He hasn’t monitored their activity. He has been partners with them. Nor would he be qualified to “monitor “ them, whatever that means. (Stop saying Jesus so much?) He then proceeded to apologize to an evangelical who was upset at my article, and noted that he was ashamed as an Israeli. Fortunately, Esav Exposed has already put the microscope on Haivri. In her article (which includes several screenshots), “Hayovel and the Israel Advocacy Conference in New York”, Geula Girl reports:
Aaron Murphy spoke at Ha’Ivri’s Israel Advocacy Conference, as the representative of Hayovel. Here are a few things you should know about Murphy.
Before he removed his online footprint, as all people who are publicly associated with Hayovel do, Aaron Murphy had a facebook page in which he referred to himself as a “bond-servant of Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ)” and in another place he listed his religion as “Hebrew Israelite”.
Perhaps Haivri and Medad need to get rid of their online footprints?
Point # 5: Medad: He quites from a “trusted inside source”. That, I admittedly, am guessing is some former Kach people who were wrong in the past.
My response: I don’t know precisely what Medad means. He certainly has no idea where I received my info. I can’t really comment except to say that it is a trusted expert source. As far as Kach, I don’t know what Medad’s problem is. Again we have his fantastical assumptions that the expert or experts are “some former Kach people.” Evidently Medad had a problem with Rabbi Meir Kahane. It makes sense, since he would have been repulsed by these events, and were he alive today, would be raising his righteous voice. So I’m in good company.
Point #6: Medad: He describes the leader of Hayovel as the “infamous Tommy Waller (of the notorious missionizing Waller family)”. Really now.
My response: Huh? This is a response? Defend the Wallers. Explain to me why the videos of them talking about Yeshua (missionary for Jesus) don’t expose their beliefs. Explain to me why the Wallers and their friends are featured in video after video with known “messianic Jews.” But it gets better. Ironically, these same people would show you scores of videos of Arafat and Abbas (yemach sh’mam v’zichram) expressing their true intentions, and wonder why the anti-semitic world doesn’t take them at their word. Correctly so, but the same applies to matters of the soul.
Point # 7: Medad: He advocates violence, that we “smash their altars…”. That is not too smart.
My response: I never advocated violence. I’m sorry for quoting from the Tanach. I didn’t know it would offend you. What can I say? I’m a “pharisee.” Still committed to that stubborn halachic system. In case the reader is confused, I cited the following biblical passages. Evidently, this caused Medad to see red:
Deuteronomy 12:3: “And you shall destroy their name from this place.”
Judges 2:1-2: “‘The angel of the L-rd came up from Gilgal to Bochim and said, “I made you go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the Land which I swore unto to your fathers, and I said….’You shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land. You shall smash their altars…”
Point # 8: Medad: He totally misrepresents Rav Soloveitchik’s ‘psak Halacha’ that Jews should not be “engaged in one form or another of “interfaith-dialogue”. It specifically referred to the Vatican II period and, in any case, there is no inter-faith dialoguing.
My response: Judging from his response, it is evident that either Medad never read Rav Soloveitchik’s seminal essay “Confrontation” or he failed to understand it. Anyone who has read the Rav’s numerous writings on this issue know that he was rigidly opposed to any such dialogue before or after Vatican II. What transpired in Vatican II has no relevance on the core points of the Rav’s essay. Please refer to Dr. David Berger’s essay, Revisiting “Confrontation” After Forty Years: A Response to Rabbi Eugene Korn, for a comprehensive analysis of this issue, which is actually not a rigid treatment of the subject. Although, I doubt that Medad will read this essay, considering that he never understood the original. As far as whether Medad and others are actually engaging in dialogue, they have gone even further. They have opened the door for a blurring of the two faith communities.