Isaiah 2:22

Isaiah 2:22

Many Christians have a difficult time understanding why it is that Jews view their faith in Jesus as idolatrous. Christians assert that Jesus is “one and the same” as the God of Israel. How could veneration of Jesus be considered idolatry?

It may come as a surprise to some Christians if they were to realize that many Jews have a difficult time understanding Christians. After everything is said and done, Christianity is pointing to a man, and calling him “god”. What else is there to discuss?

This article is written in an effort to help Christians see things from a Jewish perspective.

Imagine the following scenario.

The Messianic era is here. God is revealed to all mankind. Every human being clearly sees that the One Creator of heaven and earth is the only true power. Everyone understands that every facet of existence is just an expression of His will and His love. All the nations recognize that every bit of adoration that the human heart can generate belongs only to the Almighty God who called the universe into existence.

And Jesus is not there. The man from Nazareth is nowhere to be seen.

What will the Christian then feel about the relationship he shared with this man? How will they view all the adoration that they were persuaded to pour out towards that individual?

The fact that you could imagine this scenario, should tell you that Jesus is NOT one and the same with the Creator of heaven and earth. The fact that this scenario is hypothetically possible should help you separate between Jesus on the one hand and the God of Israel on the other.

This scenario is not just a hypothetical possibility. If you believe those God fearing Jews whose words are immortalized in the Jewish Scriptures, you will realize that this scenario was at the heart of their vision for the future.

I will provide a list of Scriptural references for you to study. Please bear in mind that when these words were originally written, no one had heard of Jesus. When the Jewish prophets penned their words, the concept: “trinity” – was not yet invented. Please realize that for a Jew who would have read these words before the advent of Christianity, the words “God”, “Lord”, and “Almighty” would mean one thing and one thing only – The One Creator of heaven and earth.

Deuteronomy 32:39, Ezekiel 37:28, 38:1-48:35, Isaiah 2:17, 24:23, 40:9, 52:7,10, 60:19,  Joel 4:16-17, Micah 7:15-18, Zephaniah 3:9, Zechariah 14:9, Psalm 47:3, 83:19, 86:10, 97:6-9, 102:16, 148:13,

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

This entry was posted in The Ultimate Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

241 Responses to Isaiah 2:22

  1. bography says:

    Yisroel one of your passages is

    11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
    and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
    2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
    the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
    the Spirit of counsel and might,
    the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
    3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
    He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
    or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
    4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
    and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
    and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
    and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
    5 Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist,
    and faithfulness the belt of his loins.

    Who do you think the judge in this passage is?

    • Larry Fasel says:

      A Judge is hardly a “god” Christians have a propensity to always read something into the text due to presupposed concepts that have been taught to them for generations, they just can’t seem to get out of that theological box they all sit in.

      • HRD says:

        I have never understood why xstans point to this and say, “clearly this is talking about Jesus!” Um….how is that?

        • Concerned Reader says:

          And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
          He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
          or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
          4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
          and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;

          The gist of the Christian focus on this verse in particular (though you see it as misguided) is that it says this judge will not judge after the sight of his eyes, or by what his ears hear. He will (it seems) have a special intuition in his judgements, and he will not fail where others of the past have failed (when read next to Isaiah 11.)

          This individual is said to be the leader who will lead creation back to perfect harmony and an Eden like state that will not fail like the first time around in the garden did, ie Isaiah 11. The argument is made that a human being could not do this, (as evidenced by the fact that no human ever assigned to the task, not Adam before he sinned, nor even Moses, was able to do this, and they had unparalleled knowledge of G-d.) The argument is then that G-d must be the one to do it, and in order not to have the conflict of interest between G-d and man (as amply seen in the past,) Moshiach must be G-d himself operating in unison with a human nature in order to redeem man and nature as scripture says.

          It may be senseless to you guys, but with respect, there is a reading to answer your question.

          • Careless reader
            Your “logic” is amazing – you can’t imagine a human doing something – so that means the human must be Divine?! How primitive can you get?

          • Wow rabbi, really? That’s the best you can do is to call me primitive? Ok, well, respectfully, I was just offering a response to a question. I even said, “it may seem sensless to you.”

            If you had noticed though, the impetus behind the reading that I gave you, was that no human in history that was assigned this task by G-d himself has ever accomplished it, including those like Adam and Moses, who had a more direct, more profound knowledge of G-d, than anyone ever in human existence. It’s not that nobody could, it’s that nobody has!

            Man has been given a task to make a dwelling place for Hashem in this world, and every human given this task has failed.

            This isn’t me being primitive, this is actually a rather simple interpretation given all that we know about the messianic era.

            I appreciate that you think this reading is wrong, but I was answering a question. You don’t need to insult me.

            Be well

            Concerned Reader

  2. bography says:

    The passage is from Isaiah

  3. Bogrophy
    Whoever this person is – Isaiah is teaching us that he will fear the Lord

    • tsvi says:

      Bography
      You say the judge that fears the LORD is Jesus. You say Jesus is lthe LORD
      (other places) You have the LORD fearing the LORD. You are making the
      LORD a m’shuganah cmon take off them blinders (Isaiah 25:7) and come on back to your God, his true faith , and your people. You will no longer have to do the twist. Tsvi

  4. bography says:

    Larry
    Who in the bible is the only judge who can strike the earth with his rod?
    http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah%2051:9/http://www.esvbible.org/Jeremiah%204:23/3 And God said, c“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

    Isaiah 10:5  (Isaiah 10)

    Judgment on Arrogant Assyria

    Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;

    the staff in their hands is my fury!

    Isaiah 11:4  (Isaiah 11)

    but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,

    and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;

    and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,

    and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.

    Isaiah 30:31  (Isaiah 30)

    The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the Lord, when he strikes with his rod.

    Lamentations 3

    1 I amthe man who has seen affliction
    under the lrod of his wrath;
    2 he has driven and brought me
    minto darkness without any light;
    3 surely against me he turns his hand
    again and again the whole day long.

    Micah

    5 1 Now muster your troops, O daughter2 of troops;
    siege is laid against us;
    with a rod pthey strike the judge of Israel
    on the cheek.
    2 3 qBut you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    who are too little to be among the clans of rJudah,
    from you shall come forth for me
    one who is to be sruler in Israel,
    twhose coming forth is ufrom of old,
    from ancient days.

    • Larry Fasel says:

      The Most High gave angles the Authority to destroy or spare, at least the scriptures reflect this motif. Even in the writings of the NT it says this: Paul is talking about Jesus as being a Judge: 1 Cor 15:24-27
      hen (cometh) the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.

      25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

      26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.

      27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.
      ASV

  5. bography says:

    Ignore the genesis reference

  6. Sam says:

    Bography,

    The chapter you quoted proves the rabbi’s point much more than you realize.

    He wrote that Jesus and G-d are not the same thing.

    And your quote, from Isaiah 11, proves exactly the rabbi’s point:

    Speaking of the messiah, Isaiah says he will fear G-d. Clearly this person is both separate and subservient to the Creator.

  7. Bography
    Jeremiah had God’s word planted in his mouth to with much power as per Jeremiah 1:9,10 – the righteous of Israel have God’s word planted in their mouth to “plant the earth and to establish the heavens” as per Isaiah 51:16 – this does not make them God.
    Yes, Israel will be exalted in the Messianic age and her King Messiah will be exalted as well – but they will be exalted for remaining loyal to teh priniciple taht created is not Created – while the belief systems that attempted to obfuscate that distinction – such as Christianity – will disappear – Isaiah 2:18.

  8. bography says:

    Sam I ask the question again,  in a different way: can a non-divine being 

    strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,

    and with the breath of his lips  kill the wicked?
    Isaiah 11:4

  9. Sam says:

    Bography,

    It is a rather simple answer.

    It is not a stretch for my theology to accept that G-d will give the messiah powers in the messianic era.

    However, if you accept that Isaiah 11 speaks of the messiah, you must also accept that this person is both separate and subservient to G-d.

    So regardless of what this person may appear to do, he still “fears G-d,” and thus, quite clearly separate from G-d.

    • It is not a stretch for my theology to accept that G-d will give the messiah powers in the messianic era.

      In all times past the human messengers who were given “powers” by G-d, were presumably given the task of bringing the messianic era described in Isaiah 11. None of them succeeded to the extent scripture describes (restoration of Eden and eternal life.) (despite their direct knowledge and experience of G-d.) it is thus argued that only the eternal one can do this. As has been noted in our own Christian texts, the Christians are not saying that Jesus upstages or is greater than G-d. He hands the kingdom over, so that G-d may be all in all.

  10. Sam says:

    And to clarify what ‘powers’ the messiah will have: Isaiah means the messiah will banish evil from the world. Is this not what the Jews have said all along?

    The chapter gives descriptions of the messiah in the messianic age, but the verse tells us he will “fear G-d” so as to prevent us from making him INTO a G-d.

    Answer the question, Bography: How will the messiah, who is G-d, fear himself? And why will you worship the messiah who himself worships something else?

  11. Thomas says:

    bography, see the rabbi’s verse from jeremiah above. The messiah, like Jeremiah in 1:10, will be exalted. But don’t confuse exalted with divine. That is a mistake no human being can afford to make.

  12. bography says:

    Sam
    Jesus explains how both he and his father are divine. But Jews reject the NT.

  13. Thomas says:

    Bography, great- so we both agree then that Isaiah never says the messiah is divine.

    Don’t change the subject- “well, the NT says so.” The Book of Mormon says lots of things too, but then again, you reject the Book of Mormon, and the Quran, also. the fact remains is that G-d in the OT does not say the messiah is divine, but quite the opposite.

  14. Sharlee says:

    Sam, you have done an amazing job in explaining the difference of a man empowered by God and God. As someone that was a Christian for over 40 years, I understand the difficulty of seeing this as they come to the Jewish scriptures with the fore drawn conclusion that these verses are about their messiah instead of studying the scriptures with an open mind and without preconceived ideas.

    I think that something else that needs to be acknowledged here is that much of Isaiah is not literal. For instance, the messiah will not literally strike ppl dead with his breath. That would be some really bad breath!

    All said and done, the fact of the matter is that Jesus did not fulfill these requirements for messiah. When Jesus was on earth, he actual refused to judge (Lk 12). To say that these things will be fulfilled upon his second return is an interesting twist, however, I don’t believe someone gets to be called the messiah until that person actually fulfills the prophecies that show the ppl he is the messiah.

    The problem for Christians is not so much that they believe that Jesus is messiah, it is that believe he is God. It is interesting to me that they conclude this when Jesus himself makes it very clear he is not. Paul actually does as well. Paul consistently kept Jesus and God separate and Paul believed in only one God. Christians have taken a couple of vague verses and the vote of the Roman Catholic Church at the counsel of Nicea and have trust they had the best of intentions in making Jesus a God. It is all very unfortunate.

    • For instance, the messiah will not literally strike ppl dead with his breath.

      Hahaha! Lol good one.

      • Sharlee there are explicitly clear verses in the gospels and Paul’s epistles where passages clearly referring to Hashem from the Torah are said to refer directly to Jesus himself. True, It is very possible to interpret much of the text to say that they didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity, but you have to do crazy interpretive gymnastics with the text to reach that conclusion. I know very well that the Ebionites rejected Jesus’ divinity, and that the Arians said he was of similar substance but was the first creation of the father, known as the angel of the presence.The New Testament though makes it abundantly clear that Jesus has divine attributes. He forgives Sins, reads people’s thoughts and hearts, and offers the world to come and paradise etc. if he weren’t G-d himself, there would be a massive conflict of interest between he and G-d.

        • This goes into what I was saying to Devorah. Maimonides talks about the active intellect, which he views as an overflow of G-d’s presence, and the reason we have prophetic knowledge. Saadia Gaon, before Rambam, spoke about the Kavod Nivra which he said was the created light which manifested to prophets in every instance of revelation that we find in scripture. With this Saadia avoids ascribing anthropomorphic characteristics to G-d, but he inadvertently creates an intermediary, because this created light is deemed the source of prophecy created by G-d.

          The problem that I have with these views of the appearances or theophanies in scripture as visions only, or a created glory, is not that these views can’t fit the text well, but that you have to do an incredible exegetical gymnastic to make these readings work. If every prophetic vision from scripture was of angels, visions, emissaries, or a created glory, then many of the verses become outright odd. Take the captain of hashem’s host in Joshua 5. If rashi’s reading that this was the angel Michael holds, it is odd that Joshua prostrated to the ground, and removed his shoes as though it were G-d. Joshua must have seen this as a manifestation of G-d, not a mere angel.

          • Sharbano says:

            “You have to do an incredible exegetical gymnastic to make these readings work.”

            How much More so when attempting to put Jsus in the picture. The issue stems from the lack of understanding the nature of G-d himself. Xtians not only want to see G-d but are desperate to see G-d as a human type figure on a physical, king-like throne, i.e. chair. This is exemplified in Michelangelo’s painting. There is absolutely no resemblance in Judaism, none whatsoever.

            I find it curious that Xtianity does not look at their own texts with any critical thinking. Automatically it is assumed there are no difficulties within. If these writers of the Xtian text were Jewish why did they depart from normative Judaism and create something antithetical to their heritage. No matter What the Xtian may assert there is ample evidence from Tanach to dispute the Xtian narrative whether the adherents Want accept it or not. The adherents cannot dispute what is clear and need to resort to re-defining words to accomplish the task. There is no clarity, whatsoever, for the Xtian narrative within Tanach. Of course the response is Always “you are Unable to see it”. We just don’t see what is NOT really there. If there was TRUE clarity it would be seen by all, including the great Sages.

            Yet when it comes to Jewish texts evidently the Jew has no understanding of what is written, even though written by Jews, about Jews and to Jews. It is clearly stated that Moshe was privy to a “conversation” with G-d. Surely G-d would have instructed His people in His ways. Or, was G-d being deceitful to Moshe and the prophets in His TRUE intention. I mentioned before that Moshe questioned G-d on his use of “Let US make man” because it could be misunderstood. This would have been the opportune time to tell Moshe the Xtian version of understanding. What we DO have is a “warning” that has been brought up countless times here, in that Devarim states unequivocally, with Clarity, that no image or Form was seen. It includes a Warning to HEED this and not stray because there will be times that mankind will assert G-d can be seen. It is quite obvious G-d KNEW that Xtianity would arise and attempt to distort G-d’s warning and that warning wasn’t given in obscure terms, but with clarity. THIS is the banner that Jews have maintained throughout the generations and, as predicted, there are those who choose to distort what was given to the Jews, using the obscure over the clear. One can say you see Jsus here or you see Jsus there, but it’s a “belief” not evidentiary. A belief does not make it From G-d or about G-d. Therefore, on the one hand we have what was taught by Moshe, who spoke directly to G-d, and the other a belief that a writer penned without so much as “saying” it was from G-d. This is why the Sinai event is so very important to Judaism. It stands Alone as a testament to truth and clarity then and forever more.

          • Dina says:

            Con, Rabbi B. addressed the Christian argument of theophanies in this article:

            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-bush-the-cloud-and-genesis-18/

  15. Sharlee says:

    bography, where does Jesus claim he is divine?

  16. bography says:

    Snarled
    Here are relevant biblical passages concerning the divinity of Jesus:

    Bible verses that show Jesus is Divine
    by Matt Slick

    Following are verses used to show that Jesus is God in flesh. The scriptures used here are from the New American Standard Bible.

    John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
    John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
    John 5:18 – “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”
    John 8:24 – “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.”
    Note: In the Greek, “He” is not there.
    John 8:58 – “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'”
    Exodus 3:14 – “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
    John 10:30-33 – “I and the Father are one.”  31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.  32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”  33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
    John 20:28 – “Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
    Col. 2:9 – “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”
    Phil. 2:5-8 – “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
    Heb. 1:8 – “But of the Son He says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.”
    Quoted from Psalm 45:6, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.”
    Jesus is worshipped – Jesus said to worship God only, yet He receives worship.

    Matt. 4:10 – “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Begone, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”’”
    Matt. 2:2 – “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?  For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.”
    Matt. 2:11 – “And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh.”
    Matt. 14:33 – “And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
    Matt. 28:9 – “And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them.  And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.”
    John 9:35-38 – “Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”  36 He answered and said, “And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”  37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.”  38 And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.”
    Heb. 1:6 – “And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.'”
    Jesus is prayed to

    Acts 7:55-60 – “But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”  57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse.  58 And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul.  59 And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”  60 And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!”  And having said this, he fell asleep.”
    1 Cor. 1:1-2 – “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”  (The phrase, “to call upon the name of the Lord” is a phrase used to designate prayer.)
    1 Kings 18:24 – “Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God.”  And all the people answered and said, “That is a good idea.”
    Zech. 13:9 – “And I will bring the third part through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested.  They will call on My name, and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are My people,’ and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”
    Rom. 10:13-14 – “for ‘whoever will call upon the name of the Lord’ will be saved.”  14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?  And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?”  (Paul is speaking of calling upon Jesus.  (The phrase “Call upon the name of the Lord” is a quote from Joel 2:32)).
    Joel 2:32 – “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.”  (LORD here is YHWH, the name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, this quote, dealing with God Himself is attributed to Jesus.)
    First and Last

    Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.”
    Rev. 1:17-18 – “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

    • tsvi says:

      Hey you quote John 5:18 proving the deity of Jesus. It says that Jesus broke the sabbath. If he did than he is a sinner and cannot be the Messiah much less God

    • agadah says:

      John 5:18 clearly states Jesus was breaking the Sabbath (intentionally & without cause). So why wasn’t the 100% god Jesus not controlling the 100% man Jesus? Should not man rebuke man who rebels against God? What sort of “godly man” curses a tree, for being a tree and only yielding fruit according to the design given it by God?

  17. bography says:

    Sam you tell me not to change the subject. Ok then, we have the OT The NT, the Koran and the book of Mormon.

  18. Thomas says:

    I’m Thomas, not Sam =)

    You have tacitly admitted that your Isaiah passage does not speak of a divine messiah; rather, you rationalize it in other ways (“Jesus explains how both he and his father are divine.”)

    You can believe whatever you want, but you do seem to realize that it is not found in the Hebrew Bible.

  19. Bography
    You will acknowledge – I hope, that one must first read the Jewish Scriptures from cover to cover – imbibe its message – and only after the message is absorbed – then, examine the NT in light of the message of the Jewish Scriptures. I encourage you to take this trip. Join the many committed Christians who turned to the God of Israel after taking this trip.

  20. bography says:

    Yisroel

    No, I don’t acknowledge that one should start with the OT. Generally, a Jew starts with the NT while a gentile (within a western culture) may start with the NT.

    • tsvi says:

      Huh!!! I don’t believe what Bography just wrote. Hey….Let me put it straight
      A Jew was in covenant relationship (saith the Tanach) long before the word Christian was uttered. In fact God gave his covenant people this Tanach so that when one came (as Judah of Galilee among others) their claims would be scrutinized in the light of GODS WORD. But not by you Bography. According to you we need to just read the New Testament and we will be fine. As we say in Japaneese English Rots of Ruck.

    • bography says:

      I see that I made a slip with “Generally, a Jew starts with the NT while a gentile (within a western culture) may start with the NT.”

      I meant, surely, “Generally, a Jew starts with the OT while a gentile (within a western culture) may start with the NT.

  21. Bography – don’t you acknowledge that the OT was here first? That it was given to us for guidance as to how examine future claims for revelation?

  22. Sharlee says:

    I’m one pharisee! Well, I am no longer a Christian. And I have walked 8 of my Christian friends and family through it as well and they now embrace the God of Israel. There is such freedom there and it all actually makes sense instead of being chalked up to a mystery. I love it!

    So bography, I see your verses that you quote saying Jesus is divine. I do not believe you can call any of the OT scriptures as saying this. They are being taken out of context and twisted to say what will back up Christian doctrine. But I see your point on the NT scripture. However, every one of your Paul quotes could be argued as being taken to mean something else, especially in light of all the times he clearly delineated between God and Jesus. It was clear that Paul did not only not consider them the same, as trinity doctrine would dictate, and that he did not consider Jesus to be God. Just because he is called Lord does not make him God. Paul , being a Jew, would have known the distinction and therefore made the distinction, which he did. Paul is also known for misquoting OT scripture. It abounds in his writings. For instance, he states there are none righteous. That is clearly not what the Ps text says. It says there are none righteous amongst the fools. Paul opened it up to all men so that it would go with his doctrine that you can not be found righteous without Christ. This simply is not true as the OT scriptures share stories of many many righteous ppl.

    so then what about the other books listed? Well, we don’t even know who wrote them. It is only Catholic tradition that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels, but they do not know. And no one knows who wrote Hebrews. But we do know who wrote the OT, so who are you going to believe, God and his words in the OT or the unknown writers of the gospels and Hebrews?

    The New Testament must line up with the old, not the other way around and I think, therein, lies the problem. The OT stands alone, but the NT depends upon the OT to validate it, so you must use the OT to validate it. So far, the church has only succeeded in doing so by twisting the meaning of OT scripture. I only mention one above, but I could name hundreds. That is why it is essential to take the journey that pharisee mentioned above. it is the only way to find the truth and the lies.

    • bography says:

      Sharlee

      There are many things here. Let me focus on your view that Paul did not consider Jesus to be God wich is related to your view that the scriptures that claim to speak of Jesus’ divinity can be interpreted in a different way. In these two issues, what interpretation would you give to the following to passages from Paul.

      1.
      [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [16] For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [17] And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. [19] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
      (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

      first-born son – this refers to the rights and privileges of a firstborn son, especially the son of a kingwho would inherit ruling sovereignty. See “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27).

      2.
      Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

  23. Thomas says:

    bography, starting with the NT, whether Jew or gentile, is nonsensical.

    Not only do we both agree the OT revealed thousands of years earlier, but the entire Christian message is based on the OT- from original sin, origin of the messiah, the replacement for atonement, plus the constant references to the OT. Unless one already understands (and accepts) the OT, the claims of the New Testamant and Jesus don’t make any sense.

    Theoretically, one can accept the OT and reject the NT, but you would admit (as would Christians this side of Marcion) that one cannot logically accept the NT and reject the OT. Therefore, it only makes sense to start with the foundations. And if Part II does not mesh with Part I, there’s a problem.

    • bography says:

      Thomas let me answer with a playlet,
      “Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods” (Joshua 24:2).
      The names Terah, Laban, Sarah, and Milcah contain elements that reveal connections to the moon-god.

      Setting.
      Ur. Abraham is trying to convince Nahor that God spoke to him (Abraham) and asked him to leave Ur for a distant land.

      Nahor – Avi, what meshugas is this – one single God! And he told you to leave not only your country and family, but also your sacred traditions.
      Abraham – I no longer believe the moon is a god. She can’t do anything to me anymore.
      Nahor – Avi, what came first, the moon or your god. Don’t you think that you should look at your new god in the light of the Moon. After all the Moon was here first.
      Abraham – Nahor, our religion was nothing but moonshine. I don’t care what came first. I’ve discovered a new light that far outshines the moon.

      NOTE: although the content of the Tanach and the NT have much more in common than the moon religion of Ur and the God of Abraham, the principle is the same, that is, it is not chronological order that determines the authority/importance of a religion/system of thought but rather it is the degree of authority that each of the religions carries. For me, the Tanach is the basis of the NT, where I interpret the Tanach (the old/previous) in the light of the NT (new/subsequent). Jesus is my ultimate authority.

      • Bography
        What makes you think that Abraham did not know God before God spoke to him? – The Bible clearly indicates that human logic is capable of identifying the fallacy of idolatry – Jeremiah 10:11, Isaiah 44, but two examples.
        The conversation between Abraham and Terah more likely went as follows –
        Terah – you should worship the moon –
        Abraham – well – in whose heaven does the moon shine?
        Terah – why are you getting so logical – the moon spoke to me last night.
        Abraham – the moon is no better than me – we are both limited beings – inhabitants of this universe – my God is larger than the universe
        Terah – well, I’ll go with the foolishness of the moon – and I will pray so that yuo will be healed of your spiritual blindness
        In case you want to know – false prophets also had “experiences” as per 1 Kings 22:23

      • Bography
        Another point – the OT comes first – not because of chronoogical reasons – but because the NT writers admit that the OT is authentic – while teh OT writers do not say the same thing about the NT. The NT writers admit that the OT was an authentic God-given document that was given before the NT – it ithen our duty before God to read the OT – absorb its message INDEPENDANT of the NT – and then see how the NT does or doesn’t fit in

      • Thomas says:

        bography, I did not realize you were a Marcionite!

        At least, based on your Abraham parable (ie. that Jesus, not G-d, is your ultimate authority).

        On the subject, your parable is based on a pretty elementary difference:

        Abraham rejected belief in ANY other dieties, thus his pre-existing beliefs mattered little as they were not divine or from the Ultimate Creator. “Nahor, our religion was nothing but moonshine,” as you say. So they are rejected totally.

        The NT does not claim this about G-d of the OT! The NT does not claim that the G-d of the OT is a lesser G-d- it’s the same G-d! It is this same G-d who Jesus claims his authority from!

        Jesus and the NT not only accept the authority and divinity of the OT and the G-d who wrote it (!), but Jesus’ entire claim is predicated on the divinity of the OT. All of Jesus’ references to the OT, the basis of original sin, temple sacrifices and more assumes that not only is the OT divine, but that the NT must be read in context of what G-d already taught humanity.

        So unless you are trying to claim that G-d willfully lied (and continues to lie) through the OT, you are in a position where you must admit to yourself that you believe in a duality of gods or a multiplicity of gods.

        Heck, even Marcion realized that the entire NT cannot be genuine if the OT god is a lesser one, so he rationalized it by saying most of the NT isn’t divine anyway. But you are trying to have it both ways!

      • Mitch says:

        It is worth noting that any Christian who says the New Testament has ‘replaced’ or superceded the Old Testmant (as our friend bography says) proves it with a quote from Jeremiah 31:31, or some other OT passage.

        They recognize the New Testament depends on the Hebrew Scriptures for its basic teachings and theology, but at the same time they say the Hebrew Scriptures themselves claim to be limited and imperfect in nature, and only pointing to something greater in the future.

        But we get back to the main point: they are still relying on the Hebrew Bible for their theology. They still only claim that the Gospels have superior credibility because the Hebrew Bible allegedly says so. Even they recognize that the Gospel claims of replacement on their own mean nothing unless supported by pre-existing revelation- ie. the Old Testament. Otherwise, they have to believe that two different gods wrote the OT and the NT.

      • tsvi says:

        Ah! Now you said it. Jesus is your ultimate authority. end of debate. How can anyone debate with you. We must debate from areas of agreement. Here we are today, as Jews we were at Mt. Sinai 2 million of us. We all heard the voice of God. That voice is branded in the very soul of every Jew. Practicing or not. You are following a man whose disciples wrote about him in 4 contradictory ways. The book came to you through a church that was anything but truthful (I don’t need to quote) Our God says in Psalm 147:19,20 that his word came through Jacob/Israel and THROUGH NO OTHER NATION. Yet you have accepted this book hook line and sinker in spite of these things. Brother you need to get saved Jewish style.
        Tsvi

      • tsvi says:

        Bography somehow my comment to you got posted after what Mitch wrote. scroll down to it

  24. bography says:

    Parry, the NT says clearly ( contrary to what many say) that j
    Jesus is higher than the angels; they worship him:

    Hebrews. 1

    Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
    5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
    “You are my Son,
    today I have begotten you”?
    Or again,
    “I will be to him a father,
    and he shall be to me a son”?
    6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
    “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
    7 Of the angels he says,
    “He makes his angels winds,
    and his ministers a flame of fire.”
    8 But of the Son he says,
    “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
    the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
    9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
    therefore God, your God, has anointed you
    with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
    10 And,
    “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands;
    11 they will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment,
    12 like a robe you will roll them up,
    like a garment they will be changed.1
    But you are the same,
    and your years will have no end.”
    13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
    “Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
    14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

  25. bography says:

    Larry, not Parry; although that is what I am doing.

  26. bography says:

    Sharlee I called you Snarled. That’s me getting used to my iPad. Back to the topic. Why should the OT have more historical veracity than the NT?

  27. bography says:

    Sharlee have you converted to Judaism or Noahidism or what?

  28. John says:

    To all…isn’t one of the characteristics of “the memre (memra)”, was that “sometimes it WAS God, and sometimes it was WITH God”. As such, John in his Gospel says, “In he beginning was the Word (logos, memre), and the Word was with God, and the word was God”.
    My understanding for a rabbi friend (I am Christian), was that the rabbis had “no problem” with that characteristic. The implications of that characteristic for who, whom, What Jesus is/was are quite interesting.

  29. John says:

    As a Christian, I have no problem with my “grafted-in” position, as the Christian scriptures are quite clear that Jesus came for the Jews first. If not for the Jews, I would not have the “faith tradition” that I have.

    A popular Christian writer who is quite outspoken about how the “church” has forgotten we came from strictly Jewish soil and have a Jewish savior and Lord, often states and I like, ‘the New Testament in contained in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the new”. (I personally stay away from characterizing the 2 texts “old” and “new”).

    I enjoy this blog very much. It often gives me motivation to examine everything I “believe”, not allowing me to rest on my “inherited” beliefs, but what the text says.

    Thank you Rabbi the time you spend to put this together.

    Shabbat shalom.

    • bography says:

      John
      The NT teaches that Jews need to accept Jesus as the Messiah and their Lord. What do you think?

      • John says:

        Yes, that is my understanding, as well my friends friends that grew up in “traditional” Jewish families that however it happened, now believe Jesus is the Savior spoken of in the Jewish Scriptures.

      • Bography
        you have to start with the OT – and that book teaches that Jesus is not the Messiah

  30. bography says:

    Thomas you say that it is logical to start with the foundations; well, I do. My foundation stone is the Christ.

    1 Corinthians 3:11

    For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

    Isaiah 28:16

    therefore thus says the Lord God,

    “Behold, I am the one who has laid1 as a foundation in Zion,

    a stone, a tested stone,

    a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation:

    ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’

  31. bography says:

    John you seem to be thanking the Jews for your faith in Christ. I think you should rather be thanking God for choosing the Jews, the most insignifant people of the time.

  32. John says:

    You are absolutely correct bography! Just finished a “walking tour” in Israel, rabbi/talmid format. That being said, there are many reasons to thank the Jews for much of our “Christianity” that has not been “hellenized” to the point that would make it unrecognizable to the apostle Paul, and would surely bring tears to Jesus as it did entering Jerusalem for his final Passover!

  33. Naaria, Reform Messianic says:

    Although born & raised Christian, at a very young age (6 or 8 or whatever), I never could understand how some people could make Jesus equal to God. Jesus is something totally different from God, creator of the universe. I could only believe in Jesus, the man or myth, as a messenger of God and not God. Word, in gospel of John, is not God but the Greek Platonist or Gnostic idea of an intermediary that one must go through to get to the supreme god. The more I studied early Christianity & the world at the time of the beginning of Christianity, the more I’ve seen that the Babylonian, Roman, Greek, Zorasterian & pagan roots of Christianity were much greater than any OT or Hebraic roots of Christianity. Christian “Judaizers” try to base Christianity on the OT, but that takes a whole lot of close-minded bias, mis-translation and mis-interpretation of words, twisting of a relatively few selected scriptures, & a rejection of many more OT verses. The sender is not the same as “one who is sent”. God is not the same as a messiah. God is not the same as a man or son of man or son of God. There is quite a few differences between a son and a father (and some other “substance” called a “holy spirit” as if the son and father did not also have a “holy spirit”. The son could not exist w/o the father first; but God could exist w/o any son. The Father does not have to be “born” nor “filled” with the “holy spirit”, as if from the outside. Our relationship, as Sons & Daughters of God, to our Father is not the same as another son of god. If you read the OT, you will see that there is also a Daughter of God (or 2, but neither are Jesus, nor Mary nor Wisdom). Israel, Judea, and the entire city of Jerusalem are Daughters of God. There is a difference between God and just a “lamb of god”. God is not a “righteous” nor a “suffering serrvant” of God, but my OT clearly and often says Israel is a servant of God. But nowheres does it say Jesus is. I AM. (Since I wrote “I AM”, that makes me as much a God as Jesus is a god?). An “anointed” one needs to be anointed, but God does not need to be anointed by “another”.

    • bography says:

      Naaria, what is a “reform messianic?”

      Also, your ”Jesus is something totally different from God, creator of the universe.” The following quotes (which I also posted above in response to Sharlee) is also applicable here:
      1.
      [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [16] For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [17] And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. [19] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
      (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

      first-born son – this refers to the rights and privileges of a firstborn son, especially the son of a kingwho would inherit ruling sovereignty. See “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27).

      2.
      Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

  34. Sharlee says:

    Naaria, so beautifully put! Just lovely.

  35. bography says:

    Naaria

    The NT is written in Greek because the majority of Jews at the time were Mother Tongue Greek speakers. John uses the term LOGOS because his readers would understand better that Jesus was Shared God’s nature. Regarding I Am, Jesus said this:

    51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’3 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”4 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. John 8

    • agadah says:

      Most bible scholars today would not agree that Jews in Judea or even in the Galilee spoke Greek. Many believers who call Jesus by the name of Yeshua believe that allof the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for maybe Luke. Many might agree that Luke’s gospel is actually the most “Jewish” book of the NT. I doubt if many Jews knew what a Logos was, except for Philo or those who read Philo or 2nd-3rd century c.e. gnostic Christians or Marcionites who were called heretics. As far as the Gospel of John is concerned, some of the early Christian church fathers claimed Tertulian, or his nephew, wrote John, so they rejected it as unauthentic. John does have it’s major disagreements with the synoptic gospels. According to your quote, we might assume Jesus was non-Jewish (for one reason he believed in demons and that illness was a “punishment for sin) and also that he or the writer might be a liar, because he or the writer shows quite a bit of ignorance about Abraham and about Torah. Jesus tasted death as did his followers, unless “death” is just one more of those words that have 2 contradictory meanings; one for all English speakers and the other for Jesus or for certain Christians.

  36. Sharlee says:

    Matthew was almost certainly written in Hebrew. There is significant proof of that.

    Agadah, could you expound on your comments about Jesus tasting death and being a liar. I don’t quite understand. Thanks!

  37. bography says:

    Agadah

  38. bography says:

    The majority of Jews at the time did not live in judea or galilee but in the diaspora. Although the Romans had been in control for the previous 100 years or so, Greek remained the lingua franca. That is the reason for the Septuagint was Written.

    About demons, here is Deut 32:16
    They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 
    Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto DEMONS/DEVILS [Hebrew ‘she’d’], not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up,  whom your fathers feared not.

    שד

    Pronunciation
    shed

    a daemon (as malignant):–devil.

    The Rationalist Rambam, as you probably know, did not believe in demons.

    The majority view of the early church fathers was that John was the author of the gospel by that name.

    • agadah says:

      The reason for the initiation of the Septuagint was for the Ptolemy ruler’s library in Egypt; they wanted a text of every written “book” in the world. Now the ECF’s (early church fathers) do mention and quote a few verses from a very gnostic “Matthew” written in “their” language (whatever that was, but not Greek or Latin), but no one has a copy of that “Matthew” which bore little resemblance to the Greek Matthew (and Matthew being that gospel’s author was only speculation). A Nazarene sect in Israel say they “have the original Hebrew Matthew”, but it is virtually the same as the Greek Matthew.

      Deut 32:17 – your quote says they sacrificed to gods they did not know, to new gods. So to believe that those demons existed was an un-Godly belief, just as was the practice of Idolatry. It may have been popular and “Jewish”, but it was a “heresy”, “anti-Torah” not an orthodox belief.

      The earliest mention of the gospel of John by the ECF’s was that it was not Apostolic; of course, the later “majority” assumed it was written by an Apostle or else it would not be in our NT.

  39. bography says:

    Sharlee
    Re your ‘Matthew was certainly written in Hebrew.’

    Those that argue thus base their arguments on the Hebraisms found in Matthew, that is, on a way of THINKING. Be careful.

    The best books on religion and the humanities were written in the 17 to 19th centuries. Here is one that deals with the issue:

    http://www.archive.org/details/hebraismsingreek00guil

    • Sharlee says:

      Thank you for your web reference. Hmmmm, how do I say this. For the last 3 years, I have been studying the New vs the Old Testament non-stop. Some days, I would be at it for a minimum of 10 hours. I was just a Christian with questions looking to reconcile the two. Nothing scandalous or underhanded. Certainly had no intention of leaving Christianity. In this endeavor, I was walked right out of Christianity. One of those reasons is because Christian scholarship is some of the most shoddy scholarship out there. Blatant disregard for norms and standards and no one sees to check. Well, actually, I did, and many more are as well because information is so available to us now. And many are walking away from Christianity because there is no integrity in its foundation or at its very core. Because Xianity claims to be the only way, there is simply too much to lose for the truth to come out. Also, because it makes this claim, for me, should be held to an even higher standard than other religions. From what I am seeing, the challenges being made against it today, I seriously don’t think it has 200 years left. Once a couple of diehard generations are gone, it will be dead because there is just so much lying, deceit, paganism, control and manipulation and ppl are seeing it for what it is…a false religion praying to a foreign god.

      I say that to say, I am a researcher, and through very serious study, there has not been a single study of Christian doctrine that, if it does not have Jewish origins, I have not been able to shoot a bunch of holes in and it is because of such shoddy scholarship. Really really embarrassingly shoddy scholarship. I was embarrassed! I come from an educated Christian home. My father was a pastor with a masters in theology. I know and understand Christian doctrine and I was embarrassed. But I will give your page that you suggest a shot. I am always looking for someone to prove me wrong!

  40. bography says:

    Agadah

    The view that the main reason why the Septuagint was written is probably legend. Now say that it is true that Ptolemy wanted a Greek translation of the TNK (Tenach/Tanach) for his library, this doesn’t change the fact that most of Jews of the diaspora – there were about a million in Egypt – couldn’t read Hebrew (as is true of most Modern Jews living outside of Israel today) and needed to read their scriptures in the language they knew best – Greek.
    With regard to your

    ‘Deut 32:17 – your quote says they sacrificed to gods they did not know, to new gods. So to believe that those demons existed was an un-Godly belief, just as was the practice of Idolatry. It may have been popular and “Jewish”, but it was a “heresy”, “anti-Torah” not an orthodox belief.’

    Moses is arguably mocking Israel (by calling them here Jeshurun).
    In the passage, the only orthodox Hebrew (not Jew – the Jew originates from Judah) – according to Moses – was Moses.

    Deut 32:17
     “But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked;
    you grew fat, stout, and sleek;
    then he forsook God who made him
    and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.
    16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods;
    with abominations they provoked him to anger.
    17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods,
    to gods they had never known,
    to new gods that had come recently,
    whom your fathers had never dreaded.
    18 You were unmindful of the Rock that bore5 you,
    and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
    19 “The Lord saw it and spurned them,
    because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters.
    20 And he said, ‘I will hide my face from them;
    I will see what their end will be,
    For they are a perverse generation,
    children in whom is no faithfulness.
    21 They have made me jealous with what is no god;
    they have provoked me to anger with their idols.
    So I will make them jealous with those who are no people;
    I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

    The ‘foolish nation’ are the Gentiles/Christians.

    The Jew is right. Christians are fools – for Christ:

    1 Corinthians 1
    20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

  41. bography says:

    Sharlee
    I shall look at the video. By the way, you say that the video is more accessible than the lass modern reference. I gave you. Aren’t they both accessible at the click of a button. Tee hee.

    • Sharlee says:

      LOL. I mean’t that the guy on this video had more access to info than the guy that wrote that book over 100 years ago. More information illuminates things better and ideas held 100 years ago may not have had enough information to be solid facts anymore. Thanks for checking it out!

  42. bography says:

    “less” modern reference.

  43. agadah says:

    The “foolishness of God” is wiser then men, but you teach the foolishness of men (including the “wisdom” and many “signs” given by the authors of the gospel & NT). You used Deut 32:17 as some type of justification for Jesus’ beliefs in demons (not just a folly of Jeshurun but of most of the gentile world), although even you admit Moses rejected these “new gods” not given to us by God. I prefer God’s wisdom over Jesus’ foolishness. Or were Jezebel’s lords and the god’s of the ba’alists real also (they just weren’t good at starting fires) and they were “just stumbling blocks”? The “folly” of Jesus or Paul or later Christian theologians was not so much of a stumbling block to gentiles, who were used to gods like Zeus, Saturn, Isis, etc., and demonology, dying & rising sun-gods & man-gods, but they are to “Jews” who would rather follow Moses and the God he knew, rather than your “wisdom of man which is folly” (according to 1 Corinthians, a trick by God to those who rejected his wisdom to begin with).

    • bography says:

      Agadah
      your “I prefer God’s wisdom over Jesus’ foolishness.”
      Well at least you accept that Jesus did exist and say and do the things recorded in the NT. Most Jews wind their necks in; but you have put yours on a block.

      • agadah says:

        You clearly get confused or still have difficulty with English. I prefer God’s wisdom over Spiderman’s or Batman’s foolishness or over the non-historical Paul’s foolishness, and over the folly of the men who created the fictional Jesus. But what I personally believe doesn’t matter or “the ultimate truth” does. Do you persist in worshipping a small god in the form of a man, who appears to many to be not much different than Horus or the Egyptian lamb of god?

        Trying to categorize me again and “pidgeon-hole” me. I just may have been or may still be a member of a internationally known Christian church (which may have some connection with some churches in South Africa, or with missions in Brazil, east Asia or Russia, etc)? Maybe one of the chief rabbis in Israel prayed the Aaronic blessing over the group I was with a short while back? Maybe I was a Christian for over 50 years & want to convert to Judaism? Maybe the other way around or maybe I just want to study what people believe? None of that matters, really, or does it? But do I worship the God of Israel or Iesous shaped by Plato, or by the gods of Athens & Tarsus, the god of Roman pagan philosophers (ECF), or the gods of Babylon or Egypt?

  44. agadah says:

    The author of 1Corinthians sounds very much like a con-artist who is most successful with the gullible. Isn’t it the wise who also are the foolish the ones that are most in need of being called by the foolish wisdom of the Greek pagan sophists of “Paul’s letters”. Deut 32:17 & chap 13, emphasize “knowing”, not relying on signs like untestable virginity and “miraculous birth” (like Caesar & pagan gods), faith healing (like pagan shamans), resurrection (like Caesar & pagan gods) to an elite few who supposedly already should be believers (even Judas & Thomas), etc.

    • Alasdair Maclean says:

      Virgin Birth and Miracluous Birth are first revealed in the Old Testament.

      Genesis 3:15 The seed (Christ) of the woman will bruise the power of Satan (Sin).

      Genesis 18:12-15 Sarah was too old to bare Children.
      Genesis 21 The Miraculous birth of Isaac is recorded as Sarah was too old to have any children but by the power of the Spirit of God was Sarahs womb opened.

      Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
      Immanuel means “God with us”

      • Sharlee says:

        Al,
        Again, as stated below, you are only going by what ppl have told you. you MUST study these things to know if they are true or not. Please read all of Isaiah 7 and 8. You must if you are going to understand 7:14. It is a complete prophecy and it is very unwise to take one verse out of a complete prophecy and make it talk about Jesus. Christianity is consistently proven the fool for doing this. This is one of those instances.

        First of all, the word here is not virgin, it is young maiden. Yes, a young maiden can be a virgin, but not always, so is it indeed a virgin here? Well it is a prophecy and promise to King Ahaz letting him know that a child would be born and that before that child was old enough to know between right and wrong, Jerusalem would be delivered from the siege they were currently under. So it was a direct prophecy that had relatively immediate implications as it states the young maiden is already with child. Now who was the young maiden? Was it a virgin? No, it was Isaiah’s wife and she was not a virgin as this was her second child. It cannot be talking about her AND Mary as a virgin. One cannot be a virgin and the other not since it was speaking of Isaiah’s wife. Second, the sign was not virginity, it was the name of the child, which was very common for God to make a promise though the name of a child. VERY common.

        So, now we have a problem. One of the major beliefs of Christianity has been completely shot out of the water. It has taken one verse, ripped it out of a larger prophecy and called it about Jesus. That is the worst kind of scholarship there is. I can do this and make myself the messiah. Seriously. It simply is proof of nothing but deceit. You would never see it if you did not go in with preconceived ideas specifically looking for anything at all to prove your doctrine and that is exactly what Christianity did here. That is what the gospel of Matthew did. Additionally, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? He wasn’t. That was the prophecy, that this child would be called Immanuel. When was Jerusalem delivered from a siege before Jesus was old enough to know right from wrong? It didn’t happen. This was a prophecy given directly to Ahaz, who frankly didn’t want it. He refused to ask for a sign from God and God demanded to give him one anyway. Ahaz was not around when Jesus was alive. this is Hebrew scripture shredded and made to be Christian prophecy and it is theft and deceit. I wish I could say it nicer, but I can’t. I’m sorry.

        So what now? The Catholic church has removed the word virgin from their bibles. They are actually doing something about it. I know they are very attached to the virgin, so I don’t know what they are doing about that, but they are at least letting go of this being a prophecy about Jesus. The information age is blowing Christianity apart and it is bleeding out its pours. I just encourage you to use the brain God gave you and not be afraid of the information. Paul says that knowledge puffs up, but God says that his ppl perish for the lack of it. They die! Paul wanted to control the information, just like the Catholic church did and so he warned ppl away from it. But God says to seek and you will find him! He says that he is never a mystery and that you MUST have knowledge of his word.

        What do you think of the virgin birth now that you have some more information on it? This is serious stuff.

      • Alasdair Maclean says:

        I already knew about how some people translate it but that does not subtract from the fact that it mostly does support a virgin birth. Jewish society was a very morally driven society and when a young woman lost her virginity, even if she was betrothed to a future husband and some man forceably took her virginity then that man would have to marry her. So a young maiden is always a virgin unlease there is some deceit going on. It still stands in the plainest reading of the text it is a virgin spoken of here.

        It is written “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold , a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

        Notice it is the “Lord” himself and not LORD that will give you a sign. Then it says behold – pay special attention. When God says Behold he is telling you to hear especially well. A virgin giving birth to a male (Seed) who will be “God With Us”.
        If you read Genesis you always read that Children are named by prophecy as they will fulfill what their names signify. Look at Jacob for example, his name means usurper. When God says something then we must listen to carefully.

        The plainest reading of the verse of this prophecy in Isaih 7:14 is that the Lord will become a man in due time. It doesn’t say that the prophecy will be fulfilled imediately nor is a siege mentioned. In fact most prophecy takes many years to fulfill or even centuries.

        The best way to read Scripture is to pray to God for guidance and light as they are His words.

        I am one that is not in the habit of jumping from verse to verse and try to pluck words from here and there, I read in context and order. I understand for example that Exodus is a book of redemption of the people of Israel and Leviticus as about the priesthood. A parallel book in the NT to Leviticus is the book of Hebrews.

        One thing about Messianic prophecies is that it doesn’t say they are Messianic at all. Therefore you need the Spirit of God to guide you for the natural man cannot behold it.

      • Nate says:

        Alasdar: You say, “the plainest reading of the verse of this prophecy in Isaih 7:14 is that the Lord will become a man in due time.”

        You would think if this was the plain meaning, somebody would have freaked out because this is a stunning revelation to be laying upon the Jewish king. God himself was coming to Earth as a child! From a virgin with child (the Hebrew suggests she is presently pregnant)! And they do nothing? That strikes me as odd; you would think this would become the FOCAL POINT of Jewish teaching…but it’s clearly a minor passage in Tanach, not mentioned again nor expounded upon by later prophets or writings. (Even for the Christians, the mistranslation is only mentioned in two of their their—it doesn’t even play a major role in their theology until much later.)

        You say: “It doesn’t say that the prophecy will be fulfilled imediately nor is a siege mentioned.

        Then what does verses 6 through 23 mean in relation to this prophesy?

        In fact most prophecy takes many years to fulfill or even centuries.

        Some prophecies do take many years to fulfill, but this is a sign for King Ahaz now. A sign four hundred years in the future is completely out of context. And, in fact, it is contextualized in verses 16 as occurring *soon*: “For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.”

        Lastly, you say, “One thing about Messianic prophecies is that it doesn’t say they are Messianic at all.

        Well, those sound like awfully useless prophecies! How is Israel supposed to derive instruction and guidance from passages that you say appear to have absolutely nothing to do with the Messiah? What a cruel god you must imagine the Lord to be, to play such a deceptive trick on the Jewish people, only to damn them to hell for falling for it.

        Of course, the God of Israel does not do this: “Not in secret did I speak, in a place of a land of darkness; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek Me, in vain’…”

        Therefore you need the Spirit of God to guide you for the natural man cannot behold it.

      • agadah says:

        Gen 3:15 – Are you saying Jesus was the only seed of Eve, and not all humans? Or are you saying, Jesus, a first born, and Cain, her first-born, are equal, one and the same? Are you saying Abel (Ab = father, el = god or master) is a son of the serpent, because Cain “bruised his heel”? Even though God approved of Abel’s offering?

        Sarah’s miracle was evident to any person who knew her or seen her in her condition. But her son wasn’t a god; he was born a man and remained a man, not a king, not a great soldier, nor a legendary hero. A miracle (wasted?) for pretty much an ordinary man.

        Boy, was Ahaz and all of Israel surprised to hear a great sign was that a woman going to have a baby! That small tidbit of info (a small insignificant part of a much larger sign or prophesy) was so startling, Ahaz laughed himself to death or he immediately threw Isaiah out or executed him because he was either insane or a charlatan. Of course, Ahaz keep the girl in prison to ensure her virginity and boy was he and all Israel/Judea surprised when the miracle happened. An unseen/unverifiable miracle is not a miracle. Of course, Augustus Caesar, (and other kings, demi-gods or man-gods God said God is not a man!!!! God can be with Ahaz and with us

  45. Sharlee says:

    I think it is important to point out that Nothing about Jesus is autobiographical and we do not know who wrote the biographies. I don’t personally hold anything against the man. In reading what he taught, for the most part, he taught Judaism. The stuff in there that is pagan (eat my flesh and drink my blood) I believe was attributed to him to appeal to the gentiles that were used to that kind of religion. It was familiar to them. I don’t believe he said them. He was Jewish. The mistake is made by furthering this paganism and making this man a god. There is really not a single unique doctrine in Christianity that does not come from either Judaism (which those are rare) or some other pagan religion either ancient or contemporary to Christianities beginnings.

    Paul does not “sound like” a con artist. He was one. That is clear if you look at his writings as a whole and compare them to the testimonies in Acts and his quoting of OT scriptures. He lied, manipulated and was a fraud. In 2 Cor. he acknowledges he sounds either crazy or like a fool 6 times but refuses to shut up his boosting and rage against the other apostles. Paul knows that God puts tests out there as he says he will do so in Deut 13. It is clear from that passage that God will send a man that prophesies and does miracles and those things will come true. Then this man will lead you to follow another god. One that is foreign to the Jews (God becoming man, eating and drinking the sacraments that are an abomination to God, human sacrifice, no one being responsible for their own sins anymore as Jesus has not taken them away, etc). These are all foreign concepts to the Jews, so it is clear that Jesus AND Paul are a test to the Jews and God says, “Who are you going to believe?” This person that does miracles and yet teaches you about another god? Or are you going to cleave to me, cling to me, hold fast to what I have taught you, LOVE me? The Jews failed many tests, but they didn’t fail this one. Paul tried to circumvent questions by turning the tables on ignorant gentiles and warning them that if anyone told them anything different than what he was telling them, THAT was the lie. This is why Paul was constantly thrown out of synagogues and given such a hard time by the other apostles that also taught Judaism. It probably would have gone the way of other pagan religions and died but for Constantine’s conversion and then making it the state religion of the known world at the time and a campaign to eradicate any other heresy that went against what Rome decided was going to be this religion called Christianity. This religion is not founded on the teachings of Jesus. It is founded on the teachings of Paul.

    The teaching in Deut 13 cannot be denied.

  46. Alasdair Maclean says:

    Hi

    I found your website from listening to the Line of Fire program by Dr M Brown. I always found it fascinating why the Jewish people objected to Jesus Christ as being the Messiah prophecied in the Bible. I find what I call the Old Testament point to the salvation of mankind through the Messiah.
    I believe in the OT as being the word of God through Christ Jesus. Without him the OT falls apart and I have no reason to believe in the Bible as the word of God. But I have a personal relationship with God through Christ.
    I don’t think you quite understand how Christians see Christ. We do not see him as a man becoming God but we seem him as the Almighty God and creator who becomes a man for a short time for his ministry on earth. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit; These three persons are one God. Equal in power, holyness, justice and truth. All were involved in the creation and continue to uphold the universe. That is why when the second person became a man the universe did not collapse in on itself.
    There can be no objection that God can become a man in the orginal Judaism when we read that God appears as a man in multiple places in Scripture. Genesis 18 we read God sites with Abraham with two angels and He eats and Drinks with Abraham. God hears what Sarah is thinking in this chapter. We also read Jesus hearing what people were thinking in the NT. Like God himself in Genesis 18.
    God turned water in blood in Exodus. Christ turns water into wine. Jesus is the one speaking to Abraham in Genesis 18. Jesus even mentions this in John 8:56-59 and calls himself I AM.

    The concept of the Triune God is found throughout the Old & New Testament. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. I know the word God in the Hebrew is Elohim, which is a plurar name for God. It also ways “Let US make man in OUR image” This is clearly God talking to himself and noone else since Genesis 1:1 clearly says God created the heavens and the earth so it cannot involve angels at all, as same suggest.
    Nor can it be a “royal we” as same also suggest since no where in Scripture do any Kinds and rulers talk in that way. It is always “I”. What we understand as the royal we is actually a modern myth. When the Queen of English said “We are not amused”, she was not talking about herself alone but was including the group she was in.

    If there are any objections you wish to raise with my comments then I would be more than happy to respond.

    Kind regards, Al

    • Sharlee says:

      Al,

      Wow, were to begin. I don’t know about everyone else here, but I am very educated in Christian doctrine. I attended a Christian (not Catholic, but evangelical Christian), I also attended Bible college. I was a Christian for 40 years, not one that sat on the sidelines and just attended church on Sundays, but was invested in my faith and “practiced” Christianity. I had some significant questions that forced me to start studying my religion in depth and I ended up studying my way right out of it. So, I do understand the concept of trinity. However, I am not sure you do. Jesus was not God Almighty come down as a man. He is God’s son. There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This was a concept voted on by the Nicean Counsel in 325 CE. Actually, the Holy Spirit was not added until over 60 years later. If these were OT and NT concepts, why was there a need for a vote? That vote was not unanimous, btw, it was almost tied. Almost the same number of ppl that voted for Jesus being God or the same substance of God, voted against it. There were over 1000 votes, so it wasn’t like 3-2. The vote was not whether Jesus was God, it was if he was of the same substance as God. It has evolved into them all being one because there is a problem with the fact that God declares his oneness throughout the OT. It is all very convoluted and it is near impossible to find a solid definition of the Trinity. However, most will say that it is three distinct personalities in one God. The NT makes it clear that Jesus is subject to God and the HS is subject to Jesus. This is 3 distinct ppl, not one God. You simply cannot claim that. Not with any level of understanding of the Hebrew language and any integrity.

      In regards to Elohim. I am shocked that Michael Brown would even claim this speaks to God’s threeness. He would know better. It absolutely does not. Im at the end of a hebrew word CAN mean plural, but not always. So, to know if it does mean plural, you have to look at the verbs and adjectives around it as if it is plural, the verbs and adjectives are plural as well. In every instance Elohim is describing God our Creator, not once are the verbs and adjectives plural. They are all singular. So what does that mean then? It means there is an emphasis being placed on that word, essentially it is saying Great God, not many gods. The only instances elohim is pluralized in the OT is when God is talking about false and idolatrous gods. So, what you are doing is you are going off of Christian rhetoric that has been drilled into you and you have been fed a lie. It simply is not true. In fact, if you have read anything else I have written here, you will see that there are things that are coming out and Christianity is having to back off from. This is exactly one of those things. Christian scholars that actually are going back and looking at this stuff with some education in Hebrew are acknowledging this now and it should not be being put forth as any proof of the trinity. Michael Brown does know his hebrew and shame on him if he is still perpetuating this proof.

      Second, you mention God saying “Let us….” as though this proves he was talking to his other Gods. How do you know he was not talking to me? Seriously, is it not a HUGE assumption that He is talking to another God, especially since he declares that there is none other than him, none before him, none after him, none besides him over and over and over? Do you not think that is just a HUGE leap? So looking at the verse without preconceived ideas of a trinity, you can’t draw that conclusion and that is the problem with Christian interpretation of Hebrew scriptures. They come at it with preconceived ideas. that is why you can see Jesus in the OT. Because someone told you he was there and all the little half verses, sometimes half sentences that are ripped out of context to point to your savior. This is really serious stuff. By the end of my studies, I could conclude it all as nothing less than theft on the part of the church.

      So who was God talking to if not his other Gods? Well, there are many scriptures that show that God takes counsel from a heavenly council. 2 Kings has a story regarding dealing with Ahab. The thing about the scriptures that God says “let us” is that every time he says this, when the deed that is being discussed actually gets done, it is only God, Adonai, doing it.

      So think about that for a moment. Putting all preconceived ideas on the shelf and coming at it with non-presuming eyes, what does that tell you? This is why the Jews reject Jesus. Read Deut 13. That is why the Jews reject Jesus. It doesn’t matter how many miracles one does. What matters is what God this person directs God’s ppl to serve. It is not that well God changed things for a new covenant because God says that if they teach you to go after a God that is unfamiliar to you, kill them! Jesus’ and definitely Paul’s God was completely unfamiliar to the Jews. God had warned them these tests would come. They WOULD come and to be prepared to choose him. This is why the Jews reject Jesus.

      You also mention that John says that Jesus calls himself I AM. Christian scholars are now saying those verses are misinterpretations of the original text for one. Second, the book of John contains a myriad of contradictions to the other gospels and is frankly very problematic. You see, when Rome decided what was going to go into the bible, they did not take into account that one day there would be the internet or mass production of the works. They didn’t know they had to be more careful. The gospel of John doesn’t even have Jesus dying on the same day as the other gospels. That is seriously problematic. We take it for granted that John is an eye witness account, but in fact don’t even know who wrote it. Additionally, how can John give an eye witness account of Jesus’ trial when Matthew says that only Peter was there? If one were to exhale for a moment and allow themselves to question what is truly questionable, then they would have serious problems. I understand the relationship of Jesus. I totally get that! But God says “NO! Don’t follow that person! Follow me! Keep your eyes on me! Know my word and what it says so that you won’t be deceived! LOVE me!!” That is what God says and that is why the Jews reject Jesus. It is ultimately why I had to as well.

    • agadah says:

      Gen 3:15 – Are you saying Jesus was the only seed of Eve, and not all humans? Or are you saying, Jesus, a first born, and Cain, her first-born, are equal, one and the same? Are you saying Abel (Ab = father, el = god or master) is a son of the serpent, because Cain “bruised his heel”? Even though God approved of Abel’s offering?

      Sarah’s miracle was evident to any person who knew her or seen her in her condition. But her son wasn’t a god; he was born a man and remained a man, not a king, not a great soldier, nor a legendary hero. A miracle (wasted?) for pretty much an ordinary man.

      Boy, was Ahaz and all of Israel surprised to hear a great sign was that a woman going to have a baby! That small tidbit of info (a small insignificant part of a much larger sign or prophesy) was so startling, Ahaz laughed himself to death or he immediately threw Isaiah out or executed him because he was either insane or a charlatan. Of course, Ahaz keep the girl in prison to ensure her virginity and boy was he and all Israel/Judea surprised when the miracle happened. An unseen/unverifiable miracle is not a miracle. Of course, Augustus Caesar, (and other kings, demi-gods or man-gods had a god for a father). But, God said God is not a man!!!! Satan makes you think otherwise! Almighty God can be with Ahaz and with us, without being a limited man! The “great” satan wants you to think otherwise!

      Where is God as a human in the OT? Stop being a worldly humanist and read those verses again while believing in an almighty God, not a small god modelled after gods, like the Egyptian Osiris or Horus, or a man like herodian King Agrippa in the “time of Jesus”, or Antiochus IV Epiphanes, god manifested in the flesh (an enemy of the Jews who were faithful to Torah & the “OT”)(of course, Christians celebrated, and some still do, the birthday of Epiphanes, aka Epiphany). The idea of a Jesus was born out of Alexander, Epiphanes, Zoraster, Caesars, Plato, Mithras, Osiris, and not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, nor David.

      Where is your “triune” god in the OT? Even if you say plural, 3 is not the only plural. Four is also a holy number, meaning God and man. Since Satan or the devil is so important to many Christians (once God’s most trusted angel some believe?), you could have the 3 persons (not gods or angels, but persons just like a murderer is a person) the father, the son, and the devil all filled with the holy spirit (unless you want to count a holy spirit as a separate “person”). Or you can go with the many different trinities of pagan mythology. Or you can go with the trinity of the Marcionites (the ORIGINAL Trinity of Christendom), the good god, the bad god, and the just god. The Jewish god was believed to be the creator of this evil universe, the demiurge, but since the God of Israel had a few good laws and practiced some type of Justice, they named him the just god. To some early Christians, Jesus was only a messenger of the good god, a spark of light in a dark, evil, created world. It was over 200-300 years after Jesus supposedly lived, that “Your” trinity began to be shaped. Read your Christian history, why don’t you, instead of bothering others.

  47. Bography and Al
    Can you not agree to one simple thing – that is – that before Jesus was born – the Jews had the Old Testament. It was given to them by God for guidance and direction. They were duty bound before God to examine any new claims for prophecy – including those of Jesus and Paul in light of the revelation that they already had. Therefore if you want to argue with a Jew about Jesus – you must first read the Old Testament from cover to cover – without the New – and absorb its message. Then examine the claims of the New Testament. Try it. – you might find my post – “1000 Verses” helpful.

    • John says:

      Rabbi, I agree that Jesus and Paul taught from the Tenakh. The “God-breathed scriptures” that Paul refers to would have been Tenakh.

    • John says:

      Rabbi, I agree that Jesus and Paul taught from the Tanach. The “God-breathed scriptures” that Paul refers to would have been Tanach.

    • bography says:

      Yisroel i am replying to your an earlier post of yours where you say:
      ”The Bible clearly indicates that human logic is capable of identifying the fallacy of idolatry – Jeremiah 10:11, Isaiah 44, but two examples.”

      Regarding Jeremiah 10:11 – 11 Thus shall you say to them: “The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” (By the way, this verse is in Aramaic).

      So are you saying that God tried to tell many people/ everyone this truth but Abraham was the only person who had the mental acumen (in his time) to understand what was later written in the breishit (Genesis 1:1) – and in Soctrates’ words (the master logician), Abraham understood and necessarily did the right thing: he obeyed God’s call, the only one who was takhshit (no, it’s not what some of you think) of a sachal.

      Sachal

      ”Skilful in all wisdom is from the Hebrew “maschilim in all chokmah.” Maschilim is the plural form of maschil a word that has taken our attention for years. It is from the root word sachal which means “to search diligently and prudently for understanding and wisdom.” It describes the light that comes to those who search for truth in God’s Word.”
      http://www.maschil.com/Maschils/DANIEL_01_Babylon.htm

      takhshit – treasure

      • Bography
        No- not mental acumen – as Jeremiah teaches – every one of us has the mental acumen – it was moral courage to think differently – it was humility to be willing to consider the possiblility that what he thought up until then was wrong – and it was a general attitude of not taking things for granted – which took time to develop

  48. bography says:

    Yisroel
    I start with John 5
    5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

    2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic [1] called Bethesda, [2] which has five roofed colonnades. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. [3] 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.

    Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

    Jesus Is Equal with God
    18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

    The Authority of the Son
    19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father [4] does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

    25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

    Witnesses to Jesus
    30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. 31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. 33 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

    • agadah says:

      Secret gospel of John. – But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. If someone comes in his own name, you will receive him, but you will reject God whom you say sent him. How can you believe, when you receive justifications and glory from one another and from a man and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: God on whom you have made small and shaped in the image of a man, like the man-gods of the heathen. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Deut:13; for he wrote of false prophets and false rumors of their miraculous deeds done before imaginary crowds or a select few disciples. God plainly spoke that false prophets would arise and God will test you to see if you love God with all of your heart or if you would go a-whoring after “triune deities” made of idolatrous “substances” and after the no-gods of the nations. But if you do not believe his writings (which your teacher called obsolete and done away with), how will you believe the rest of God’s words, before the Greek/Roman contamination?

  49. Bography
    I can’t believe you don’t understand this point. I’ll try again – DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN JESUS PRESENTED HIS CLAIMS TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE – THAT THEY WERE DUTY-BOUND BEFORE GOD TO EXAMINE THOSE CLAIMS IN LIGHT OF THE REVELATION THAT THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED – NAMELY – THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES?

  50. As for Jesus’s statement “if you would believe Moses you would believe me” – that has to be checked out as well.
    As of now – 2000 years of Christian apologetics has failed to make any sense out of Jesus’ statement
    trust me – they tried

  51. bography says:

    Yisroel
    God blinded the Jews, but not forever.
    “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
    eyes that could not see
    and ears that could not hear,
    to this very day.”
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV

    • agadah says:

      Was he talking about himself and Jews that follow Jesus? Sure seems like it, because some will use a few verses or even half of a verse which contradicts or negates their argument and twist it to mean something else. Btw, I am not Jewish, so I have not been “blinded”.

      • tsvi says:

        Tsvi says there is none so blind as one who will not see. That be you! Proof?

        “And he will destroy on this mountain the veil that is cast over all people, the veil that is spread over ALL NATIONS (Hebrew Goyim) (Isaiah 25:7)
        By the way this will not happen until the day of resurrection. So
        you are one of the Goyim (not a Jew) and you are blind. Own it and come to the eye doctor I go to HASHEM

      • bography says:

        Agadah, I don’t follow. Paul in Romans 11 (my above quote) is obviously not talking about himself and like-minded Jews.

      • bography says:

        Tsvi
        I’m confused. Agadah is indeed born a gentile, but she is defending Judaism – like mad – against the goyim. She’s on your side. Or what?

      • qwal says:

        I think tsvi’s comment relates to bography’s comment, where he harps on about the Jews being ‘blind,’ and tsvi provides a verse from the OT showing how the nations are blinded until the end of days (and they are the ones who will come to the Jews asking for guidance, Zech 8:23, as someone mentioned above). Of course, we’ll no doubt see some creative “solutions” to answering such problems from our friend bography

  52. bography says:

    Agadah,

    Your (adopted, I presume) name, which is Aramaic for ”homiletic,” and your other posts indicates that you are a believer in Yeshua hamashiach, but not in his divinity.
    Please give me an example of Greek contamination BEFORE the Roman church took over. By the way, the argument that Constantine compiled the NT is not true. He was a theological and scriptural ignoramus.

    • agadah says:

      Twisted texts – 1 of many (300 according to some). Plus the way you tried to make Deut 32:17 a justification in belief in “demon” and “new gods”. Jesus ia also part of Jeshurun.

      Yeshua hamashiach – is part of a new age movement (remember earlier you agree with me that the NT texts were written in Greek?). So his name is closer to Iesous or Jesus then to the gnarled form, Yeshua. I can also talk about Superman, Spiderman, Batman, the Lone Ranger, etc. and not believe any of them “existed” nor that any of them were even based on real people or on real events. Superman saved many people individually and he saved the world several times, but I prefer God over one man others say was “sent to us”. If you continue to reject my God, you will have no basis whatever for your man created god, Jesus. But God existed before Jesus was invented by man (prove to me he was not invented) and will continue to exist after Jesus is gone. I know about cowboys, but the Long Ranger wasn’t/isn’t a cowboy nor was he a real westerner nor even a real American. I will not worship the Lone Ranger, because I know he is not my vision of whom God is.

      • bography says:

        Agadah, it seems that you believe that Jesus didn’t exist. That to me is the greatest cop out. If he did exist, though, he must have had Hebrew name, not so? Let’s leave it at that.

        You sound like a Noahide. Are you one?

      • agadah says:

        Yes, go back to the OT and justify belief in Jesus. You will soon see it is God, not Jesus that the OT shows us. You may begin to fall out of love with Greek/Roman/Babylonian philosophy and their views of gods. Quite a few Christians disappointed with their faith are returning to their “Hebraic roots” (the so-called next-great-move-of-god) and believing “on” yeshua. Some of these are beginning to see something wrong with Paul (or as they say in an effort to make him jewish, Rav Shaul). Some are beginning to reject Paul totally, as they begin to see him as “the inventor of Christianity”. They are beginning to see what the suffering servants of God have said about Christianity (and therefore also Iesous, Jesus, yeshua, yahushua, etc, etc.,) for almost 2000 years now. Some of the Yeshuaites are still disappointed and are going into “authentic Judaism”. The stats show that over 80% of “Messianic Jews” had no prior connection to Judaism or Jews. I believe the number who left the “messianic movement” is now over 200,000. Yes, their eyes had to be “pried open”. What is your excuse your not doing Teshuvah?

      • bography says:

        Agadah
        your
        Twisted texts – 1 of many (300 according to some). Plus the way you tried to make Deut 32:17 a justification in belief in “demon” and “new gods”.

        Jews differ on the belief in demons. There’s a vast body of literature on the topic. There are, though, other texts in the tanach that indicate the existence of demons, that is, negative spitritual forces.

        And your

        Jesus is also part of Jeshurun.”

        ”Jeshurun” in spite of its orthographic similarity to ”Jesus” bears no semantic relationship to Jesus. Jeshurun is another name ofr Israel.

        Jeshurun is a poetic nickname for Israel (Deuteronomy 33:26; Isaiah 44:2).

        The name Jeshurun comes from yashar (yasar) meaning to be level, straight, upright. The name means Uprighter.

        Having said that, for believers in Jesus, He is indeed THE uprighter.

  53. bography says:

    Yisroel
    Our life’s path – including access to knowledge and the decisions we make about who the Messiah is – is ordained by God.

    Isaiah 46

    10 I make known the end from the beginning,
    from ancient times, what is still to come.
    I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
    and I will do all that I please.’
    11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
    from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
    What I have said, that I will bring about;
    what I have planned, that I will do.
    12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
    you who are now far from my righteousness.
    13 I am bringing my righteousness near,
    it is not far away;
    and my salvation will not be delayed.
    I will grant salvation to Zion,
    my splendor to Israel.

    Salvation is granted to Israel – a stump of a stump ultimately – because God ordained it. God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy. God’s decision is not based on any kind of work (mitzva).

    And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Exodus 33:19).

    This, of course, does not mean that man is a pawn. he is responsible for his actions. Here is mystery of course – the secrete things of God.

    We can examine the evidence until the cows come home, but ultimately it is God who MOOves us, that draws us towards him.

  54. bography says:

    Agadah, your
    Was he talking about himself and Jews that follow Jesus? Sure seems like it, because some will use a few verses or even half of a verse which contradicts or negates their argument and twist it to mean something else. Btw, I am not Jewish, so I have not been “blinded”.

    Please show how these verses have been twisted.

  55. Bography
    – so it goes back to the “blinded” – the final answer when you run out of answers.
    So do you think that those who reject Jesus are supernaturally blinded – how about those who accept him? How did their eyes “get opened”? And how about people who accept Jesus – but then come to the recognition that they were hoodwinked – and leave him – what “blinded” them?

  56. bography says:

    Yisroel your
    Bography
    – so it goes back to the “blinded” – the final answer when you run out of answers.
    So do you think that those who reject Jesus are supernaturally blinded – how about those who accept him? How did their eyes “get opened”? And how about people who accept Jesus – but then come to the recognition that they were hoodwinked – and leave him – what “blinded” them?

    I answer that I can’t run out of answers because I don’t have any. The Bible, though, does have answers. Here is one about Israel, which applies to all those whom God has not called.

    Isaiah 6:8-13
    8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me.
    9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they sea with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed. 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant, and houses without man, and the land become utterly waste, 12 and Jehovah have removed men far away, and the forsaken places be many in the midst of the land.
    13 And if there be yet a tenth in it, it also shall in turn be eaten up: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remaineth, when they are felled; so the holy seed is the stock thereof.

    You ask how were blind eyes opened. For starters, it’s more radical than that; the eyes were not blind eyes but dead eyes. Those who believe – I include the heroes of faith of the tenach as well – had to be raised from death to life.

    Ephesians 2:1-9
    2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:–
    4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: 7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: 8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, that no man should glory.

    With regard to those who professed belief in Christ but then rejected Him, the writer of Hebrews has this to say:

    Chapter 10
    28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    And
    2 Corinthians 4:3-7
    3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’sake. 6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
    7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves…

    • Blasater says:

      Bography- Has it occured to you that:
      A) No where in the Tanach does it say to believe in mashiach “or else”
      B) No where in the Tanach does it say that mashiach will be a hybrid god-man.
      C) No where in the Tanach does it say that mashiach will fulfill the law and replace it with a law of messiah.
      D) No where in Tanach does it say the mashiach will sacrifice himself for the sins of the world for all time.
      E) No where in Tanach does it say that a human sacrifice is permitted.
      F) No where in Tanach does it say that human vicarious atonement is permitted.
      G) No where in Tanach does it say that it is permissable to crown king mashiach prior to his fulfillment of ALL the messianic duties.
      H) No where in Tanach does it ever say that G-d has three personages or “Triune”

      Had G-d chose to teach such things, He would have EXPLICTLY and plainly said so. Just as He explictly gave us details on what is a kosher animal, how to sacrifice an animal, matters of family purity etc…When Hashem gave the law at Sinai, he was silent on all matters that Christians claim, such as G-d’s nature, form and the personage of messiah.

      Hashem isnt going to then, 1500 years into the future say, I told you could do the law (Deut 30) but you CANT! I told you I was alone….but I’m NOT! I actually have a son….and he is Me! and even though I told you NOT to sacrifice your sons and daughters, like the baal worhsipers….I am going to sacrifice my human son….who is really me.

      I will kill him (myself) on a wooden stick by suffocation. He will not be required to be slaughtered per the Torah, his blood not sprinkled ont he altar, his fat and ofal not burned and in fact, he will be placed in a tomb, alone and I will raise him (myself)…even though I never taught you any of this…you must accept it or be thrown into the pits of hell.

      These are obviously BIG, HUGE concepts that had they been part of Hashems revelation to mankind, would have been given at Sinai. Otherwise, as Christians have done, they have made G-d a liar (G-d forbid) who decieves His people and who changes the paradigm midstream.

      This is not the G-d of the Tanach. The Christian paradigm in the god of Rome….everyone of the new aspects of the Gospel can be found in Grecco-Roman paganism but NOT in Jewish doctrine.

      Eating a god-man’s flesh and drinking his blood…pagan.
      A hybrid god-man….pagan.
      A virgin birth….pagan.
      A resurrected savior…pagan.
      Miracles by the god-man…pagan.

      Only through eisegesis can you shoe-horn this paganism into the Tanach.

      • bography says:

        Yisroel, your A) No where in the Tanach does it say to believe in mashiach “or else”

        What is/are the view/s of Jewry on whether there are any repercussions for a Jew and/or Gentile who rejects the Messiah when he comes. Or is there no view on the matter?

      • bography says:

        Sorry that question was meant for Blasater.

  57. Pingback: On being supernaturally blinded and hoodwinked: a Jewish Christian responds to a Jewish Jew. « OneDaringJew

  58. Pingback: On being supernaturally blinded: a Jewish Christian responds to a Jewish Jew. « OneDaringJew

  59. Bography
    read “Response to the Line of Fire”. By the way – do you realize that the argument of “supernatural blindness” can be used to justify any and every belief?

  60. I meant “response to the Line of Fire 8”

  61. Bography
    I will answer the question – it won’t happen – when the real Messiah comes the truth will be so obvious. For those who still choose to rebel against the truth – Isaiah 60:12 tells us God’s judgment

    • bography says:

      Just to refresh Yisroel. You are answering Balaster’s
      A) No where in the Tanach does it say to believe in mashiach “or else.”

      I asked him: “What is/are the view/s of Jewry on whether there are any repercussions for a Jew and/or Gentile who rejects the Messiah when he comes. Or is there no view on the matter?”

      Now you say 1. A Jew will ”never” reject the Messiah when he comes, and 2. If a Jew does reject the Messiah, God’s judgment will fall on him.

      So, 2. cancels 1.

      We both, therefore, agree: believe in the Messiah ”or else” (Balaster).

      • Blasater says:

        Bography- I would add…that is why the word “faith” only occurs only 4 times in the Tanach (NASB) yet 246 times in the NT.

        Why is that? Because since Yeshu did not fulfill the messianic prophecies and hence the “second” coming (not in the Tanach) that it must be accepted by faith! And accept it OR ELSE! A punishment scare tactic.

        Faith will not be required when mashiach arrives because it will be plain to all. The events will unfold real-time on our TV’s, web cams, twitter etc… All you have to do is watch it. That takes no faith. The ingathering of the exiles, universal peace, universal knowlege of Hashem, the rebuilding of the temple, the restoration of the priesthood and sacrifices (why if Jesus was the once forever sacrifice?), the gentiles streaming to Jerusalem to learn the law, no uncircumsized allowed in the temple (i thought Jesus fulfilled the law? guess not)…these are the events messiah will bring. Then messiah will grow old and die. He is not divine. But he will restore the Davidic line forever, he will be a married man! with children!…..Hence no faith required.

      • Blasater says:

        Bography- You are reading too much into Yisroels answer. Is 60:12 does not equate to the Christian view of belief in messiah “or else”.

        Is 60:12 For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish;
        it will be utterly ruined.

        Who is the “you” being served?

        14 The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you;
        all who despise you will bow down at your feet
        and will call you the City of the LORD,
        Zion of the Holy One of Israel
        .

        15 “Although you have been forsaken and hated,
        with no one traveling through,
        I will make you the everlasting pride
        and the joy of all generations.
        16 You will drink the milk of nations
        and be nursed at royal breasts.
        Then you will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior,
        your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob
        .

        This in no way is equivalent to believing by “faith” in the god-man’s virgin birth, sinlessness,resurrection etc….all the things unseen by us today but must be taken by faith. The man from Nazareth never even bothered to write a word of his own. Isnt that odd? A god in human form didnt write his own books about his own messianic events? If David could write his own scripture why not the man from Nazareth?

        The events in Is 60 and other messianic events will be seen and documented by all. People-nations will still have free will to refuse reject the events before them but their rejection will not be based on faith but open observable events.

  62. Thomas says:

    Bography, your responses reflect a remarkable creativity to squeeze any OT passage into your pre-existing belief in Jesus. Every time your point is answered, you move onto another objection. As far as I can tell, your reasoning is totally circular in that you already believe in Jesus, and then re-interpret the bible which predated him in order to justify your belief. The rabbi has asked before- you understand that the OT predated the NT, and that all of Jesus’ claims refer back to the OT. Therefore, only having the OT already can one evaluate claims.

    You, however, already decide on Jesus, then go back to the OT to try to justify it. If that is not blindness, what is?

    • bography says:

      (Doubting) Thomas
      Indeed, I already believe in Jesus and ergo in his words, for example,

      39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; [3] but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. (John 9).

      http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=john+9

  63. Mitch G. says:

    All those espousing the “blindness” defense seem to forget that at end of days, it will be the Jewish people who the nations come to (Zech 8:23), not the other way around. So bography is free to say we are blinded, but he presumably recognizes that in the end, the bible itself tells him his co-religionists will turn to the Jewish people and say “teach us about G-d.”

    To Brown and Bography et al: Why do you ‘reason away’ the straightforward meaning of the texts in the bible (such as Zech 8:23, which you will certainly do), but tell us to ‘see’ Jesus in the verses where even most Christian scholars don’t see Jesus?

    • bography says:

      Yes, the uncoverted (Christian) will indeed clutch onto the skirt of a Jew – ten onto one – but this Jew will belong to a stump of stunp that remains at the end of the world (as we know it) – the stump that believed in the Branch that was broken on the tree.

      • agadah says:

        You are totally corrupting the words of the prophet (and God is speaking) and putting the words of man into Zechariah 8. It says nothing about “uncoverted, Christians or otherwise”, nothing about branches or stumps of stumps, or (many?) stumps that believed in one or more dead branches whether they were replaced by other branches of a wilder nature or not, nothing about “end of the world, etc. God was speaking to those able to hear that day and some of those promises were given to the “remnant” then and there, with some that soon followed. God was going to be different to Jerusalem and Judea then and there. His promises were to both the nations, all of Israel & Judea. Nothing about any single man becoming the hope of Judea. Nothing about the outside nations receiving the promise first and God choosing outsiders as the chosen people, and then having them dragging Judea, the remnant of God’s people, back to Zion because Judea “did not have God” or God did not want to dwell in Zion because he refused to forgive “the blindness of Judea”. Judea was the cursed one, as the world, then later Rome, and then later Christians & the secular world seen it. But it was Judea that was to become the blessing to the world, not a man nor a messiah nor Jesus nor the church that would become a blessing to Judea and Israel.

        Back to Isaiah 2:22. Or John:1, where if you go by the Greek words, you see that Word (another name for Wisdom) is really an “it” and not a “he” or a “him” (KJV gets closer to the Greek, then many modern NT’s). It is the word of God (God spoke; God’s actions or words are not gods themselves) that created all things and all living beings (including 100% man, as Jesus was supposed to me). It also says the “word made (or created) flesh” and not as most Christians prefer, “the word became flesh”. If the word was flesh it is no longer equal to “the most high God” or the “One God”, unless we all, not just Jesus (called a son as we men are), are also God. We are commanded to be Holy (w/o Jesus), as God is Holy, but our Holiness would not be equal to God’s Holiness, nor do we become God. Even Jesus said he can do none of the things he done on his own, but only because of the Father. Even his disciples and Paul supposedly could do some of the things Jesus could supposedly do (raise folks from the dead), but that did not make any of them divine.

  64. Mitch G. says:

    bography, your comments are thoroughly enjoyable.

    Your response to Thomas does prove his point remarkably well- that your approach is circular in nature- in that you have your beliefs, and then go to the bible to try and squeeze them in to the text. The point was made earlier- you can do that if you want to- but don’t ever try to claim that what you believe is in the OT! The OT is the greatest refutation of Christian theology, and your continuous return to “blindness” or the NT shows your position is not supported by the OT.

    And your response to Zech 8:23 goes well outside the clear teaching of the text. You interpret the “Jew” of 8:23 to be the Jews who have converted to Christianity? Why not Mormonism, or Reform or Conservative Jews? On what basis is this your interpretation? Where is this a consistent scriptural theme in the OT?

    You are suggesting Zechariah is speaking of a group – Jewish Christians – that never even existed until 500 years after he died, that most Jews and Christians do not even consider to be Jews? That has no scriptural support anywhere in the OT? And that is the clear teaching of the text?

    And if that is your interpretation, sir, how do you have the gall to call US blind?

  65. Bography
    You obviouly didn’t look up the verse I quoted – it does not speak about rejecting the Messiah – it speaks about refusing to humble yourself before the Jewish nation. – Bography – it is not too late. You can still return to the God of truth.

  66. Al
    I am not sure how your comment got in up there – so I hope you find my reply.
    A young woman is not necessarily a virgin – even in a very moral society – if she is already married.
    You failed to explain how this was a sign to King Ahaz who died before Jesus was born.

  67. Al
    Your belief that Messianic prophecies “are not identified as such” – shoots down your entire belief system. You believe that the Jewish Scriptures were written for teh primaty purpose of anouncing the advent of the Messiah – yet the prophecies are not identified?!
    In any case the Messianic prophecies are easily identified – My article – A Letter to SY should help you a bit.
    When you say “Messianic prophecies are not identified as such” you are admittingteh difficulty you have of finding Jesus where he isn’t

  68. Sharlee says:

    Actually, Al, in the plainest reading of the text, it supports a young woman that has already given birth to one other son as this verse is about Isaiah’s wife. Therefore, it does not support that this young woman was a virgin. That is, if you want to go by the most plain meaning. If you look at all the instances in the OT that use the term alma, you will see that they are not always talking about a virgin. This is why you MUST study this stuff as Jewish text, without preconceived ideas, before you share it with others as facts because Christianity is KNOWN for not doing this. They find one proof to support their doctrine and forget the rest of the sentence, prophecy, chapter, and book!

    Not really clear on your “Lord” point, as the Hebrew word here is “Adonai” which is a proper name for God. The reason the other is LORD is because it is the YHVH rendition of the name of God. It is still the same person.

    Immanuel does not mean “God with us” it means “God is with us” which is a huge difference, especially in the Hebrew language. If it meant God with us, he would have had a different name. It means that when this child is born and that prophecy is fulfilled it is because God “is” with us, not God will be with us or just with us. Jesus was NEVER called Immanuel. NEVER. How do you respond to that? How is it that you claim this as prophecy fulfilled by Jesus when he was never called Immanuel? He was called Yeshua or Yehoshua. God saves.

    You talk about the need to listen, but it does not seem as though you are listening. Based on what I wrote about Is 7:14, did you go back and read the entire chapter and chapter 8 as well. Did you do so with an open mind and put your preconceived ideas on a shelf? I realize that is scary, but if there is truth to be found in it, then take courage! But you are not open to truth if you are insistent to bring preconceived ideas to the table. The table must be clean and then we look at the text to see what it really says. Are you willing to listen to what God is saying in this passage?

    It seems clear that you did not read the chapter, or you would have seen the siege and understood that context in which God is talking here. It is clear that Israel and Assyria are at war against Judah. God specifically tells Ahaz to ask him for a sign specifically regarding this war. What is that sign for? God tells him. To let him know that there is going to be a child born and his name will be Immanuel and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, Judah will be delivered. Now, how can this child be Jesus, when this did not happen when Jesus was a child? Listen to what the scriptures say. How can this be Jesus? The only verse about the child is not verse 14. The only one about the mother is. That is why we know the sign was the child and not the mother. Other than the fact that God literally did this all the time, naming children to speak a message. Read how this child plays into the sign and did Jesus do that? A virgin birth cannot be a sign, simply because there is no proof of it. There was no verification of it anywhere. Luke certainly was not there and Matthew was not either. You only believe this on faith and nothing else. So we have to look at what else this might mean. Clean table, no preconceived insistence on it being about Jesus. If you read it like that and find that it is about him, then that is something else. But first you must be willing to read what it actually says. First you must educate yourself on Hebrew prophecy and Hebrew culture and what spoke to them and what did not. First you must understand Hebrew text and Hebrew law. THEN you get to decide if it is about Jesus. This is CLEARY a sign for Ahaz. He and God have an argument about it, in fact. To comment that most prophecies are fulfilled years later is ignorance of the scriptures. It simply isn’t true. You are used to that because Jesus still hasn’t returned after 2000 years. But you cannot impose that upon all prophecy. You must read what it says.

    You make a mistake in assuming that messianic scripture is not obvious. Many of them are and the Jews believe in messiah. The problem with Christian messianic scripture is they will take four words out of a sentence and throw the rest away and call it about Jesus. I am not making this up. This is exactly what they do. I can do that and make myself the messiah. That is not proper scholarship. That is deceit. That is not the Spirit of God giving revelation, that is coming in with the determination to find something, ANYTHING, to back up what you insist on putting forth as truth. That is not integrity.

  69. Sharlee says:

    Bography:

    Wow, this blog is becoming very difficult to read. When I click on the link in the email, it does not take me to the post, but the blog and then trying to find to post is becoming more and more difficult. I am just going to answer this in the main thread, as I can’t find the one I am supposed to be responding to.

    Thank you for responding to my post regarding Paul. The first verse you mention, Col 1:15-20, I do not see as Paul calling Jesus “God” at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I acknowledge that Paul is attributing events to Jesus that belong to God, but I believe the mistake is that Paul is attributing these events to Jesus when the credit goes to our Creator, which was not Jesus. But to the point that you believe this verse is calling Jesus “God” I do not see how you can come to that conclusion. Not once does he say that. He says things like, Jesus is the image of God, but God says we all are. Paul states that Jesus was the firstborn, making him “created.” God was not created. He has always been. This is a huge tell, since this is foundational in Jewish belief, from which Paul came. This comment alone makes it clear that he is not calling Jesus God. Now, I do not agree that Jesus was messiah and Paul believed it, so he claims all sorts of other things that I do not agree with. They are claims that come from pagan religions, not Judaism. It was foreign to the Jews and therefore, the Jews were not to follow it. Paul states that the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Jesus, again making a distinction between the two persons and clearly stating that one is God and the other has the fullness of God dwelling in him. This does not make Jesus God. Paul makes this distinction because he is Jewish and only believed in one God and Jesus as being separate.

    Your second verse from Philippians essentially is the same thing. Clearly Paul believes that Jesus is the messiah and that God greatly honored and exalted him, but Paul still keeps them very separate. Clearly one is God and the other is a creation that Paul believes God is exalting. Again, I do not agree with Paul, at all, regarding the things he claims God gave Jesus, but I do agree with him in that Paul consistently made a clear delineation between Jesus as a creation and God as God. One thing you might consider is, just because Paul says something doesn’t mean it is right. He was a man besieged by his own personal struggle with sin. Much of it was jealousy and covetousness. He must be tested. We cannot trust that Rome did that for us. So before we go with Paul’s sayings that Jesus is God’s firstborn, we might want to see what God has to say about that. Ex 4:22

  70. John says:

    Following this discussion has been interesting, if not “mind-boggling”! I obviously have never seen a poll, but I’m guessing very few people have “converted” or totally “revamped” their theology and/or belief systems after participating in one of theses.

    I do find it very interesting, however, on “both sides of the aisle”, how passionately many that leave “Christianity” and practice Judaism argue against it, and how those coming from a Jewish tradition that embrace Christianity continue to have a heart for those in traditional Judaism even in the face harsh criticisms from the very same they care for.

    I wish blessings and peace for us all.

    • agadah says:

      And vice versa. It is interesting how those coming from a Christian tradition that embrace Judaism & Tanach, despite the persecution of being in a minority status, yet continue to have a heart for those in traditional (or new age) Christianity even in the face of the harshest of harsh criticisms from the very same they care for. And knowing that the very written word of the NT, that they were once taught was “love”, dehumanizes & demonizes those who hold faith in the God of Israel, the first and only God of the Tanach. Knowing that the very principles of faith in Jesus, as preached in the pulpits and as spoken almost every time a Christian speaks, even casually, denigrates and humiliates Jews as a class and especially and more so, those who hold fast to faith in a God who “was good enough” for the “God of their bible”.

      • tsvi says:

        Blasater:
        We Jews are guilty. GUILTY!!!! Of what? thinking. A Christian isn’t supposed to think. Ephesians says that :it is past knowledge” Isn’t that comforting? Is that Surpass or Bypass?
        It depends who you are. Christian argumentation always amounts to: “I just know” “The Spirit says in my heart” (which tanach says is deceitful and desperately wicked. I have a good friend who is a xtian and it always comes down to having…..not a frontal lobotamy but a total lobotamy. Ah then I will be able to become a good xtian. Xtianity subdivides into those who love to roll on the floor…..Those who are predestined and thus all who can’t see J are predestined to Hellfire ow ow
        Those who are pseudo intellectual will not use the same logic that they use to throw out the Book of Mormon to their own New Testament. It cannot be judged by man’s logical mind, as it is above us. (do you smell that? hmmm) It doesn’t matter what all xtians say the truth is… Jesus is a failure. He changed nothing, His people are parrots who mouth sayings but down deep they are devoid of reality. I appreciate your comment. Tsvi Say Tefillah for old Bog he is a Jew and he needs to come back to Hashem and find himself back in his people. Take care Tsvi

  71. Nate says:

    Sharlee,

    You make some very valid points about Paul’s writing, and I tend to agree that Paul probably isn’t identifying Jesus as G-d himself.

    I believe the NT texts and historical evidence suggests that many early Christians thought of Jesus not as G-d, but simply as divine. (Which isn’t exactly the same thing because in the polytheistic religions of the day, divinity was seen as something that could be shared, even with non-deities like Hercules.) Many members of the early Church probably saw Jesus as a kind of high-ranking angel sent to Earth, or some other kind of divine extension of G-d. Because of this divine nature, they thought he was worthy of their worship. Of course, this is probably the forerunner of the break from Judaism because even holy objects, as created beings, do not deserve worship.

    • Sharlee says:

      Nate,

      What you say makes a lot of sense. I had never given thought to the concept of him being divine over God. Raised as Christian, he was always God. But that makes far more sense in regards to some of the things Paul says about Jesus and the power he believed that God gave him.

  72. Sharlee says:

    Bography,

    One more addition to my thoughts on the verses you presented. Paul makes the claim that every knew will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Going to the OT, I asked God what he had to say about that.

    Isa 45:21 Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel together: Who hath announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I the LORD? And there is no God else beside Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.
    Isa 45:22 Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.
    Isa 45:23 By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

    If Paul at all gets close to calling Jesus God, it is through the quoting of this verse (23). Clearly, however, it is God that Father making these declarations, not the son. God says over and over in just these few verses that there is only one. None beside him, NONE, NONE ELSE. I mean, it is pretty clear. And then he says that ppl are to only bend their knee to him and only swear to him and then he stops. No mention of a son, no mention of a messiah god, no mention of a god/man, no mention of any savior other than him. Just the same he has been saying for hundreds of years to the Jews. There is no God but me.

  73. John
    I find it interesting how Jews take the time and teh effort to articulate and to re-artciulate their beliefs so as to help Christians see the truth – while Christians don’t seem to bother to make the effort – they throw in tehtowel with arguments like “spiritual blindness”
    In any case – no-one gets up and leaves a belief system on the basis of a discussion such as this – but a discussion such as this could plant some seeds

    • Sharlee says:

      Pharisee,

      I find the same to be true on most occasions. Any Christian that actually takes the time to listen to what is presented instead of just arguing is already seeking. The blinders are already coming off (speaking of spiritual blindness, which I do believe they are.). Something is not sitting right in their heart and they are already looking for answers. I know that my journey started when I fell on a website that disputed the writings of Paul. I sat up late into the night reading the scandalous thing, then shut my laptop and walked away fearing my soul was lost for just having read it. But it pestered and taunted my intelligence for months until I had to go find it to read it again and then I threw caution to the wind and just went for it. I studied my way right out of Christianity, mostly because Christians did not have the answers to my questions, only Jews. It was so frustrating, because I have meet the nastiest Christians that have told me I was wasting my time and getting distracted. No one would just talk to me, only attack me for questioning. I never would have gone to a Jew if a Christian had the answers. But the Jews have always been patient and very kind and present hard facts over “you just have to have faith.” So these sites do serve a huge purpose. They do plant seeds.

  74. bography says:

    Blasater and Tsvi
    I’m still here. Will get back to you very soon

    Boggle Raphy

  75. bography says:

    Tsvi

    I am replying to one of your early comments.

    response to bography on May 31, 2011 at 6:35 pm:

    Tsvi – Jesus is your ultimate authority. end of debate. How can anyone debate with you. We must debate from areas of agreement.

    Reply: Are you saying that it is impossible to hold a debate between a Jew and a Christian where the Jew accepts Moses (and his protagonists) as his ultimate authority and a Christian accepts as the ultimate authority?

    Tsvi – Here we are today, as Jews we were at Mt. Sinai 2 million of us. We all heard the voice of God.

    Reply: Were you at Mount Sinai? Did you hear the voice of God?

    Tsvi – That voice is branded in the very soul of every Jew. Practicing or not.

    Reply: Do you mean branded into their subconscious? As you probably know the majority of Jews don’t believe in God, and then there’s the Conservative Jews migrating at a steady rate DOWNWARDS to Reform Judaism and other forms of Judaism. Most of these regard themselves as Jewish but certainly don’t believe that the Torah is a direct revelation from God. When you say “branded” are you saying they have been branded in their Jewish souls (neshamos).

    Tsvi -You are following a man whose disciples wrote about him in 4 contradictory ways.

    Reply: Give examples – and what are your sources for this claim? Bart Ehrman?

    The book came to you through a church that was anything but truthful (I don’t need to quote)

    Reply: Don’t need to quote? So end of debate?

    Tsvi – Our God says in Psalm 147:19,20 that his word came through Jacob/Israel and THROUGH NO OTHER NATION. Yet you have accepted this book hook line and sinker in spite of these things.

    Tsvi – The early believers in Jesus were all Jewish. They, including the Apostle Paul, agree with you. Where they – and I – disagree with you is that while it is true that Jacob/Israel is the channel of God’s word, the NT revelation of Jesus is the fulfilment of the revelation in the Jewish scriptures.

    Tsvi – Yet you have accepted this book hook line and sinker in spite of these things.

    No, not in spite of the Jewish scriptures but because of 1. these scriptures and 2. Jesus

    1 John 1

    1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.”

    With either one of the following, a good catch, or any catch, is impossible: hook, line or sinker.

  76. bography says:

    Correction: and a Christian accepts as the ultimate authority? Should read – and a Christian accepts Jesus as the ultimate authority?

    • agadah says:

      Did you say Paul is a greater authority than Isaiah? You may also want to compare every “quote” that “Paul” takes from the OT (Original Testimony) to the original. His “twisting” of scriptures is not using “Hebraic midrash” methods but Greek allegorical methods. The entire OT was considered by some early (& later) Christian scholars as only useful as allegory about Jesus. You may want to read carefully in Paula Fredricksen’s book “Augustine & the Jews” not only what early Christian leaders (like Ignatius) thought about Jews, but where he said the Gospels and the Paul’s letter came from & who was responsible for writing them. You may also want to read where Jesus’s authority came from according to Eusebius, who stated that 1 reason for worshipping on Sunday, was that the early Christians also worship a moon godesses on that day. Read other ECF’s like Jerome where he justified his rewriting parts of the NT, because essentially the Greek copyists were more “asleep than awake” on the job and so that “the doctrine would be more suitable to Christians”. I know you won’t take my insinuations, but study on your own what they wrote. And why complain about Reform Jews, who are not idolators, and instead look at where Jesus lead the chaos in Christianity with the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians, etc and Jesus’s over “30,000 sects” of “the one way” in the world. Since you were identified earlier as a Marcionite, you may also want to look what he believed.

      Earlier you quoted John 5, where Jesus admitted he could do nothing on his own. He was given authority, but Solomon (as most Kings) was also a servant of God and given similar authority to judge (& Jesus also said he wasn’t sent to judge. He was SENT as a messenger. 1 Corinthians said we were given the authority to judge “messengers”).

      Luke
      5And the Devil having brought him up to an high mountain, shewed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6and the Devil said to him, `To thee I will give all this authority, and their glory, because to me it hath been delivered, and to whomsoever I will, I do give it; 7thou, then, if thou mayest bow before me–all shall be thine.’ 8And Jesus answering him said, `Get thee behind me, Adversary, for it hath been written, Thou shalt bow before the Lord thy God, and Him only thou shalt serve.’

      • agadah says:

        Luke here states that “the devil” had an authority, that Jesus did not have, to give Jesus authority on earth. It took several 100’s of years before Jesus had any visible or true “authority” on earth, given to him by man, by Rome. The “devil” in Luke does promise Jesus (after Jesus fails his test), that he will be back later for Jesus “at the right time”.

      • agadah says:

        It is also interesting to note that Paul & “John”, like other Neo-Platonic philosophers, believed in 7 heavens and “principalities” in heaven warring in heaven as on earth or vice versa. Divine beings warring against God (gods with “”authority like Jesus” standing “beside God”) in heaven? I see in Jesus, no “god emptied & humbled to please the father god, because the father god otherwise couldn’t control his wrath” against man unless he first killed himself in some “absurd play/drama” like the passion plays of the pagan and “mystery” religions with their dying and rising gods. That NT theology is m unlike what we would expect from a Merciful & a Just God. Jesus’s authority comes from a replacement theology; one that replaces God with Jesus and puts God, YHWH, in 2nd place as a mere on-looker. For those who don’t see Jesus as an intermediary between man & their god, they see Jesus as a replacement for God of the one and only eternal, Original Testimony.

  77. Sharlee says:

    Just had to pipe in here for a sec. In actuality, Jesus is not the ultimate authority of Christianity. Paul is. Jesus very much taught Judaism, for the most part. There are some pagan things thrown in there, but I don’t believe Jesus said them, like “drink my blood and eat my flesh.” I think the author of the gospels added that to appeal to those that were actually converting at the time it was written, the gentiles, not the Jews. Anywho, most of Jesus’ teachings are very Jewish. Paul wanted nothing to do with Judaism and it was his teachings that eventually lead the sect away from being a Jewish sect to being a totally different religion where there is virtually no resemblance to Judaism at all now. Just something I put out there for consideration.

    • bography says:

      For Sharlee and Agadah.

      Before I responmd to you, I’m not sure where you stand with regard to Jesus. What is your opinion of Jesus?

      • Sharlee says:

        Gosh, for me, it is really hard to have an opinion of Jesus because there is nothing autobiographical by him and the biographical stuff is very conflicting. I do not believe he was “the” messiah. He may have been an anointed rabbi, but he did not fulfill the prophecies of the end of days messiah. He was certainly Jewish and I believed he followed Torah. I do not believe he came to cancel it either. That was Paul’s doing. I don’t know if that answers your question or not. Let me know it if doesn’t.

  78. bography says:

    Sharlee
    Your “is really hard to have an opinion of Jesus because there is nothing autobiographical by him.” The implication is that you reject any biography unless it is autobiography, and a large slice of history is about people.

    • Sharlee says:

      It is not my intent to imply that biographical information is unreliable in general for history. However, since I began to question Christianity, I scrutinized the historical account of the NT with a critical eye because much of the NT is taught that it is an eye witness account, yet with a closer look, you can see that most of the NT actually is not eye witness. Two of the gospels are considered eye witness and yet their authorship is unknown. It is only tradition that John and Matt wrote those gospels. These gospels are written decades after Jesus’ death. It is impossible to remember all that is entailed in the gospels decades later. Also, there are so many things in the gospels that the disciple could not have been eye witness to, such as happenings between Herod and John the Baptist, whether Mary was a virgin or not, the slaughter in Bethlehem (the only historical account of this is in the Bible. No other historical document that I have found has a record of this slaughter of babies and there are plenty of records of Herod and his dastardly deeds.) etc. The gospel of Matt goes to great lengths to connect its stories to OT prophecies, but when you go back to the prophecies themselves, you see there is no connection at all. For example, the Bethlehem slaughter. Mtt connects that to a prophecies of Rachel being unconsoled because her children have been slaughtered. That is not the prophecy at all. The original prophecy is about the loss of the 10 tribes and, in it, God gives comfort that they will be restored. That is just one example.

      So, ways the biographies contradict…I can give many, but I will give a few. Matt has Jesus saying that John the Baptist is the spirit of Elijah. John has John the Baptist denying it twice.

      Immediately after feeding the 5000, Jesus sent the disciples into the boat and across the lake in Matt. John has them waiting for Jesus as he goes into the hills. They wait until after dark and then they leave. When the woman pours perfume on Jesus’ feet, Matt says all the disciples were upset. John says that only Judas was. Matt has the last supper on Erev Pasach and John has it on the day before that. At the last supper Matt says that Jesus performs the first communion. John has Jesus washing the disciples’ feet and no mention of this communion, which is of pagan origins and has no Jewishness to it at all. That is a huge red flag, how in the middle of a gospel about a Jewish man, pagan rituals would be inserted, decades after the events were to have taken place.

      The entire story of the resurrection of Jesus is conflicted between Matt and John. How many angels were at the tomb. Who saw Jesus first. How many did Jesus reveal himself to. How many times did Jesus reveal himself. Where did he first reveal himself. Who did Jesus go and see for his trial, what was said there, who observed, on and on. Also telling is what is missing from accounts. John makes no mention of Peter walking on the water. He mentions Jesus, but not Peter. It would be his prerogative to not mention it, but it seems to be a miraculous event and since he mentions Jesus doing it, I don’t know why he would not mention Peter.

      My personal study is on the two supposed eye-witness accounts. I have not compared the other two synoptic gospels. For me, while it was not the capstone of my studies, it certainly drove me on to looking into things more deeply and the gospels began to lose integrity for me.

  79. bography says:

    Sharlee
    You say the biographical stuff about Jesus is very conflicting. Can you give a few examples?

  80. FR says:

    This discussion has gotten way out of perspective. A Jew’s rejection of Jesus has nothing to do with his historicity. There is really no reason for a Jew to have any opinion of Jesus at all, nor of Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Jesus did not give us the Torah, create the world, or take the jews out of Egypt. Jesus was a human being, who prayed to Gd and lived and died like a mortal in this world. His expected return in his lifetime did not materialize, leading even most evangelical scholars to say that, yes, he did err. He did not meet the messianic requirements, did not end the exile or bring the world back to holiness.

    And if one somehow follows Jesus despite all this, due to a “changed life” or belief in miracles, firstly, that is not a biblically-supported methodology. And secondly, that method would more lead you to some new religion. Mormon’s have a “burning in the bosom” and Joseph Smith’s golden plates have a not un-impressive claim. So why not them?

  81. bography says:

    FR
    How did you arrive at your “His expected return in his lifetime did not materialize, leading even most evangelical scholars to say that, yes, he did err.”

  82. FR says:

    Bography, are you familiar with biblical scholarship on Matt 24:34? I have read quite a bit on this, and have seen the attempted answers- the “generations”- the “jewish people”- the “temple”- all tired and implausible explanations, and when evangelical scholars say yes- Jesus did expect the redemption in the immediate future- well, I think I understand what scholarship says on this.

    • Sharlee says:

      Additionally, Paul expected it, as well. He was encouraging ppl not to marry and many other things because, essentially he said, “Why bother? Jesus is coming back soon. Time is short. Just work on yourself and don’t worry about joining or severing, weeping, etc.” 1 Cor 7. Paul absolutely expected Jesus to return within his lifetime. There is simply no indication in the NT writings that would say that the return of Jesus was anything but imminent, within the lifetime of many of those standing there.

    • bography says:

      FR
      To return to your: “His expected return in his lifetime did not materialize, leading even most evangelical scholars to say that, yes, he did err.”

      You are saying:
      1. Jesus erred because his expected return (by others) did not occur. Surely, your sentence means that they, not Jesus, erred. Furthermore, Jesus did say:

      Mark 13
      32 “But about that day or hour [of the end] no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. 35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

      You’ve probably noticed “not even the son” knows, which raises the question, ”How can Jesus be divine if he doesn”t know when the end will be?” But that is not the issue here (which you and others here will possibly want to take up).

      2. MOST evangelical scholars said that Jesus erred.

      As I said, it wasn’t Jesus that erred, so how can any evangelist, never mind most evangelists, say that Jesus erred? Also, there are thousands of evangelists out there (perhaps ”biblical scholars” is more accurate). How did you arrive at your “most”?

      • FR says:

        Jesus says in Matthew 24:34 that this generation will not pass away until these things have taken place. Apologists try to explain it away using ‘generations,’ or saying it’s the temple, or a host of other things.

        You so helpfully pointed out that even the son does not know everything- thanks! You have so helpfully pointed out the illogic of ascribing diety to a limited human being, but Matt 24:34 is only another example of his limitedness. I will let you do the homework to find the scholars who comment on that passage.

      • FR says:

        I’m not sure the basis behind your “Jesus didn’t err” statement. You are saying he never said v. 34? Or that every scholar misunderstood him?

        “Jesus was quite certain that they would happen within the then living generation.”- FF Bruce

        “In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as forty years. This is the natural way to take verse 34…. He plainly stated in verse 34 that those events would take place in that generation…. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion…. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus, as Man, expected the end within the lifetime of his contemporaries.”

        “The hard fact still remains that if Jesus spoke the sayings of St. Mark xiii and St. Matthew xxiv… he misjudged the extent of his own knowledge and uttered a definite prediction which was not fulfilled.”

        I expect to see some “those aren’t real Christians” answer.

      • agadah says:

        Are you saying, Jesus didn’t err, since he has no control over his biographers or over Paul or over many churches whose preachers are “filled with the holy ghost”? A son may not know the hour (which is why no son should be considered as equal to God, especially not in a monotheistic belief system), but Jesus gave many signs (because you established that signs are foolishness) that the “hour” doesn’t matter. But “soon” is what his followers thought, because their teacher/s erred.

        Matt 23:11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many.

        This means that MANY today have already listened to many false prophets and preachers who have taught error filled messages that are not in accord with the original messages. Messages taken out of context and ones where God is replaced with a new god or gods.

        Since there are many “prophets” in the NT & Christianity (many believe they have the “gift of prophesy” and speak in “tongues” and “steal” verses from th OT, but who share little with the prophets of God in the Tanach), maybe these verses are appropriate.

        Jeremiah 23:23 “Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away?
        24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.
        25 I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’
        26 How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart,
        27 who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal?
        (Baal is another name for their lords or lord, but not the same as Adonai).

        28 Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD.
        30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another.
        31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’
        32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.

  83. FR says:

    The question is why are you not a Mormon? Every single point that you have to justify your belief in Christianity is at least as strong for Mormonism. Tell me how you can rationalize away all the problems Christianity has, while rejecting Mormonism for the same reasons.

    • bography says:

      FR
      Your
      ”Every single point that you have to justify your belief in Christianity is at least as strong for Mormonism.”

      I’m not sure what you mean. Which points are ou referring to, and how are they similar to Mormonism?

      • FR says:

        don’t act ignorant, bography- you understand my question very well. You repeatedly say “well, Jews don’t believe that” or “well, I know you don’t care about the NT” when valid points are brought to show why Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, why a mortal human who did not create the world is not deserving of our worship, how you so helpfully show he is subservient to the father, how he erred in expectation of his return, how the NT references to the OT are wrenched out of context, and so on.

        How do you dismiss all of these and still cling to a belief in Jesus? Is a changed life? Belief in miracles? Any argument you can muster has the same argument for Mormonism, only much stronger.

  84. agadah says:

    Valid arguments about Isaiah 2:22 or other writings of the Prophets are not relative to what “camp”, if any, I or anyone else is or was in. The literal meaning of their words do not change and their poetic words can only be understood by trying to place yourself in their social, economic, spiritual, historical environment, and try to understand what they clearly intended and consistently are saying. Taking a relatively few sentences (or parts of verses) out of context and implying that they were directed toward your subjective beliefs or toward the subjective writings of men, with a different philosophy and theology 600-900 years after those prophets wrote, is dishonest and dastardly. The history of Christian scriptural texts is what it is and not what I imagined it to be. The beliefs and the words of the founders of Christianity are what they clearly say they were, not what you hoped that they had said instead. If there are discrepancies and contradictions in the NT, remember I did not write them & I did not assemble them into a canon. They are there for anyone, who is not a casual reader, or naive or “blind” to see and to deal with. I am not writing a book or a scholarly paper here, nor am I attacking any person or “camp”. Nor am I “defending like mad” any group (although the “madness” of God may appear as madness to man with small gods and small ideas about God). To see what some other person might have been influenced by (not me), search for several websites of Bet Emet Ministries. You may also want to peruse the Early Church Fathers, starting from Vol 1, on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website or earlychristianwritings.com.

    • bography says:

      Agadah
      your “You may also want to peruse the Early Church Fathers, starting from Vol 1, on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website or earlychristianwritings.com.

      I am familiar with much of the early christian writings. I was a Roman Catholic for more than 20 years and made a deep study of church history and theology (believe it or not). If you’re interested, see my
      http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit.php?category_name=catholicism&post_type=post

      and

      http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/my-conversion-to-roman-catholicism-and-why-i-left/

      • agadah says:

        I know that you know them, that is why they are useful to establish where Jesus came from. Of course, there is an audience that does not know if them. They think Yeshua, then Paul (or Saul or “Rav Shaul”), and then Constantine. But most of what came after Constantine was there 300 years before. It matters whether it was true or not, that “there was only 1000 Christians in all the world” at the end of the 2nd century c.e. It matters if after the end of the book of Acts, there was or appears to be a “long period of silence” in Christendom until maybe 150 c.e., except for a few legends and “heretical” writings, or only speculative theories. It matters that a Jesus appears to not only have had little effect on Jews, but he had little impact on the Romans in Judea or other Gentiles in the Galilee, Caesarea, or the Decapolis (except as for later legends). If it is true that Yaakov, aka James, had 10000 followers, no one seems able to tell me where they went or why. And is it true, that Paul made his last trip to Jerusalem, after and because “all of his followers in Asia minor deserted him”??

  85. bography says:

    Agadah

    1000 Christians end of 2nd century? Do you mean there were or were not 1000 CHristans at end of 2nd c?

  86. agadah says:

    I don’t know. I wasn’t there and I don’t trust the veracity of “2nd century c.e” Christian writers or of Eusebius. But it should be easy to determine whether 1000 is high or low. And it would be interesting to discover what “seekers” find. Some people like to “profess”; you either get the info or you fail their course. Some like to teach or even “spoon-feed” others their “truths” and they rely on lession outlines and “quotes from the master or masters; accept it or else. Some assign you “homework”; they want you to seek and find. Those types may let you know if you didn’t search in enough places or in the wrong places or if you “shout you found a golden treasure” when it was only “fool’s gold”.

    Maybe this relates also to that “super-natural blindness” that God “gives”, but which some rebellious humans think that they know better and it is their “light” that will enlighten those others.

    • agadah says:

      Of course, sometimes “students” (or “debaters”) will ask questions or ask for a reference about 1 point (usually a minor or irrelevant point or maybe one they think they already have an answer to), so that they can distract from the main points presented or so that they may lead others into other areas that they prefer to discuss.

  87. Pingback: Seventh Response to Dalton Lifsey | 1000 Verses

  88. elisheva bloom says:

    Numbers 23.19
    GD IS NOT A MAN THAT HE SHOULD BE. DECIETFUL NOR SON OF MAN THAT OULD RELENT.
    1. this verse proves Gd is not a man.
    2. Gd is not a son of man.
    3. Gd does not lie.
    4. Gd does not relent.

    HOSEA 11.9
    I WILL NOT ACT ON MY WRATH WILL NOT TURN TO DESTROY EPHRAIM, FOR I AM NOT A MAN, THE HOLY ONE IN YOUR MIDST.

    1 SAMUEL 15.29
    MOREOVER THE GLORY OF ISRAEL DOES NOT DECIEVE OR CHANGE HIS MIND, FOR HE IS NOT A MAN THAT HE SHOULD CHANGE HIS MIND.

    THE CINSTANT THEME HERE IS GD IS NOT A MAN.

    • bography says:

      Elishiva
      This verse is not anachronistically trying to disprove the Christian doctrine that God cannot take on flesh (become a man). It’s simple. If I say to you “I’m not a dog that bites,” I’m not trying to prove that I’m not a dog, but merely that I don’t bite people like (angry) dogs sometimes do. Similarly, “God is not a man that he should lie,” simply means “God is not a liar, which man is.
      Anti-missionary training was not Deuteronomy’s brief. How could it have been, for the reason already given.
      http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/milking-the-teats-off-the-text-the-rabbinical-interpretation-of-numbers-2319/

    • Paul Summers says:

      Hello Elisheva

      Hope its ok to butt in here?

      The scriptures that you quote are technically true from the Torah, prohets and writings. At the said time these verese were written, God was never a man. Infact the Christian NT also never teaches that God is a man per se. The NT also never teaches that God is nothing ever but Spirit. It also never teaches that a man became God.

      Having said that though, it does teach that God became flesh, for the Israel Jewish nation, to see physically the statutes and Law of God. The two are quite different.

      The real question any non believer in Christ should be not, “did God become a man, it should be, CAN God become a man if He so wills it, is anything impossible for God, the creator of the universe”???

      As you are aware God manifested His presence many times in the exodus for example. God manifesting Himself before Moses had to be done via clouds, smoke, fire, thunderings and light etc. God taking on the human form is hardly something impossible for God. Seeing that He is God Almighty. God is only limited by the limits that He places on Himself.

      The quotes from you are from Gods statutes compared to mans sinful flesh, and contextually wrong as a Argument against the Christian, Messianic teaching of the God man Jesus of Nazereth.

      Try proverbs 30. Compared to John ch 3. The riddle is answered.

      • Jim says:

        Paul,

        Among the absurdities you write here, the most absurd has to be that one could “see physically the statutes and Law of God”. Statutes and laws are ideas (i.e. objects of the mind) and as such are not visible objects. They have no physicality.

        Jim

        • Paul Summers says:

          Hi Jim

          If I told my mother that I loved her, and I gave many reasons, some of the reasons couldnt be physically held, her attitudes, personality, and standards couldnt be grabbed, only seen, but still not physically seen, ie love isnt a ball floating in the air, love is felt in the heart but referred to as seen by the other participants.

          So yes the Law is written, but its not the object of the mind as you state. The Law was Gods standards of righteousness, given to man, not visa versa, but its the heart that understand s and reveals love. Something the majority of Israel didnt.

      • Yehuda Yisrael says:

        Paul, what you are presenting is a strawman argument. Rabbinic Judaism and the Torah claim that G-d WILL NOT assume any form, including the form of a man. This is DIFFERENT from claiming that G-d CANNOT assume the form of a man, or any form for that matter.

        Let me ask you this, Paul. Do you believe that G-d CAN assume the form of a golden calf? Why or why not?

        Now lets ask you this: WOULD G-d assume the form of a golden calf? Why or why not?

        I’ll give you the Torah’s reasoning:

        Deut 4:9. But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,

        Here we see that G-d is commanding Israel to teach these things throughout their generations. G-d is directly telling Israel to teach their children about the things they saw and the things on their hearts. What are these things you ask? Lets continue reading:

        Deut 4:10. the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.

        Deut 4:11. And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness.

        Deut 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.

        Here we have G-d explaining to the children of Israel what they “saw.” *Notice that what they “saw” was no image* according to G-d Himself! Moving on…

        Deut 4:13. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.

        Deut 4:14. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess.

        This verse is important to read in context with the next few verses because it reiterates the fact that these commands are not just a “one time deal.” Rather, G-d is commanding Israel not to worship Him in any for throughout all our generations! With this in mind, lets continue reading:

        Deut 4:15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, *for you did not see any image* on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire

        Deut 4:16. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, *the representation of ANY FORM,* the likeness of MALE or female,

        Deut 4:17. the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven,

        Deut 4:18. the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth.

        Deut 4:19. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them.

        So Paul, from this passage we see two explicit themes:

        1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)

        2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their children’s children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)

        This disqualifies jesus from being divine. G-d is telling us that He will NEVER assume ANY form for us to worship. That includes man!

        Shalom.

        • Dina says:

          The Torah says it straight out. It’s so clear, how can anyone miss it? Thanks, Yehuda Yisrael.

        • Paul Summers says:

          Hi Yehuda

          Looking at your first paragraph are you saying that If God willed it, by His own Devine nature He could take on the form of a man. Lets say not for worshipping purposes, but just Manifest Himself because He is Limitless?

          So, not did He, or He never would do, but could He?

          • Sharbano says:

            It is wholly ridiculous and ludicrous that a question of whether G-d can be manifest into something physical. This is the typical method of Xtianity to bring what is assumed to be a legitimate question. It would be no different than asking if G-d could create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift. If He can do anything why can’t This question be answered. Could G-d create a rock that spanned infinity. In so doing would it be too heavy for Him to lift? It is like asking the question, How many is the color red. It is an irrelevant question because it is Not a question with an answer. The best our minds are able to grasp the outcome would result in the entire universe collapsing in on itself; because it says He cannot be contained.

            Another way to look at is, can a “thought” be “seen”? At the most the thought can be described in the physical but the thought itself has not Become physical. So it is with G-d. He is not part of physicality but merely Pure Will, thought, as it were. His Will “controls” the physical and it is That which we are able to perceive. We know there is Wind, but we do not “see” it, nor do we hear it.

            Because of His immense Power, as was experienced at Sinai, G-d’s influence is transmitted to the physical level but only through levels. Each level diminishes the effect of that Power. When it does reach this physical world it has been tempered by the many levels it travels. If this weren’t the case there would be no need for the angels.

            There is no doubt the concept of G-d’s manifestation into a fleshly creature began long ago. Many peoples view G-d as a white-haired “man”. In my youth, I recall when I had first seen the Michaelangelo’s painting in the Sistine chapel I assumed it may have been of Abraham and Isaac. I was utterly flabbergasted to find out it was suppose to be an image of the Xtian version of their god. If this concept is what a person has in their minds when they contemplate G-d it is no wonder a belief in a man-god is possible. When “I” perceive G-d I begin with contemplating the earth, and visualize outward to the solar system, to the galaxy, to the universe, and, since I am unable to go any further, I contemplate G-d is encompassing ALL that I have imagined thus far. I would, therefore ask, why would ANYone imagine G-d to such a limited degree as a speck on a planet, that is a speck in a solar system, that is a speck in the universe.

          • Paul
            You don’t deserve an answer because you still never explained your cherrypicking – but no God can’t do it – anymore than God could make himself stupid, insane or evil
            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/foundation-of-worship-iii/

  89. bography says:

    I said, “Anti-missionary training was not Deuteronomy’s brief.” I mean Numbers not Deut.

  90. Pingback: Foundation of Worship III | 1000 Verses

  91. Kristofer says:

    Woah! I’m really enjoying the template/theme of this blog. It’s simple, yet effective.
    A lot of times it’s hard to get that “perfect balance” between superb usability and visual appeal. I must say you have done a excellent job with this. In addition, the blog loads very quick for me on Firefox. Excellent Blog!

  92. Shomer says:

    Yeshayahu 2:22 KJV Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

    During my research about Judaism I had to come to the conclusion that “Jesus” definitely IS God! He is that kind of God about those HaShem has taught us as follows;

    Shemot 20:3-4 KJV Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

    I am living in a country where I can find graven Jesusses hanging on crucifixes by the roadside. I once met a craftsman who was a professional woodcarver. In his shop he offered graven animals for decoration and crucifixes likewise.

    Yeshayahu 44:15-17 KJV Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. (16) He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: (17) And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

    Exactly this is my observation. Christians kneel before a crucifix, yet, sometimes without a corpus, and pray to “Jesus”. HaShem has already revealed how HE thinks about this misbehavior. No, “Jesus” IS God!

    • LarryB says:

      Shomer
      I just did a quick search in the KJV and could not find any results for Yes hay ahu. By the way, how do you pronounce that? From the search results you must be right. NO Jesus is god. Or any other man.

      • Sharbano says:

        Really? What is the title of the post. You wouldn’t find the Shemot in the KJV either.
        Yeshayahu – Isaiah
        Shemot – Exodus

        • bography says:

          Yep, here is a transliteration of the Hebrew in David’s Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible.

          Isaiah 1:1

          This is the vision of Yesha‘yahu the son of Amotz, which he saw concerning Y’hudah and Yerushalayim during the days of ‘Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz and Y’chizkiyahu, kings of Y’hudah: “

          Having quoted Stern, it doesn’t matter whether you say Yesha’yahu or Isaiah, Yeshua or Jesus, it’s the person these words denote that is important.

        • LarryB says:

          Thats kind of my point. I don’t hink you can learn what Judaism
          teaches from a christian perspective/bible. Posting Thee’s and thous with Jewish names does not make it Jewish teachings. Maybe I misunderstood his post?

  93. Pingback: Isaiah 2:22 | Noach ben Avraham

  94. Careless Reader
    This is in response to your comment – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/isaiah-222/#comment-14279
    Yes – I call your arguments primitive just as the prophets before me mocked arguments such as the one you use here. You are in effect saying that because a man possesses a certain quality then he must be divine (whatever language you use) – this is like saying that the statue is so beautiful then it must be divine – primitive. In other words the absurdity of a finite existence being divine is more palatable to you than the question as to how man can do one thing or another.

  95. The fact that you choose to mock me rather than to respond, and that you ignore the facts of what we actually say we believe (in favor of saying “whatever language you use,” respectfully shows that you have an untenable argument, or that you simply refuse to engage the point, you just mock! This isn’t reasonable or respectful dialogue on your part, and frankly I’m surprised that you are so outright dismissive of a response I gave that was in response to a question posed in the comments.

    The argument I made was not that a mortal being couldn’t do this task, but that no man who has ever existed, or was ever actually given this task by G-d, has accomplished a renewal of creation on the level spoken of in the messianic age, even with the first hand knowledge and extreme closeness to G-d that they possessed.

    it’s not that a mortal man chosen by G-d couldn’t do it. The issue is that the messiah is given tasks that on their face are tasks which G-d alone can be rightly said to do by himself. If we say that this mortal emissary brings these things about, it creates a conflict of interest, and also has no historic precedent.

    Moses didn’t do these tasks and he spoke to Hashem directly in a more intimate direct way than any human in history. Your doctrine says that the messiah has a lower prophetic clarity than Moses himself. It’s not unreasonable then to ask, how is this possible?

    Btw, calling me careless is rather rude. If you can’t respond, that’s fine, but your insults do nothing for your credibility.

    • Dina says:

      Rabbi B. and Con, forgive me for interjecting. Con, the tasks Moses fulfilled could also be said to be tasks that we would expect of no one but God: inflicting plagues upon an entire country, leading a slave population out from under the very noses of their masters, splitting the sea to escape their pursuers.

      These were miracles of a far greater magnitude and impact that the ones even Jesus was alleged to have performed. Yet it never occurred to the Jews to therefore attribute some kind of divinity to Moses, God forbid.

      About the mockery, if you read the Prophets you will see a great deal of mockery about idol worship. It is part of our tradition to mock idolatry in any form.

      As for your careless reading, the question you should ask yourself is not “is this an insult” but “is it true?” Thus far, three people (Jim, Rabbi B., and I) have expressed frustration with your responses because they do indeed reflect a careless reading of what we have written. Often, you do not respond directly to the points made (I’m not saying you never do, just often). If you read other threads you will see that this accusation is not made often. We are not throwing this out loosely in order to derail you.

      I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding; hopefully Rabbi B. will clarify anything that I have missed.

      By the way, it would be nice to have a real name to call you by. Not necessarily your real name, but a human name, you know, like Rob or Tom.

      Peace,
      Dina

      • Dina says:

        And in fact, Con, rereading Rabbi B.’s response to you, I see that had you carefully read what he wrote, you would have seen that in fact he did respond with a real answer. Do you see it now?

    • Concerned Reader
      I am surprised that you noticed that I substituted “careless” for “concerned” – because time and time again you have demonstrated that you are a careless reader – I did respond to your point – and I will try to explain my response again.
      Let us use a scale for logical vs. illogical Let us say that super-logical is 10 while extremely absurd would be 0. You have a question – how is it that one man succeeds where everyone else fails? (I will not get into the accuracy of the premise of the question – I am just focusing on logicality) So you conclude that the man must be somehow divine. That is saying that since something rates a 4 on the scale of illogicality – we must conclude that the correct answer is a 0 and then we are satisfied. Do you get my drift?
      You seem to be hung up on Christianity’s acknowledgment – and you consider it a faithful and sincere acknowledgement of God’s existence and of some other truths – and you wonder how I can consider Christianity idolatrous. Fact is – Christianity is not satisfied with the worship of the One God – what else needs to be said?
      You wonder why they talk about God and acknowledge His existence? Good question perhaps – but it is no basis for redefining idolatry

      • bography says:

        Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. I receive not glory from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not? Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

        • Sharbano says:

          It more so that Moshe testifies against Jsus.

          2. If there arises among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder,
          3. And the sign or the wonder, comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them;
          4. You shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God tests you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
          5. You shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and hold fast to him.
          6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to thrust you out of the way which the Lord your God commanded you to walk in. So shall you purge the evil away from the midst of you.
          7. If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known, you, nor your fathers;
          8. Of the gods of the people who are around you, near you, or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;
          9. You shall not yield to him, nor listen to him; nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;

          We certainly do not need to fail the test. We hold fast to Our G-d. It is quite obvious that Jsus was unknown when this was written therefore he cannot be from G-d. Furthermore:

          20. But the prophet, who shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
          21. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?
          22. When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follows not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, and the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

          When Jsus spoke that the kingdom would come in that present generation he spoke falsely and therefore we are not afraid of him. Also, since he countermanded Torah, this too is reason not to heed his words. His words and the Xtian text itself testifies against itself.

          • bography says:

            Sharbono

            These texts must have been at the forefront of the minds of the Jewish leaders when they handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified. Jesus said that those who did the handing over were more guilty than those who carried out the deed. Now is your house desolate. The destruction of the temple followed in 70 AD.

          • Dina says:

            According to the historical record, Bography–and I mean extra-biblical historical sources of the time period–this event could not have taken place.

            Why do you trust the gospels to be true?

          • bography says:

            Dina, which event?

          • Dina says:

            The whole story of the Jewish leaders’ obsession with getting Jesus killed, handing him over, etc.

  96. According to the historical record, Bography–and I mean extra-biblical historical sources of the time period–this event could not have taken place.

    Why do you trust the gospels to be true?

    You don’t request extra biblical historical support for the Torah Dina, why require it of the Christians? Just asking?

    • Dina says:

      Con and Bography,

      I am not demanding extra biblical support for the Christian scriptures. All I’m saying is that the historical record shows that it is impossible for the events to have taken place. If that historical record did not contradict the gospels, even if it were silent on the matter, I wouldn’t say anything. I wouldn’t then demand that you find evidence that the gospel stories occurred from extra biblical sources.

      But there are so many other problems with the gospels, first and foremost that it introduces a type of worship unknown to our fathers.

      Another problem is its abuse of Tanach. While it appeals to Tanach, it misquotes, distorts, and quotes out of contexts verses to make them appear to support the Jesus story.

      A third problem is the one mentioned above, that it starkly contradicts the known historical record, “contradicts” being the operative word here.

      My question “why do you trust the gospels” is in light of all of that? How do you know the gospel writers were credible? Why believe anything they say? How do you know when to believe something and reject something else, as you, Con, have said you do?

      • bography says:

        Dina, your

        “How do you know the gospel writers were credible? Why believe anything they say? How do you know when to believe something and reject something else…”

        How do you know the tanach writers are credible, seeing they contradict so much of who God was genrally understood to be by other civilisations?

        • Sharbano says:

          Apparently, and most obviously, you and all other Xtians are unable and unwilling to face up to the discrepancies in your “holy words”. It is clearly evident the task CANNOT be done and the entire Xtianity community has only one recourse remaining, that is, Divert the subject, Ignore the subject or point a finger elsewhere. You are not alone in this predicament. Many a theologian or scholar has suffered in this same dilemma and were left with the exact same recourse.

        • Dina says:

          Bography, are you comparing verifiable historical facts with religious beliefs? You can’t be serious.

        • Dina says:

          Bography, notice how you changed the subject? You asked for equal standards of evidence for Tanach and Christian scripture, operating under the assumption that I was demanding extra-biblical historical evidence for Christian scripture. I showed you that your and Con’s assumption is false. Will you respond to that, directly?

          To show you what I mean by history contradicting the gospels, I’ll give two examples:

          1. The well-intentioned but weak Pilate of the gospels, who acts as a puppet of the vicious Jewish leadership, contradicts what we know of the Pilate of history. Pilate was so cruel and crucified so many Jews that even the Romans were disgusted. He was therefore recalled to Rome. The notions that Pilate would have cared about crucifying one Jew over another and that he might have been intimidated by the crowed, that he cared about the innocence of one particular victim when he showed a wanton disregard for life–all this does not mesh with the Pilate of history.

          2. The Sanhedrin had formal standards and procedures for dealing with criminal cases. They required a high level of evidence (we know this from their writings). That they would act as an unruly mob flies in the face of what we know about them from history. Christian scripture wants to have it both ways: pendantic legalists on the one hand, lawless mob on the other. We have records for the operating procedures of the Sanhedrin, and it contradicts the gospels’ version.

          We know these things from the Roman record, from historians writing in that time period (such as Josephus), and from the writings of the Pharisees themselves.

          That’s what I mean by historical, verifiable fact, as opposed to differing religious beliefs of the time period.

          If these records did not starkly contradict the gospels, I wouldn’t bring them as an argument, and I would stick to the other problems I outlined above.

  97. We can say that this much information is historically verifiable about Jesus of Nazareth from non Christian sources that weren’t interested in Christianity (hostile witnesses.)

    He lived
    He was crucified under Pilate
    His followers believed he rose from the dead and died for the belief (though this does not mean its true)
    The polytheists who believed in him became monotheists abandoning all classical forms of polytheism (although Jews still believe Christianity is still idol worship,)

    That’s what we can say for sure from non Christian sources, and the NT corroborates those notions.

    That’s as historically verifiable as any historical event can possibly be from this period, given what is written.

    • “He was crucified under Pilate”

      does paul know that jesus was crucified under pilate? why is there not a mention of pilate even once in his letters? how could a guy who talks about rulers and authorities not mention pilate?

      the best paul can do for jesus’ crucifixion is a play/demonstration and he says he has BELIEF that jesus was crucified, he didn’t say he had historical evidence for crucifixion.

      “His followers believed he rose from the dead and died for the belief (though this does not mean its true)”

      can you show where peter said , ” i am suffering for the belief that my ever-living god came back to life”

      “The polytheists who believed in him became monotheists abandoning all classical forms of polytheism (although Jews still believe Christianity is still idol worship,)”

      polytheist greeks liked stories about heroes suffering and getting crushed by powerful authorities.

      • Did you not notice that we have non Christian sources telling us that this happened to Jesus? Why would Josephus, or Pliny care about this Jesus at all, or about John? Jews say it happened, Romans say it happened, why would we even need to hear Paul say it happened with gritty detail? Paul is also a partial witness to Christian claims, so a “history” that he brings, wouldn’t be as great a source for a skeptic investigating his claims anyway. Egyptians don’t mention or document a mass Exodus of their Jewish labor force, that doesn’t stop you from believing the Exodus was real history does it? In fact, all the eggs are in one basket for Judaism’s claims. There are no sources outside of the Torah, and no non Jewish corroborating evidence that testify to a mass exodus of a claimed 2,000,000 people. The New Testament (especially Paul’s epistles) are concerned with teaching the Church. They are letters of teaching concerned with administering to the needs of the churches. Asking them to recount details of history is like asking halachic literature to recount historical details. (which it can be shown are not discussed because it wasn’t the concern of the authors, even when information was available in other sources.) These are not sources primarily concerned about historical details that can be found elsewhere. Try to find in rabbinic literature alone the historical details about the Roman Emperor Julian’s attempts to rebuild the beis hamikdash. You won’t find any.

        Pagans did not like Judaism or Christianity’s religions at all, their historians tell us as much which is why they killed so many of them. I’m sorry you find historical evidence lacking, I can say I feel the same for your claims.

        • bography says:

          Well put, CR.
          To my Jewish people, why should we believe that the written account in the Tanach of the revelation at Sinai is true? Equal measures please.

          • Sharbano says:

            One method of determining accuracy is how well a people maintained accuracy. We certainly have examples of Jewish texts maintaining their integrity in and of themselves. While this doesn’t confirm, in and of itself events, it does shed light on the integrity of the people.

            It is quite evident this doesn’t hold true of the Xtian texts. There are countless examples whereby the Xtian writer literally quotes from Jewish texts and re-writes them, misrepresenting them, distorting them and occasionally, literally, makes up a reference. This gives an insight into the character and integrity of the writer and thus calls into question their veracity in any and all matters.

            So, whenever a person wants to question the validity of any Jewish writing, realize the Jew was meticulous in their transmission whereas Xtianity is lacking.

          • bography says:

            Sharnabo,

            Your “We certainly have examples of Jewish texts maintaining their integrity in and of themselves.”

            Are you able to prove that the original text is authentic?

          • Sharbano says:

            The accuracy dates long before Xtianity came into existence. Go look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.

            Have you nothing left but diversionary tactics. It shows the lack of merit on the issues at hand.

          • bography says:

            How do you know the qumram scrolls are a faithful rendition of the original texts (many centuries before)?
            THAT is my point.

          • Sharbano says:

            I could care less WHAT your “point” is. That was Not the issue at hand. And once again, a Diversionary tactic. The ball is in Your court. It is Xtianity and its reliance on Jewish texts that are at issue. Torah didn’t take from a previous source to create a narrative and then claim to the world it must be followed. Torah does not state, go into all the world and preach. Your attempts to reduce Tanach to the level of Xtian writings as a method of comparison doesn’t raise your level to any degree. This IS a common tactic by Xtianity. I’ve seen it countless times before. The question brought forth is, let’s examine both texts and see which one stands out as reliable. If this were a court case the Xtian texts would be inadmissible as they rely on previous sources and those sources are in conflict with the evidence the Xtian text lays claim to. How are we to determine the reliability of the Jewish texts. We do have physical evidence of the meticulous nature that was employed in maintaining those texts. If an entire people are that meticulous in keeping the evidence accurate it’s logical to assume there is accuracy in events themselves which it records. This could be problematic if it Weren’t for those Dead Sea Scrolls. It is those that give Judaism more credence in the modern world.

          • bography says:

            There is no contradiction between the Tanach and the NT. Jesus said to his Jewish hearers, “unless you believe that I am he, you will die n your sins. That, naturally, and supernaturally applies to you.

          • Sharbano says:

            Unfortunately your mind is clouded by your last statement you cannot see the obvious, whereas people who rationally approach the truth see it with clarity. Take, for example, Stephen, supposedly guided by the Xtian holy spirit, erred numerous times in his rendition in Acts 7. There are clear and unambiguous contradictions to what is written in Acts and what is written in Torah. It’s literally astonishing that Stephen, who would be considered Jewish, knew so very little of the very basics of Torah. He didn’t even have a rudimentary knowledge of Torah. Go, study and learn, and don’t persist in ignorance .

          • Accuracy in a narrative Sharbano, is not the same thing as a demonstration of the legitimacy of the claims a source makes. I could have a source that documents my claimed descent from Abraham Lincoln, listing descent from father to son, but this alone does not mean that I am in fact a descendant. The argument you provide for the legitimacy of Jewish claims about the Exodus, provides a strong degree of plausibility, but this is not proof.

            You no doubt realize that Christians are also sincere and careful in their faith, from their perspective, but this doesn’t mean you accept it as true.

            It can be historically demonstrated that Christian exegetical methods and practices were not unknown in the second temple period. I am not saying or claiming that this fact makes the Christian reading true, only that the method had a degree of plausible continuity with Jewish exegesis from the past. Judaism off course, rejects this information, because it doesn’t fit Judaism’s accepted hermeneutic approach. That said, It is a value judgement you make to say that Christians are maliciously twisting the Torah. There are plenty of articles that can point out the same contradictions and inconsistencies within the Torah, but this too is a value judgement, and not necessarily true.

          • Sharbano says:

            “The argument you provide for the legitimacy of Jewish claims about the Exodus, provides a strong degree of plausibility, but this is not proof”

            Come on now; This is what others have said about misreading a comment or whatever. This is what I wrote.

            “While this doesn’t confirm, in and of itself events, it does shed light on the integrity of the people.”

            I wasn’t “claiming” any proof. The point is, who can be considered more trustworthy and truthful. The reason Torah has survived time, exiles, dispersions is the simple fact there are numerous laws regarding retaining its integrity. (Interesting that Jsus condemned the very people who are charged with this task.) Without some method it could and would not have survived these countless generations.

            Apparently a “written word” was unimportant to the followers of Jsus considering nothing was written until decades later. Who then became the arbiter of what became those texts. It certainly wasn’t philo-semites.

          • Yehuda Yisrael says:

            Bography, if you wish to discount the Tanach as being the authentic word of G-d, then you have no basis for claiming jesus being the Messiah. The reason for this is glaringly obvious. The whole concept of “the Messiah” is sourced in the Tanach. Your claim of jesus’s supposed messiahship is FULLY DEPENDENT on the infallibility of the Tanach.

            So please stop parroting Dr. Michael Brown, complaining about “equal measures.” If you wish to reject the foundation of the very concept of the Messiah, then that is your prerogative. But please don’t accuse Jews of creating a “double standard” by critiquing your supposed “historical claims” concerning jesus. The very fact that you and other christians resort to supposed “historical evidence” to try and “prove” the messiahship/deity of jesus just emphasizes the fact that you have no theological basis from the Tanach for your beliefs about jesus. Clearly, the NT contradicts the Tanach. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to fabricate such elaborate “historical evidence” for your position. Show it to me from the Tanach! Clearly, you cannot.

            Shalom

        • well put? this person seems to be repeating what other christians say.

          christians have nothing new , same old story. i can show you something new.

          all his witnesses to the crucifixion have been dealt with here

          http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/ten-reasons-to-reject-the-apologetic-1042-source-slogan/

          none of them were eyewitnesses to jesus’ , his miracles and crucifixion.

          matthew, mark , luke and john weren’t at the trial scenes they ran away . the deciples considered the womens story “idle tales”
          matthew and luke DEPEND on the words and sequence of marks narrative , not INDEPENDENT eyewitness testimony.

          the synoptic problem is dealt here

          https://archive.org/stream/synopticproblemw00good#page/n4/mode/1up

          why would paul miss out IMPORTANT details EVEN in context where story from the gospels would be expected than QUOTATIONS from torah?

          http://vridar.org/2014/02/07/casey-taking-context-out-of-context/

          go to this article at vridar and see that your arguments have been addressed. pauls silence on jesus’ whereabouts and depending on stories in the torah is a big problem.

    • Dina says:

      So what, Con? Those facts are utterly meaningless without Christian beliefs attached to them.

    • Dina says:

      On the other hand, Con, non-Jewish historical sources tell us that Judaism was already an ancient, established religion by the time Jesus came along, that Judaism introduced the concept of an ethical monotheism based on an invisible God, and that Judaism introduced the concepts of the sanctity of human life and sexual morality.

    • Dina says:

      I’m sorry, the reply button is putting my comments in the wrong place.

  98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1450614?seq=3#mobileBookmark There may be a sentence in the Yerushalmi, that alludes to Julian’s attempt at rebuilding the temple, and if that counts to anyone as corroboration, than it’s unthinkable to say that Jesus isn’t attested.

  99. “The argument you provide for the legitimacy of Jewish claims about the Exodus, provides a strong degree of plausibility, but this is not proof”

    Come on now; This is what others have said about misreading a comment or whatever. This is what I wrote.

    “While this doesn’t confirm, in and of itself events, it does shed light on the integrity of the people.”

    I wasn’t “claiming” any proof. The point is, who can be considered more trustworthy and truthful. The reason Torah has survived time, exiles, dispersions is the simple fact there are numerous laws regarding retaining its integrity. (Interesting that Jsus condemned the very people who are charged with this task.) Without some method it could and would not have survived these countless generations.

    Apparently a “written word” was unimportant to the followers of Jsus considering nothing was written until decades later. Who then became the arbiter of what became those texts. It certainly wasn’t philo-semites.

    I know your not offering proof, The point, is that you are speaking about how trustworthy the Torah is as a source, how trustworthy the people are, and at the same time, opening the Christian bible to all kinds of cross examination and scrutiny that it is impossible for a Christian or anyone else to do to your text, and your claims, because the Jewish people are the only ones that make the claim. Your claims cannot be verified independently, that’s the issue. The Jewish people may well be very trustworthy, but we can’t check your claims independently, see the problem?

    You are telling Christians who have independent attestation, who do not have to rely on Christian sources or testimony to know about Jesus, that your information is more credible because it is writing that is more internally consistent from a more honest source.

    In a way it’s like this: way back 2000 years ago, Some apparently misguided Jews brought info about Jesus to the idolatrous non Jews, got them to believe in and accept G-d and scripture (which the Torah it turns out said would happen.) As a result of this happening, and this belief, these Gentiles thought “wow that’s amazing! This really old book told us that we would abandon our old gods and have faith in the bible. We have experienced this first hand, the book must therefore be true.” Later, some real, honest Jews came and said “wait!, wait! You haven’t really come to believe in G-d, or scripture, you haven’t abandoned the gods of your ancestors, and those misguided Jesus following Jews deceived you poor idiots.”

    We are now asking, how do we know that what your saying is true? We obviously can’t trust our eyes, ears, history, etc. and we can’t trust all Jews apparently, so how are we supposed to know anything? Just because you say so?

    You can say that Jesus’ students accepted the law’s validity, and that’s fine, for them! But you have supposedly shown that even these people were gullible, and easily deceived. It’s not odd then for us to request more than your honesty is it?

  100. This could be problematic if it Weren’t for those Dead Sea Scrolls. It is those that give Judaism more credence in the modern world. So do you accept all the scrolls or not?

    These scrolls, were written and preserved by a long deceased sectarian group which espoused ideas which current Orthodox Judaism does not subscribe to at all, and sees as hopelessly wrong. Rabbi B has said that the sectarian texts aren’t kosher, but the accepted proto Masoretic texts that they preserved should lend credibility? I don’t mean any disrespect btw, I’m just seeking clarification.

    • Sharbano says:

      That’s an interesting point, of which I hadn’t fully considered. We do have examples of Torah scrolls of Jews separated by nations, without the contacts that would have easily insured their accuracy. But those are contemporary examples. It would be best to compare with the most ancient of documents. Now, if a heretical sect were that meticulous in maintaining the original how much more so of those who are adherents from the beginning. It’s not whether the sect is heretical or not, but the mere fact that transcribing according to Jewish law remained among them, which Torah did say would happen. In most every civilization this would be unheard of. Therefore, it stands out as having merit.

  101. It’s confusing to me that you can accept from them what counts as orthodox today, even though their diverse heretical views are what drove and inspired their fervent preservation.

  102. Bography
    For you to say that there is no contradiction between the NT and Tanach is to ignore numerous articles and comments on this blog which were written with the express effort of highlighting those contradictions.
    If you have come here to interact with me and with the commenters on the blog then listen to what we have to say. If the only reason you came here is to give yourself a link to your own blog – then what you are doing is unethical.

  103. Pingback: Study Notes and References | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s