "Kosher Jesus" squarely at contemporary Jewish salvation while simultaneously enlightening Christians about Jesus' original desire to spread Jewish teachings and values and, moreover, how he never intended to found a new faith. Unlettered Jews, whose beleaguered history has prevailed despite having to endure the torment of Egyptian enslavement, Babylonian exile, Roman destruction, the Spanish Inquisition, Russian pogroms and the German Holocaust, are continuously the target of missionaries who prey on the dichotomy of Jesus the Jew and the Savior in their relentless efforts to lead Jews into Christian belief. This missionary offensive has certainly done its fair share of damage not only through the generations of converts from Judaism but even in terms of the cultural impact the mainstream Jesus narrative has had on the existing Jewish identity. The Christian alteration of Biblical figures and passages has weakened the essence of Jewish interpretations of Scriptures and dismantles what should be the Jewish defense against those who would seek to lead them away from their faith.
"Kosher Jesus" is brilliant because it factually and painstakingly dissects the historical logic that Christianity upholds as its narrative of Jesus. In so doing, Rabbi Shmuley offers an unadorned image of Jesus as a Jewish fighter who came to Jerusalem to rescue the Temple from Roman dominance. For these efforts, Jesus was turned over to the Romans by the corrupt Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, a Roman stooge who acted as Rome's police enforcer. The merits of this interpretation are born out in the evidence itself, yet the prejudice against this alternative view runs so deep that, when a Jew like Rabbi Shmuley seeks to expose the truth, even other Jews will cry out its denial. Having followed the stream of invectives that have been thrown at the book and Rabbi Shmuley, I find myself wishing to purchase a copy of "Kosher Jesus" for every Chabad emissary around the world: those men and women who are at the forefront of bringing Jewish values to the broader world. Not only should they read and understand Rabbi Shmuley's research for what it really is rather than be swayed by the rants and responses of others but they should also be empowered by the tremendous value "Kosher Jesus" provides in helping any and all understand the real place Jesus has in both Jewish and Christian history. I have made my offer of purchasing and sending a copy of "Kosher Jesus" to every Chabad emissary to the Chabad hierarchy and await a response. In the final analysis, Rabbi Shmuley provides Jews with the ammunition to disarm missionaries who peddle the narrative of Jesus as 'god the son' with a new historical approach to Jesus as simply a son of God, like every other human being. As the Book of Deuteronomy articulates quite beautifully, "You are all children to the Lord Your G-d." Every person has a claim on being one of God's children, and by dedicating oneself in thought, mind and action each individual can rise to this elevated state.
Follow Kevin Bermeister on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kevberm
Harry's Place » Boteach's “Kosher Jesus†Met By Chabad Hysteria
An Open Letter on the 'Kosher Jesus' Tussle
Shmuley Boteach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I said I do not speak for the scientific community when I voice an opinion.
Good to see your psychic powers are working well today-you're reading my mind. Not
How can I be promoting pseudo science if I don't claim to be practicing nor speaking for the scientific community?
Think about it-it'll come to you eventually.
I'll leave the promotion of pseudo science to you and your hero, Dr. Tart.
Now stop behaving childishly and tell my why Sam Harris' 'hair brush analogy' doesn't make the same comparison I made.
"And in the process they also fuel the paranoia of the most extreme fundamentalists, justifying their belief that secularists are trying to do away with religion."
We are of course trying to do away with religion, not by outlawing it, not by killing the religious, but by helping the deluded see their delusions. and why wouldn't the severely deluded and those who profit by exploiting the deluded protest? It is to be expected.
"Stalin and Mao also were oppressors of religious believers."
Complete non-sequitur and a hackneyed cliche. neither Stalin nor Mao oppressed believers for any other reason than to preserve and expand their own power. Stalin was at one time allied with the Russian orthodox church before they became a threat to him.
"Extreme fundamentalists see radical atheists as being little different."
Which extreme fundamentalists? Blanket statements of this nature make you look rather inept.
This absurd claim says more about you than it says about aggressive atheism.
Religious fundamentalists have a habit of comparing everyone who doesn't share heir specific belief system to Mao and Stalin, and of course....Hitler, even though Hitler was a theist and a creationist roman catholic his entire life.
cont
Yup.
"According to the definition of "authoritarianism" in both psychological and political science theory religious authority isn't necessarily authoritarian in nature."
Not the way I read either in light of how I see religions practiced.
"For example, I consider the arguments of spiritual teachers such as the Buddha and Jesus according to the wisdom and compassion and sense of ethics contained in their teachings."
I don't like repeating myself. The buddha and his teachings are not buddhism. Jesus and his teachings are not christianity.
"Anything that fails to rise to a high standard, I feel perfectly free to ignore."
Why are we suddenly talking about your personal decisions?
"They could be words never uttered by the original teachers themselves. They could be misinterpretations. There could be any number of explanations."
Yup-that's one of the problems with authoritarianism.
"Either way, we cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for and consequences of our own beliefs."
And yet it would be hard to argue that most religious people don't do exactly that, being authoritarian personality types.
" So for me it is not only foolish but unethical to accept the teachings of any spiritual philosopher without question."
Why are we talking about your personal decisions again?
cont
I never could understand the concept of saviour: saviour from what? Sin had to be invented to explain the need for a saviour.
And then the same church that invented sin became the body that decided what were and were not "sins". And then spent the next two millenia trying to ram ram their definitions down everyone else's throats.
"I haven;t read the book and probably never will cause I waste too much time on HP."
Me:
I resemble that remark.
:-(
The rejection to Rabbi Boteach is the natural result of Actual Religous Jewish believers angry that someone publicity hungry calls himself an Orthodoxc rabbi and has a need to publicise a book that make the Savior of Christianity a "Jewish Patriot".
The alternate form of leadership - defining who one's group is by exhorting a greater good - is a much tougher row to hoe.
“Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand into, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it†(DeuteronoÂmy 23:20-21)." Early Christians followed this rule way up into the middle ages. However, the Jews saw an opportunity here and stepped in to be bankers, loaning money at interest to non-believers, i.e., people other than Jews. Hense, many wealthy European families are today Jewish. Now, I can't fault them for seeing an opportunity and taking advantage of it, but resentment grew, and grew over time. It seems simple to me. Having said all that, I am anxious to read this book. I am always looking for truth and find it increasingly hard to discover.
And many European families who are wealthy are not Jewish, the majority of them.
This resentment was coeval with the migration of Jews throughout Europe..
I agree with you, that's a much more plausible setting for the narrative, but it's still just a question of fighting over which version of an arthurian legend rings more true.
Or maybe it's just scholarly masturbation. Self-indulgent, feels good, accomplishes little.
Like the words in the Torah, Isiah cannot be taken out of context. It must be read in context from a reliable Hebrew translation, not an Xtian 1 with an ulterior motive. When Isaiah is read in context (not cherry picking words & phrases) it is clear he is talking about the WHOLE nation of Israel who is suffering, not a particular person. And if it was 1 person, there are millions of righteous Jews who suffered over the centuries--at least 6 million in the last century were put to death for their beliefs. The suffering servant Xtians are looking for can easily be any one of these people. There is no shortage of suffering Jews from which to pick.
Moshiach (Messiah) is the Hebrew word for ANOINTED ONE. Who is anointed in the Torah? The King of Israel. Who is the King of Israel? Only a direct descendent of King David on the FATHER's side. Jesus had no father, so he wasn't eligible by God's laws. Even if you count Joseph as Jesus' father, he wasn't from the tribe of Yehudah--so he could not be a descendent of King David. Since Jesus was not a descendent of King David--he was not eligible for the title of Moshiach. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Lot of folks won't listen to these points because they contradict what they want to believe to be the truth.
But I would say to those that do not choose to listen to "Brain Dead Liberal's" information and instead want to cling to cherished yet false beliefs, I would say what Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said,
"Repetition does not transform a lie into truth".
You can say a man was God as many times as you like, but that will always break teh 1st Commandement, which is your right to do if that is what you are aiming at.
What is the role of the Moshiach? The role of the Moshiach is to in-gather all of the Jews and lead them back to a Torah (commandment) observant lifestyle, rebuild the Beit Hamikdash (King Solmon's Temple) and at the time (through these actions) the knowledge of God will permeate this entire world. Since this has not yet happened, calling any man Moshiach (messiah) is a bit premature without any foundation. Its like calling the 2020 Cubs the World Series champions and the greatest team to eve play professional sports. This might exist in some fantasy world but not in the world we live in. The Torah is extremely clear on the pre-requisites to be considered Moshiach (messiah) and Jesus doesn't fulfill any of them. Not only that, but the entire Xtian concept of Moshiach is off. Moshiach doesn't save anyone--he will be sent to lead his people--the JEWISH PEOPLE back to living a Torah based life.
the argument that can't be won!
This is like arguing who is more factual, Merlin or Harry Potter...LOL!
The Bible is a very large collection of works expressing different views. It lends itself to cafeteria Christians. You don't like it when Jesus said "When a man smite you on the cheek, turn the other cheek so that he might smite you there as well."? Hey, then just take a slice of the Old Testament and run with "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
See? Problem solved.