QUESTION: Doesn't Deuteronomy 4:27-28 predict that Jews will be forced to worship false gods of wood and stone, that is, Christianity and Islam? "G-d will then scatter you among the nations...There you will serve other gods that men have made out of wood and stone, which cannot see, hear, or smell." And Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "G-d will scatter you among the nations....There you will serve other gods, of wood and stone, whom you and your ancestors have not known".

RESPONSE: Christians do not point to a human being and say, "This is your G-d, O Israel". Christians point to G-d and say, "This is your G-d, O Israel". Is this so hard to learn that you repeat this mistake over and over?

The Moslems don't worship the Kaaba, and Christians don't worship the cross. Don't Jews reverence the Torah? Don't they kiss its containers? Isn't it forbidden to touch the scroll with your bare hands when reading from it? By this logic, you could say that Jews are worshipping "gods of leather and parchment". But it wouldn't be a true description, and it would be stretching things way beyond the breaking point to say that they were.

Don't Jews put mezzuzah's on their doors? Sometimes even inside their houses? Are these just good luck charms? Are they objects of worship? Can this same charge be made, then, that Jews are worshipping "metal" and "ceramic"?

QUESTION: Say what you will, but Yeshua is completely irrelevant to Judaism. He has no meaning at all for us.

RESPONSE: It is due, in fact, to the life of Yeshua, that so many Gentiles around the world have come to know about the G-d of Israel. For now the Tenakh has been translated into nearly every language; and the stories of Moses, David, Saul, the Psalms, the Ten Commandments, and so on, have become part of the common cultural heritage of mankind. Thus, there has been a "light for the Gentiles, to the farthest reaches of the earth". Wouldn't you say that this, too, suggests a good credential for one claiming to be the messiah? Who else has done this? (Not even Elijah, or Hezekiah). Wasn't this, in fact, fulfilling the mission of the Jewish people - to spread the knowledge of G-d and his commandments around the world?

And, if Yeshua had not lived, who else would have done this? Would the Gentiles still be waiting 2000 years for someone else? Do you think that it would have been better if Gentiles had not heard even this much of Tenakh? If you step back from things for a moment, and view the world from a distance, you will be able to see how Judaism has permeated the world because of the life of Yeshua.

But, again, supposing Yeshua hadn't lived. Then - what would the Jewish nation be today? Something like the Druze, perhaps? A small sect in the Middle East, about which nobody would have heard anything much? Just another nationalistic sect like the Alawites, the Kurds, the Adjerbejanis? Is this what the Jewish nation was intended for? And the nations of the world would still not have heard of the G-d of Israel, nor started to call on His name?

QUESTION: "At that moment the curtain of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Yeshua's resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many". (Matthew 27:51-53) Do you really BELIEVE all this? It sounds more like Halloween than anything Jewish!

RESPONSE: Well, perhaps something like this is recorded elsewhere in the Jewish memory, too. In Yoma 39a and 39b, it says:

Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot (for choosing the Azazel goat) no longer came up in the right hand, and the thread of crimson never turned white (any longer), and the westernmost light (of the menorah) never shone, and the doors of the courtyard would open by themselves.

The crimson thread was tied between the horns of the bull that was sacrificed on Yom Kippur; its turning white was said to signify that Israel's sins were forgiven. The section in Yoma describes how in the time of Shimon the Tzaddik the thread would always turn white; the lot for the selection of the Azazel goat would always come up in the right hand; and so on. After his death, these things would sometimes occur, and sometimes not. Then, from forty years before the destruction of the Temple, they never happened again. In other words, after the death of Shimon it can be suggested that these sacrifices were not always accepted or as effective. And then, suddenly, they ceased to be effective or accepted at all (perhaps because the sacrificial system had been made obsolete?). With the death of Yeshua, which ocurred forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the bulls, goats, etc., and what they had symbolized, were no longer necessary. Men continued with their traditional rituals, but if the Talmud is correct, then HaShem no longer blessed these rituals.

QUESTION: Wasn't Yeshu actually a violent and intolerant person? Look at how he cursed a fig tree, in a fit of pique!

RESPONSE: Yeshua was simply engaging in a demonstrative parable, that is, his teaching was enacted out in order to more fully make a point. This is just what Jeremiah did when he first bought and then broke a pot (Jer. 19); and what Ezekiel did when he first made and then destroyed a model of the city of Jerusalem(Ez. 4-5). Ezekiel was also told to lie on one side for a time, and then on his opposite side, and to shave half of his hair. These weren't "fits of pique" on their part, but part of a "show-and-tell" lesson.

My well-beloved has a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. And he fenced it, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress there; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, but it brought forth only bad fruit.

What more could have been done for my vineyard, that I have not done it? Why, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, did it bring forth bad fruit? And now. . . I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down (Isaiah 5:1-5).

The Lord showed me, and behold, two baskets of figs were set before the Temple of the Lord. . . One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that ripen early; and the other basket had bad figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. . . (And the good figs are then said to represent the obedient, while the bad figs represent the disobedient, who will be scattered and destroyed.] (Jeremiah 24:1-10)

A certain man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and he found none. Then he said to the dresser of the vineyard, Behold, these three years [i.e., the length of Jesus' ministry] I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none. Cut it down (Luke 13:6,7).

As Spurgeon noted, men cut down whole forests and never repent of it, but criticize Jesus for destroying one tree which bears no fruit, though he used it to teach a lesson which can benefit all mankind.

QUESTION: Didn't Yeshu warn that all of his enemies would be brought before him and slain? Look at Luke 19:27!

RESPONSE: "Furthermore, all the leaders of the priests and the people became more and more unfaithful, following all the detestable practices of the nations and defiling the Temple of the L-rd, which he had consecrated in Jerusalem.

"The L-rd, the G-d of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked G-d's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the L-rd was aroused and there was no remedy. He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged." (II Chronicles 36:14)

This is only a parable, an illustrative story (a mashal). It is about what we do with what G-d gives us, and the fact that we are responsible for what we do with our lives. It is also, however, a warning of what will happen to those who are unrighteous.

For the L-rd is enraged against all the nations, and furious against all their hordes; he has doomed them, and has given them over for slaughter. Their slain shall be cast out, and the stench of their corpses shall rise; the mountains shall flow with their blood...The L-rd has a sword; it is sated with blood, it is gorged with fat...(Isaiah 34:2-6).

How is the warning of Yeshua any different than the words of the prophets, some of which are quoted above? Besides, anyone who rejects Torah and who rejects the rightful king of Israel is to be put to death, according to Torah. This is actually a loving provision; it protects against rebellion. And the threat of imminent execution may help direct the rebel in the direction of repentance.

QUESTION: Isn't Yeshua wrong when he says that Judaism teaches people to hate their enemies ("You have heard it said, Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy", Matt. 5:43)? Judaism never said this!

RESPONSE: Psalm 139:21,22 says, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O L-rd, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies." Some authorities of the period may have taken this as an injunction to hate one's foes.

In the Qumran community there is a requirement (IQS1:9-10) to "love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the council of G-d, and to hate all the sons of darkness, according to his guilt in the vengeance of G-d". And, "These are the norms of conduct for the Instructor...about what he must love and what he must hate: everlasting hatred for the sons of perdition" (IQS 9:21-22).

So, this may be a part of the first-century background to his words, or reflect the culture of the period in which he lived.

And the traditional Oral Torah, cited from a later time, also may have considered it a mitzveh to 'hate' the enemies of Israel. For example, Hagahot Maimuniyyot has a gloss, '(One loves one's neighbor) only if he is such a neighbor as one who honors Torah and performance of the mitzvot. But concerning a wicked person, one who does not accept rebuke, the mitzvah instead is that he should be hated, as it is written, 'The fear of the L-rd is to hate evil'. (Prov. 8:13) And the Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir) stated, 'He is your neighbor if he is good, but not if he is evil, as it is written, 'The fear of the L-rd is to hate evil.' (Prov. 8:13). While these are from a later period, and while the exact definition of 'hate' and 'enemy' may have been debated, they may nonetheless reflect earlier concerns and interpretations.

QUESTION: Doesn't Christianity use graven images, making it the same as idolatry? This is forbidden to Jews!

RESPONSE: Jews are forbidden to WORSHIP any graven image. Look at the Commandment again: "You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall make no graven images...." What is meant is that you are not to make any idols in order to worship them. But making of images, per se, was not forbidden; the people were allowed to make images of angels to put on the Ark, for example.

And later, when the people were afflicted with serpents, Moses was instructed to make an image of a serpent, and put it up on a pole for the people to see. By seeing this, they were to remember their faith in G-d, and that He would heal them. It wasn't that they had faith in the serpent; it was just something which was a symbol for them of that faith, a reminder. Similarly, Christians can look at a crucifix and use it as a reminder. They do not worship the crucifix itself.

Consider the following. Suppose Israel were again stricken by some terrible plague. And a man sent by G-d set up some image on a pole, and told the people to look to it to be healed. Wouldn't he be rejected by Judaism? Wouldn't they yell, "Idolatry!"? And then further suppose that the leaders arranged to have the perpetrator, whom they lacked the power to kill, executed instead by the government which was over them. And then suppose that G-d, displeased by this reaction, took the image and the healing away from them, and gave it to their opponents, the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Wouldn't they then grumble and mumble about this? (And isn't this what they have been doing for the past 2000 years?)

QUESTION: Doesn't Christianity borrow the story of Yeshua's death and resurrection from the pagan story of Attis?

RESPONSE: Note that Attis was made a solar deity in the Roman Empire only in the 2nd century C.E., a century AFTER Yeshua. Note also that the stories of Attis and Yeshua are not at all alike. Attis was a beautiful youth who, when about to be married, was struck with a frenzy by his jealous, hermaphroditic grandparent Agdistis. As a result, Attis castrated himself and died. Agdistis repented and prevailed upon Zeus to see that Attis' body not be subject to waste or decay.

Not at all similar to the story of Yeshua!

QUESTION: Doesn't the image of Yeshua also borrow a lot from the story of Krishna?

RESPONSE: The general outline of Krishna and Yeshua are not at all the same. Krishna was a polygamous earthly warrior king, widely celebrated as a great lover. Krishna was killed in a hunting accident while he was grieving the loss in battle of his brother and son. Krishna was believed to have been the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. None of these general features in Krishna, the features that are most reliably dated to be pre-Christian, is shared by Yeshua.

Aren't there a lot of similarities between the life of Yeshua and the life of Buddha? Doesn't this suggest borrowing, again?

The stories of Buddha and Yeshua diverge in even the simplest elements.

• Buddha lived a long life and died naturally (at the age of 80). Yeshua did not. Buddha taught that man can perfect himself. Yeshua taught that man must rely on G-d.
  
  
• Buddha found a man born blind, and healed him, telling him his disease "originated in his sinful actions in former times". Yeshua healed a man blind from birth, and was asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:1,2) And Yeshua answered them, "Neither this man nor his parents...but this happened so that the work of G-d might be displayed in his life" (verse 3).
  
  
• Buddha began his public study when he was about 29 years of age. He found a monk whom he much admired, whose calmness, tranquility, and dignity much affected him. He decided to model himself after him, and become such a monk himself. At the time he was married, a rich prince, and a father. After six years of study, he claimed to have found enlightenment. Yeshua, on the other hand, didn't model himself after a monk or any other person whom he admired. Neither did he spend six years striving to attain such "enlightenment".
  
  
• Buddha found his enlightenment while meditating beneath a fig tree. There are fig trees in the New Testament, but Yeshua never meditated beneath one. (In fact, he cursed one.)
  
  
• Buddha resisted evil and the devil by the power of his own resolve to overcome ten deadly sins. Yeshua defeated the devil by his reliance on, and loyalty to, G-d.
  
  
• In the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), an ascetic was once offended by his eye, so he plucked it out and threw it away. However, Somaveda was an 11th century C.E. Buddhist monk, whose writings could not possibly have influenced the writers of the Gospels, a thousand years earlier. (If there is any such influence, it would have to have been the other way around.)
  
  
• Buddhism does not believe in a personal G-d. Likewise, Buddhists do not believe it is possible to sin against a supreme being. Ergo, there is no need in Buddhism for a savior to save one from one's sins. In fact, in most versions of Buddhism there is really no such concept as a 'god' at all. For those who DO deify Buddha, there is no prohibition against also worshipping other gods at the same time....The list could go on and on....

QUESTION: Isn't the New Testament filled with contradictions?

RESPONSE: One could make the same claim about Tenach.

• In Genesis 1:11-12, trees are created before man is created. In Genesis 2:4-9, man is created before trees are created.
  
  
• In Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27, birds are created before man. In Genesis 2:7, 19, man is created before birds.
  
  
• In Genesis 1:31, G-d is pleased with His creation. In Genesis 6:5,6, G-d is not pleased with His creation.
  
  
• In Genesis 4:9, G-d asks Abel where Cain his brother is. Elsewhere, in many places (for example, Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24,25), it is stated that G-d sees everything; nothing is hidden from His view.
• In Genesis 35:10, G-d says Jacob is no longer to be called Jacob; he is to be known as Israel. In Genesis 46:2, G-d Himself is calling him Jacob again.

And so on and so on and so on. The list is endless, if one is choosing to search for things which could be made to look like inconsistencies.

The Gospels are authored by four different writers. They give you four different viewpoints, but of the same subject. If you put them all together, one on top of the other, like transparencies, they give you the entire picture. Or, they are like the four recollections of four children who grew up in the same house. They are all "true"; no one is more true than the others, yet each has its own viewpoint and emphasis. Nowhere, however, do they directly contradict one another.

And, if in fact, as is alleged, the writers were merely making up fictions, why didn't they get together and reconcile their accounts perfectly? (Actually, the absence of ANY differences would be a far greater evidence of collusion than any other - witnesses seldom give EXACTLY the same accounts, stressing exactly the same details.) Or later Church writers could have eliminated any supposed contradictions. The fact that they didn't, again seems pretty good evidence that they didn't tamper with the text in any way.

QUESTION: Wasn't Yeshua "elected" as a god by the Council of Nicea? This was many hundreds of years after his life!

RESPONSE: The Council didn't adopt any new doctrine, nor did it "deify" Yeshua. The belief in the divinity of Yeshua started in the New Testament (see, for example, Thomas' cry, "My Lord and My God"), and continued with the letters of Paul and the other apostles. Next, the Church fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaenus of Lyon continued with this belief. The purpose of Nicea was simply to write down what everybody already believed, in a doctrinal form.

Ninety-five-plus percent of those in attendance were in agreement about the diety of Yeshua. On the other hand, there was a small faction (as there always is), which disagreed. These were mainly followers of Bishop Arius. They didn't lose because they were outvoted, so much as because they did not represent the views of the Christians. In fact, it is much more accurate to say that it was Arius who was rejecting 300 years of Christian belief, rather than that it was the council which was trying to introduce something "new".

QUESTION: Didn't Bar Kochba come a lot closer to fulfilling the messianic prophecies than Yeshua?

RESPONSE: Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome. For three years he held sway over a portion of Judea, which he ruled independently of Rome. He probably had plans to rebuild the Temple. However, his revolt ended in failure. Hundreds of thousands were killed, and the whole of the land was pillaged. Dio Cassius, the Roman historian, says that "Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those who perished from famine, disease, and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole of Judea was made desolate...." Hundreds of villages were destroyed. Such was the destruction that the possibility of an independent Jewish state was eliminated; and such a state did not arise again for the next 1800 years.

Bar Kochba was declared to be the messiah by R. Akiva. Akiva even applied the prophecy in Numbers 24:17 to him, "a star shall rise out of Jacob" (Y.. Taan. 4.9; 68d(44); Lam R. 2.2, 51a). Many - perhaps a majority - of the sages agreed. The Sanhedrin itself moved to Beitar, Bar Kochba's headquarters, and so did the Patriarch and his family. At the end, however, there seems to have been a parting of the ways, with the sages perhaps attempting to bring the war to an end, and Bar Kochba insisting on retaining their loyalty (See, for example, the account if Gedaliah Alon, "The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age"; and also the Encyclopedia Judaica listing for "Bar Kochba").

During this revolt, Bar Kochba severely persecuted the Jewish believers in Yeshua. These had refused to join the revolt, largely because of the insistence on Bar Kochba's messiahship. Justin Martyr notes (Apology I, chp. 31), that "in the lately-ended Jewish War, Bar Kochba, the instigator of the revolt, caused Christians alone to be dragged to terrible tortures whenever they would not deny and revile Jesus Christ". This action was entirely in keeping with his ruthless, practical, and "imperious" nature.

In the end the revolt failed. The Jewish followers of Yeshua who had refused to follow him were proven right: he had been a false messiah. In fact, had the Jewish people been willing to accept the notion of a kingdom of G-d which encompassed less nationalistic dreams, but was instead a kingdom of the spirit, that is - had they accepted the concepts that Yeshua gave them - neither this nor the earlier revolt (which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.) would have occurred. The subsequent exile might have been prevented, and Jerusalem would then have become the spiritual capital of the western nations - a far greater nation and dream, perhaps, than that envisioned by Bar Kochba.

QUESTION: Doesn't the New Testament give two different versions of how Judas hanged himself?

RESPONSE: No. In Matthew 27:5, we read, "So Judas threw the money into the Temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." In Acts1:18, it says, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out". There is no contradiction here. If a body is hanged, and then falls, it would not be unusual for it to burst open in its putrefying state. (The word for "headlong" in Greek, can also have the lesser and rarer meaning of "swollen", or "distended").

Judas is described as a "thief" (John 12:6), and the one who kept the money for the disciples. Thus it is perfectly natural also, to assume that over the three years he had been associated with them he could have stolen away, or diverted, enough of a sum to have purchased a "field" (the Greek word here could also mean, "a farm, or smallholding, usually with buildings"). This would later become known as a "blood farm" because of what happened there. Another field (described with another, different Greek word) was purchased by the priests with the money that Judas returned to them, and this, then, became known as the "field of blood", since it had been bought with the money that had betrayed a life.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Judas did not buy a field himself, but that the field was purchased by the priests with the money that Judas returned to them. The Temple treasury was not allowed to accept money which had been obtained in an illegal manner; if the owner of the money refused to accept it back, then it had to be used for some public charitable purpose, such as purchasing a field for the burial of the poor. So, by this legal fiction, "Judas", the "owner" of the money, could be said to have purchased the field, allowing the Temple priests to keep their hands clean of it.

And thus were fulfilled the prophecies of Zechariah (11:12, 13): "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the L-rd said to me, 'Throw it to the potter' - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the House of the L-rd to the potter." And also the prophecies of Jeremiah 19:1-13, and 32:6-9, in which the future use of these lands for burial purposes is described, are literally fulfilled. (One possible reason the prophet Jeremiah is named here and Zechariah is omitted, is that one version of the scroll of the prophets may have originally begun with Jeremiah, whose book is the longest (by word count) of the prophets; mentioning Jeremiah, then, might simply be another way of stating, "according to the book of the prophets", and not of designating Jeremiah specifically.)

QUESTION: Where in Judaism do you find the concept of a divine messiah?

RESPONSE: Well, first there is Isaiah 9. Here, there is a promise of a child to be given, whose name shall be called "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty, G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". (This is the way the words read in the original Hebrew. There are no verbs present. Since some of the words in this list are nouns, all the remaining words ought to be read as nouns, also, according to the usual Hebrew practice.)

And there is Zechariah 12:8-10: "On that day the L-rd will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the House of David will be like G-d, like the Angel of the L-rd going before them....They will look on Me, whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son". Here the head of the House of David, the king, will be like G-d, or like the Angel of the L-rd, the specific designation of the special Angel of G-d who, in Exodus 23:21, is said to bear the name of G-d, and to have the power to forgive sins. This Angel is also given the name "Wonderful" in Judges 13, which is the same word as is used in Isaiah 9. And this Angel receives the worship of Joshua (Josh. 5:14,15), who bows down before him, and is told to remove his shoes, as the place where he is is holy ground.

Daniel 7:13 speaks of a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven, who is given authority and sovereign power; and all nations and men of every language "serve" him. The word used here for "serve" is used 10 times in scripture, and on every other occasion it refers to serving a god; thus some translations render it "worship".

Thus these can be seen as hints that the coming one is to be more than merely human.

QUESTION: Isn't Jerusalem, and not Bethlehem, called the "City of David"?

RESPONSE: The old portion of Jerusalem, which David captured from the Jebusites, is called the "city of David". However, in I Samuel 20:6, David asks permission to run to "Bethlehem, his city".

QUESTION: How can you claim there is a "New Covenant"?

RESPONSE: In Isaiah 48, the L-rd speaks to Israel. He says to them, "Listen, O House of Jacob...I foretold the former things long ago, My mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass" (verse 3)...Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you..." (verse 5). You have heard all these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? (verse 6) "Can this mean, in other words, you, Israel, have the scriptures and the prophecies, will you not look at them and admit them all?

In verse 6 and 7 the L-rd continues, "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things, unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today". Thus, it would be expected that the L-rd has new things to reveal to Israel. In Jeremiah 31:31-32, the L-rd says, "The time is coming...when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke My covenant, though I was a husband to them...." Can it not be that these "new things" which they have not heard before today, and this "new covenant", which will not be like the old covenant at Sinai, could be encompassed in the mystery of the New Testament, and the story of Yeshua?

QUESTION: Didn't Yeshua condemn the Jews? Didn't he hate his own people?

RESPONSE: There are many condemnations of Israel in the Tanach. Jeremiah, for example, asks, "Have You utterly rejected Judah? Does Your soul loathe Zion?" (Jer. 14:19). "All the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart." (Jer. 9:26) "...Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the harlot?" (Jer. 3:6) Isaiah says, "Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the L-rd, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged!" (Is. 1:4). "How the faithful city (Jerusalem) has become a harlot, she that (once) was full of justice." (Is. 1:21). In Hosea one finds, "And the L-rd said to (Hosea), 'Call her name Not Pitied, for I will no more have pity on the House of Israel, to forgive them at all". (Hos. 1:6)

The Qumran community uses such terms as "prophets of falsehood", "prophets of deceit", "hypocrites", and so on, to describe their opponents.

However, by contrast, Yeshua commanded his followers to forgive, and even to pray for their enemies. In Luke 23:24 he prays himself that those who clamored for his death should be forgiven. He nowhere asks that G-d should deliver up to death the house of Israel. In fact, he warns that judgment is coming, and he weeps on account of it (Luke 19:41-44; 13:34, 23:28-31). Nor does he say that Israel has been rejected. Shaul/Paul, in his response letter to the Romans, say the opposite: "I ask, then, has G-d rejected His people? By no means!" (Romans 11:1)

There is a way in which the prophets will scold Israel for her sins. This is a mere corrective; it is born of love, not hatred; the message is: the wicked must turn from their way. No one accuses the prophets of being anti-semitic because of this. Likewise, any criticisms of Israel in the New Testament are similarly corrective. And the message is the same: the wicked must turn from their way. In the original setting, Jews are asking Jews to reform. There is no anti-semitism here.

Later, however, when the Gentile followers of Yeshua came to outnumber those who were born Jewish, the critical words were taken out of context. Instead of being seen as a call to reform, they were misinterpreted instead as words of rejection, of a condemnation of those who were opponents, outside of the faith, and who would not follow Yeshua. Those who misinterpreted these words also felt free to borrow texts from the Tanach, which they used as well, in order to vilify their opponents. By such means they perverted the original intent of the prophets, as well as the original intent of Yeshua and his talmidim.

And it has become common for some scholars, on seeing the use to which these words were put, to conclude that, therefore, Yeshua indeed meant to condemn his people. However, to arrive at this conclusion they have to first ignore the first-century setting in which the words were spoken. They have to peer back through history as though they were looking through the wrong end of a telescope. In the succeeding centuries (especially our own), anti-Semites have put these words to use for their own cause; therefore, when first spoken they must have also been spoken by anti-Semites. But this is to impose beliefs and creeds on the speakers which they did not have. Neither Yeshua nor any of his early followers conceived of themselves as being outside of Judaism, or of founding another religion. They saw themselves from first to last as Jews, and were only interested in reforming Judaism and returning it to what they considered its proper practice and form.