Wow thank you. These ideas are fucking odious. If Bibi didn’t exist these freaks and liars would invent him. The diabolical Jew! Blame everything on him. It’s so idiotic on the surface even. He will now go down in Jewish history as the guy who was asleep at the wheel while Israel was invaded by barbarians.
It was the underlying motivation that got to me more than anything else. As I first read it, I knew there had to be something behind this piece. Something kept on telling me to read to the end, before responding to all the inaccuracies. Glad I did. How Jesus got in there, is still beyond me unless you consider the real motivations.
I’d seen really decent posts from her so like what happened? Bibi has become the scaffold for all the hatred. I mean the irrational hatred. We are in mid evil times.
No it is not Bibi IMHO. You have to understand the mind of one who deeply believes that Christianity is the only way to go. Bibi was just the excuse for the hate to come out. The reason deep down seems to be evangelism as crazy as that seems.
Honestly, I've seen a lot of similar writings from other Substackers. There's a huge impulse from people across the political spectrum to see a Hidden Hand behind every event.
To me 7 October looks like Israel relied too much on its technology and was blindsided by a very well-planned quick and dirty 4GW-style hit-and-run attack. But many are convinced that the Elders of Israel encouraged Hamas to attack as part of a calculated plan for Gaza Genocide. Personally, I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained by carelessness and overconfidence.
Half or the note seems cut off here. My email had the full comment. As you may or may not know the "Elders of Zion" is a myth about Jewish Global Conspiracy. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion) I decided not to belay that point. There was just too much there.
Again, I agree with you. I too have seen many write in the same manner. What caused me to react was 1) the source and 2) the underlying theme. I probably would have reacted just in a comment without that evangelical theme, but once I read it, the whole piece became nefarious and disgusting to me. I had to deal with it as there were comments on how great her logic was. It actually surprised me. I know this is naive, but why do so many people want Israel to adopt Christian values when they know this is a Jewish state? And why does one assume that either Christian or Jewish values are better than one another.
I do not think her piece was written our of classic "jew-hating." I think it is worse. It expresses a belief which is truly scary, that Israel has some secret cabal cooking up these nefarious plots that all the world will bend their knee and just follow. I have not seen that in print in a long time. It really is a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And it is scary as hell that people believe that.
I had cut that out because if I get started on Evangelical Zionism you would have been dealing with a very, very long note. Dispensationalism is huge in America, though not so big anywhere else. Many Evangelicals are convinced that Christ will only come back after we bring the Jews to Jesus and the Third Temple is an integral part of that.
I should note that this is far from a universal idea within Christianity. I'm Roman Catholic: for us our Third Temple was the resurrection of Jesus. Any Temple that comes afterward is as theologically irrelevant to Roman Catholicism as the New Testament is to Judaism. We're two distinct faith traditions and have been for a very long time.
This reminds me of some interesting research I did a while back by poring over old historical records and early Christian legends. One important theme of the Gospels is the rejection of Christ by the Jewish people. This has not only fueled centuries of Christian Jew-hatred, it seems incongruous with the widespread acclaim Jesus receives when he comes into Jerusalem.
Peter Schäfer (*Jesus and the Talmud*) recounts a story that Jesus snuck into the Temple's Holy of Holies and stole the Holy Name by writing it on parchment and hiding it in a cut in his skin. And if Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the Temple, it's not hard to imagine that he also took control of the Temple. Especially when there are several early Christian statements that report that is exactly what happened.
James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is reported to have died when Jewish authorities threw him off one of the Temple's towers. And yet another legend reports that James was wearing the High Priest's garb when he and Jesus cleansed the Temple by walking into the Holy of Holies. Throwing him from the Temple was an awful lot of work when you could simply gather some stones and treat him like you would most other blasphemers.
If Jesus had "purified" the Holy of Holies and then driven out the Romans, he would have been seen as greater than the Maccabees. But he didn't beat the Romans, he surrendered to them and was crucified. Which means that a lot of people who saw him as a potential Messiah were now convinced he was a coward who had defiled the Temple and lied to his supporters.
Hyam Maccoby (*Jesus the Pharisee*) suggested that "Barabbas" -- Son of The Father in Aramaic -- whom the crowd supported in the Gospels was Jesus the Rebel, while they rejected Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb. He also makes a good case that while the Gospels report that Jesus had a bad relationship with the Pharisees, it's more likely that both he and St. Joseph were Pharisees.
The Romans removed Pilate from his position later when he puts down a rebellion on Mt. Gerizim that starts at the Samaritan Temple. The guy who led that rebellion was called Dositheus. Dositheus is the initiator of another guy who appears in the Acts of the Apostles, Simon Magus. And both Simon and Dositheus claimed they had been initiated by John the Baptist. So it's tempting to look at that particular argument as a squabble between two Johannine sects.
As I said, I can talk your ear off on this topic and hope to turn it into a book sometime in the near future.
Talk talk talk I love it. Remember I taught this stuff, and published 40 years ago or so on these topics. The story of Jesus writing the Holy Name and putting it in his skin, actually comes from the Talmud. You see, the Talmud was edited by the Church in the 10th century (have to check that date) and the normal edition we have now is the Vilna Edition which reflects those edits. They edited it to take out all mention of Jesus. In modern times around 150 years ago, the earlier versions of the Talmud were printed (from before the editing of the Vatican). From these an author created a book, "The missing parts of the Talmud" in which all the stories of Jesus were back in.
Today most Talmud versions (and this a huge work) are printed from the Vilna Version with the edited out versions put back in. I have somewhere in my library, a copy of the folios from the "Vatican Version" which does have all the stories of Jesus in it.
That story was one edited out. The question of course is, how did he get a hold of the name? It was kept in secret by the High Priest. And it is very questionable if at that time and era, anyone had the NAME, and it was not lost with the destruction of the First Temple.
As to the moneychangers. They are already mentioned in the Mishna They actually were supposed to serve a very important need. People came up to the Temple to bring sacrifices. A lot of sacrifices and charity from them had to be given in a certain type of coin. This coin had to be purchased from the money changers with normative money. and remember we are talking about many different currencies from all over the world.
Exactly what banks and moneychangers do today. So there is no doubt that some of them were unscrupulous and took advantage of their clients. (Human nature never changes.) And they were an easy target for those against such deeds. Thus they found themselves front and center in the Gospels.
The throwing off the Temple story, is really hard to believe. It is not just the work. One has to understand exactly what that would mean to the mind of a Jew in the Second Temple Era.
I am very doubtful that the allegory of the "sacrificial lamb" existed in terms of Jesus until much later on. Council of Eseubias? maybe a bit earlier. That allegory is a bit too sophisticated for that moment. Remember the last supper was the Seder - the night of the Passover sacrifice (thus the Lamb).
Pilot is a whole can of worms. So is Herod. As to John the Baptist, I used to devote 6 Uni Hours to teaching him. He is much more important to this history than most people imagine.
Ted. Thanks for shining a light on this. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt; I generally am only skimming the Notes feed (prefer to read articles). I had an inkling where Mackaela was coming from, but had no idea how "out there" she is. That she put such ludicrous views in the form of an article is a blessing though. I much prefer to see people for who they are. On a humorous note; what's with her bad grammar?
I never comment on grammar, because I will be accused of the same :) I have a cousin in the US who sends me an email with every mistake I make in spelling and grammar!
As to her views. I was truly shocked. I never had her pegged for such views. I really thought when I first saw the comment it was made as a cynical quip. Then I read the article. And I could not believe what I was reading. It was just so out there. And I saw two people commend her logic and clear presentation which was truly scary.
It simply demanded an answer. I still cannot get over the convoluted leaps of logic she made, but the motive was clear at the end. Still shaking in disgust at it.
Nah. No need to take his name for this. Respect for all. Besides, as I implied, he has nothing to do with this. :) Or should have nothing to with this.
Thank you for that. I am a Bible believing Christian who believes Jesus is the Messiah and I really hate it when people swear using His name.
Like you, . I also was astounded at McKuen’s article and like you, kept thinking she doesn’t really mean this. I must not be understanding her correctly. Your rebuttal was very articulate and necessary. I really appreciate your articles/perspectives from Israel and am learning a lot. We may not always agree but I am thankful for your substack 👍
First, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. And second thank you for your compliments.
As to the article. I agree. I was shocked it was her. That is why I had to read and reread just to make sure I was not misinterpreting the meaning or reasons. I, too, was sure I was not understanding her correctly. But sadly, by the end it was absolutely clear what she wanted to say and why she said it.
I completely respect those who believe in Jesus and that he was the Messiah. That is your belief and you are entitled to it and should be able to express it freely in any forum you wish. So too, Moslems. So too, Jews. So too, any religion. Period.
Nothing to say about that. What I will not stay silent about is the enormous misconceptions and underlying theme of that piece. It was at best, erroneous, at worst, nefarious.
The all powerful Jew running the world. It’s so classically antisemitic. Secret nefarious plots. When Jews are being slaughtered it’s all their fault cuz their diabolical leader has planned this.
Actually that part was scary. The secret cabal in the cellar, cooking up plots to "cleanse Israel" and "force the Arab states to do Israel's bidding." It is truly scary that people believe that junk.
Wow thank you. These ideas are fucking odious. If Bibi didn’t exist these freaks and liars would invent him. The diabolical Jew! Blame everything on him. It’s so idiotic on the surface even. He will now go down in Jewish history as the guy who was asleep at the wheel while Israel was invaded by barbarians.
It was the underlying motivation that got to me more than anything else. As I first read it, I knew there had to be something behind this piece. Something kept on telling me to read to the end, before responding to all the inaccuracies. Glad I did. How Jesus got in there, is still beyond me unless you consider the real motivations.
I’d seen really decent posts from her so like what happened? Bibi has become the scaffold for all the hatred. I mean the irrational hatred. We are in mid evil times.
No it is not Bibi IMHO. You have to understand the mind of one who deeply believes that Christianity is the only way to go. Bibi was just the excuse for the hate to come out. The reason deep down seems to be evangelism as crazy as that seems.
Right you uncovered that. The usual trope. Hateful Jews and loving Christians.
Honestly, I've seen a lot of similar writings from other Substackers. There's a huge impulse from people across the political spectrum to see a Hidden Hand behind every event.
To me 7 October looks like Israel relied too much on its technology and was blindsided by a very well-planned quick and dirty 4GW-style hit-and-run attack. But many are convinced that the Elders of Israel encouraged Hamas to attack as part of a calculated plan for Gaza Genocide. Personally, I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained by carelessness and overconfidence.
Half or the note seems cut off here. My email had the full comment. As you may or may not know the "Elders of Zion" is a myth about Jewish Global Conspiracy. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion) I decided not to belay that point. There was just too much there.
Again, I agree with you. I too have seen many write in the same manner. What caused me to react was 1) the source and 2) the underlying theme. I probably would have reacted just in a comment without that evangelical theme, but once I read it, the whole piece became nefarious and disgusting to me. I had to deal with it as there were comments on how great her logic was. It actually surprised me. I know this is naive, but why do so many people want Israel to adopt Christian values when they know this is a Jewish state? And why does one assume that either Christian or Jewish values are better than one another.
I do not think her piece was written our of classic "jew-hating." I think it is worse. It expresses a belief which is truly scary, that Israel has some secret cabal cooking up these nefarious plots that all the world will bend their knee and just follow. I have not seen that in print in a long time. It really is a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And it is scary as hell that people believe that.
I had cut that out because if I get started on Evangelical Zionism you would have been dealing with a very, very long note. Dispensationalism is huge in America, though not so big anywhere else. Many Evangelicals are convinced that Christ will only come back after we bring the Jews to Jesus and the Third Temple is an integral part of that.
I should note that this is far from a universal idea within Christianity. I'm Roman Catholic: for us our Third Temple was the resurrection of Jesus. Any Temple that comes afterward is as theologically irrelevant to Roman Catholicism as the New Testament is to Judaism. We're two distinct faith traditions and have been for a very long time.
This reminds me of some interesting research I did a while back by poring over old historical records and early Christian legends. One important theme of the Gospels is the rejection of Christ by the Jewish people. This has not only fueled centuries of Christian Jew-hatred, it seems incongruous with the widespread acclaim Jesus receives when he comes into Jerusalem.
Peter Schäfer (*Jesus and the Talmud*) recounts a story that Jesus snuck into the Temple's Holy of Holies and stole the Holy Name by writing it on parchment and hiding it in a cut in his skin. And if Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the Temple, it's not hard to imagine that he also took control of the Temple. Especially when there are several early Christian statements that report that is exactly what happened.
James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is reported to have died when Jewish authorities threw him off one of the Temple's towers. And yet another legend reports that James was wearing the High Priest's garb when he and Jesus cleansed the Temple by walking into the Holy of Holies. Throwing him from the Temple was an awful lot of work when you could simply gather some stones and treat him like you would most other blasphemers.
If Jesus had "purified" the Holy of Holies and then driven out the Romans, he would have been seen as greater than the Maccabees. But he didn't beat the Romans, he surrendered to them and was crucified. Which means that a lot of people who saw him as a potential Messiah were now convinced he was a coward who had defiled the Temple and lied to his supporters.
Hyam Maccoby (*Jesus the Pharisee*) suggested that "Barabbas" -- Son of The Father in Aramaic -- whom the crowd supported in the Gospels was Jesus the Rebel, while they rejected Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb. He also makes a good case that while the Gospels report that Jesus had a bad relationship with the Pharisees, it's more likely that both he and St. Joseph were Pharisees.
The Romans removed Pilate from his position later when he puts down a rebellion on Mt. Gerizim that starts at the Samaritan Temple. The guy who led that rebellion was called Dositheus. Dositheus is the initiator of another guy who appears in the Acts of the Apostles, Simon Magus. And both Simon and Dositheus claimed they had been initiated by John the Baptist. So it's tempting to look at that particular argument as a squabble between two Johannine sects.
As I said, I can talk your ear off on this topic and hope to turn it into a book sometime in the near future.
Talk talk talk I love it. Remember I taught this stuff, and published 40 years ago or so on these topics. The story of Jesus writing the Holy Name and putting it in his skin, actually comes from the Talmud. You see, the Talmud was edited by the Church in the 10th century (have to check that date) and the normal edition we have now is the Vilna Edition which reflects those edits. They edited it to take out all mention of Jesus. In modern times around 150 years ago, the earlier versions of the Talmud were printed (from before the editing of the Vatican). From these an author created a book, "The missing parts of the Talmud" in which all the stories of Jesus were back in.
Today most Talmud versions (and this a huge work) are printed from the Vilna Version with the edited out versions put back in. I have somewhere in my library, a copy of the folios from the "Vatican Version" which does have all the stories of Jesus in it.
That story was one edited out. The question of course is, how did he get a hold of the name? It was kept in secret by the High Priest. And it is very questionable if at that time and era, anyone had the NAME, and it was not lost with the destruction of the First Temple.
As to the moneychangers. They are already mentioned in the Mishna They actually were supposed to serve a very important need. People came up to the Temple to bring sacrifices. A lot of sacrifices and charity from them had to be given in a certain type of coin. This coin had to be purchased from the money changers with normative money. and remember we are talking about many different currencies from all over the world.
Exactly what banks and moneychangers do today. So there is no doubt that some of them were unscrupulous and took advantage of their clients. (Human nature never changes.) And they were an easy target for those against such deeds. Thus they found themselves front and center in the Gospels.
The throwing off the Temple story, is really hard to believe. It is not just the work. One has to understand exactly what that would mean to the mind of a Jew in the Second Temple Era.
I am very doubtful that the allegory of the "sacrificial lamb" existed in terms of Jesus until much later on. Council of Eseubias? maybe a bit earlier. That allegory is a bit too sophisticated for that moment. Remember the last supper was the Seder - the night of the Passover sacrifice (thus the Lamb).
Pilot is a whole can of worms. So is Herod. As to John the Baptist, I used to devote 6 Uni Hours to teaching him. He is much more important to this history than most people imagine.
Ted. Thanks for shining a light on this. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt; I generally am only skimming the Notes feed (prefer to read articles). I had an inkling where Mackaela was coming from, but had no idea how "out there" she is. That she put such ludicrous views in the form of an article is a blessing though. I much prefer to see people for who they are. On a humorous note; what's with her bad grammar?
Hey Ian,
I never comment on grammar, because I will be accused of the same :) I have a cousin in the US who sends me an email with every mistake I make in spelling and grammar!
As to her views. I was truly shocked. I never had her pegged for such views. I really thought when I first saw the comment it was made as a cynical quip. Then I read the article. And I could not believe what I was reading. It was just so out there. And I saw two people commend her logic and clear presentation which was truly scary.
It simply demanded an answer. I still cannot get over the convoluted leaps of logic she made, but the motive was clear at the end. Still shaking in disgust at it.
Hypocrisy is the death of logic, so there's that. To claim that Israel is secretly the hegemon of the middle east? All I can say is: Jesus Christ!
Nah. No need to take his name for this. Respect for all. Besides, as I implied, he has nothing to do with this. :) Or should have nothing to with this.
Thank you for that. I am a Bible believing Christian who believes Jesus is the Messiah and I really hate it when people swear using His name.
Like you, . I also was astounded at McKuen’s article and like you, kept thinking she doesn’t really mean this. I must not be understanding her correctly. Your rebuttal was very articulate and necessary. I really appreciate your articles/perspectives from Israel and am learning a lot. We may not always agree but I am thankful for your substack 👍
Joan,
First, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. And second thank you for your compliments.
As to the article. I agree. I was shocked it was her. That is why I had to read and reread just to make sure I was not misinterpreting the meaning or reasons. I, too, was sure I was not understanding her correctly. But sadly, by the end it was absolutely clear what she wanted to say and why she said it.
I completely respect those who believe in Jesus and that he was the Messiah. That is your belief and you are entitled to it and should be able to express it freely in any forum you wish. So too, Moslems. So too, Jews. So too, any religion. Period.
Nothing to say about that. What I will not stay silent about is the enormous misconceptions and underlying theme of that piece. It was at best, erroneous, at worst, nefarious.
Keep up the good work Ted. 👍😀
The all powerful Jew running the world. It’s so classically antisemitic. Secret nefarious plots. When Jews are being slaughtered it’s all their fault cuz their diabolical leader has planned this.
Actually that part was scary. The secret cabal in the cellar, cooking up plots to "cleanse Israel" and "force the Arab states to do Israel's bidding." It is truly scary that people believe that junk.