Fifth Response to Gil Torres

Fifth Response to Gil Torres

Dear Gil

I want to begin by thanking you for taking the time and the effort to move this discussion forward with gentleness, sincerity and humility. When I asked for your “intention” I was not questioning your motivations – I was asking for clarification as to what you meant.

I will attempt to respond to the three points you made in response to my most recent letter. In the course of responding to your second point, I will also attempt to respond to a point that you made to Annelise. I then hope to articulate some general observations about this conversation (I refer here not to our personal conversation but the 2000 year conversation that has been going on between our respective communities).

1) You say that Jesus’ prediction of his death and resurrection and the subsequent fulfillment of this prophecy drew you to Jesus.

Allow me to articulate how this appears to me from the perspective of a Jew – because after all; the claims of Jesus were originally presented in the social context of the Jewish people.

We stand in a covenantal relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth; this through no merit of our own but on account of God’s love for our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This relationship carries a heavy responsibility with it. The ramifications of this responsibility are multi-faceted but the center of this responsibility is our relationship with God.

Every created being owes everything to the One who created them. When any person considers the shower of love from the Creator that is inherent in their very existence then their heart will certainly turn to God.

But for the Jewish people God went further. The miracles of the exodus, the Sinai revelation and the miracles in the wilderness brought the understanding of God’s mastery of creation into Israel’s heart in an unparalleled way (Deuteronomy 4:35). These events also demonstrated God’s closeness and His love for this nation in an unparalleled way.

For a Jew to worship an idol it is a repudiation not only of the love that is inherent in the creation of every being but it is also a spurning of God’s love that was poured out upon our nation in such an open and unique way.

With this in mind you can perhaps appreciate why Deuteronomy 13:2-6 (1-5) is such a critical passage. In this passage our Divine Lover warns us not to be impressed by miracles when they are being used to justify a shift in the focus of our worship.

From the standpoint of a Jew who stands in a covenantal relationship with God – a resurrection is utterly meaningless.

There is more to discuss here such as: Is the worship that Jesus encouraged a “shift in the focus of our worship”? How do we define “another god”? If any question arises concerning the application of this scripture, who, if anyone, is authorized to arbitrate and decide on this matter? Who gets to determine if the prophet is encouraging us to “stray from the path that the Lord our God commanded us to walk upon”? And finally (actually this question is the least relevant): is there any reason to believe if the resurrection actually happened? I hope to address at least some of these after I respond to the other two points you raised.

2) You say that the authority of Scripture is to be accepted on the basis of the nature of its “matter-of-fact, unapologetic” claims.

I don’t fully understand what you are saying but I will still respond. If I understand you correctly you are saying that because Scripture stands apart from other religious works (such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon) by virtue of possession of a given quality (“matter-of-fact, unapologetic”) so we must accept it.

I never read the Koran or the Book of Mormon but I would venture to guess that Moslems and Mormons would say that these books share those same qualities. This would then render my perception concerning Scripture as something that is relative and subjective. Furthermore, who said that these qualities are the ultimate determinant as to what should be the book that guides our lives? And most importantly; is this the way God, the Author of Scripture, expected us to arrive at this conclusion? Did God expect us to read every piece of religious literature and then sit back and pass judgment as to which books are authoritative and which are not? Is there any indication from the Scriptures themselves that this is the method that God utilized in order to communicate with us about the validity of Scripture?

In your comment to Annelise you justify your decision to accept Jeremiah as an authentic prophecy on the basis of his predictions coming to pass.

Here your answer is actually in line with Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:22). This still does not negate the need to rely on the testimony of the Jewish nation. If Jeremiah would have put down one prediction that did not come to fruition – we would then have to discount him as a false prophet despite the fact that some of his predictions came to pass. If Jeremiah would have encouraged the worship of another god we would also have to reject him even if all of his predictions were to be fulfilled. It is only the testimony of the Jewish people that tells us that Jeremiah fully fulfilled the Mosaic criteria that is required of a true prophet. Furthermore; without the collective testimony of the nation there is no way of knowing that Jeremiah lived, or even if he did, that this is his book, and even if he did live and that this is indeed his book, you still need someone to tell you that he proclaimed these predictions before the events actually happened – in other words you need someone to tell you that the book is an accurate record of what actually happened. Finally; you may perhaps be aware that the followers of false prophets have all kinds of answers ready when the predictions of their prophets fail to happen. How do you know that this did not happen with Jeremiah? (Just for starters; many historians would argue that the return from Babylon did not take place precisely 70 years after the exile. The criterion of “fulfilled prophecy” is not so “cut and dried” as it would appear at first glance.)

3) If I understood your point about the Scriptural narrative about Adam and Eve it could be restated as: “you cannot easily bring proof from the fact that Scripture does not mention something”.

Good and fine. It is clear that certain things are to be understood naturally, as part of the sense of justice that God breathed into all of us. Throughout Scripture we find God punishing those who violated the basic precepts of justice and morality although there were no explicit commands given to them. The worship of the Creator of heaven and earth is dictated by the sense of justice that is common to all humanity. Directing worship towards a man is the most blatant violation of that sense of justice and morality. Just because one was left unsaid doesn’t justify or compare in any way to the leaving of the other unsaid.

To add insult to injury, Christianity demands what appears to the Jews as the deepest violation of their calling as a witness nation and as a covenant nation before God – and this could be left “unsaid”?!

The burning bush, the bronze serpent and the Ark of the Covenant did not encourage any redirection of our worship. If Jesus claimed deity then he was doing just that.

I will now move to some general observations and I hope that these words add clarity to my responses and to the discussion as a whole.

Before Jesus came on to the scene, the covenantal relationship that the Jew shared with God required that the Jew not direct his or her devotion to any entity aside from the One Creator of heaven and earth.

Then Jesus came along and claimed (according to the Christian narrative) that worship ought to be directed to him, a man. By parsing various nouns and verbs Church theologians have presented abstract and convoluted arguments that this Jesus is actually “one and the same” as the God described in the Jewish Scriptures. Every one of these arguments can be used to justify the worship of a stone statue. Can the stone statue not be the “incarnation” of the divine? Is anything impossible with God? Can you limit God’s ability to do as He pleases? Not that the stone became God but that God became a stone – in order to humble Himself…

But God made a covenant with the Jewish people. A covenant that He expected them to keep and to remain loyal to. At the core of the covenant we have the Sinai revelation which taught Israel who it is that they are to worship and who it is that they are not to worship (Deuteronomy 4). According to that revelation the worship demanded by the Church is precisely the worship that God prohibited in the strongest terms.

For 2000 years (and counting) the Church has attempted to persuade the Jew to accept the claims of Jesus’ deity. What stands out to me in this conversation is the appalling lack of respect that the Church displays towards the Jew’s covenantal responsibilities before God.

The Church has exerted herself for 2000 years now to convince the Jew, millions if not billions of man-hours were spent in the attempt to argue for the deity of Jesus. Yet I know of no coherent Christian response to the teaching that God presented us at Sinai. For 2000 years the Jew has been saying, and sometimes it cost him his life to say, that the worship that the Church demands is the deepest violation of the covenant that I share with God. God Himself taught us who it is that we are to worship and according to that teaching we should not be looking at Jesus as an object of devotion. Yet the Church did not respond. Instead the Church has declared that our resistance to the message of Jesus is evidence to our lack of loyalty to God’s covenant.

Gil – this was declared BEFORE the alleged resurrection. We were already being called children of the devil and enemies of light for resisting Jesus’ claims for deity – and no one had even dreamed of a resurrection.

There is no way that the Church can reasonably expect us to take their message seriously if they can’t take our message seriously. You see, the Church acknowledges that our message was handed to us by the Maker of heaven and earth – and they can’t take the time to listen to our testimony. How then can they expect us to listen to their testimony?

I raised some questions in this letter. I addressed these issues in various articles over the years.

It is my prayer that these words bring us all closer to the God of truth



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

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 Correspondence. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Fifth Response to Gil Torres

  1. Gil T says:

    Dear Yisroel,

    Thank you for your reply. It is much appreciated. From the time I read the opening paragraph disclaimer in your article, the body of that article and your comments in this discussion I have taken offense neither to your perspective or comments about Jesus or the faith that is in him. I appreciate your discussion.

    This discussion is long and it is possible I might attribute a comment to you as being between the two of us. (I have already mistaken Annelise’s comments as coming from you at least one time. She was gracious.) If I am mistaken it is not done with malice. I will borrow two clips from your first point relative to the resurrection to connect with your second point; relative to the scriptures: a) after all; the claims of Jesus were originally presented in the social context of the Jewish people. and b) From the standpoint of a Jew who stands in a covenantal relationship with God

    First, my reference to Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones as a portent of the resurrection went without comment from you. Actually, I will consider your comment that the resurrection for Jews “is utterly meaningless” is an indirect comment. I will let the scriptures’ account of Elijah’s resurrection of the widow’s son speak to your comment. If, as your comment would seem to suggest, Israel rejected Ezekiel’s vision (a dangerous premise) of a resurrection, would they hold out and reject Elijah’s resurrection of the widow’s son, too?

    Both, the social context and the covenant relationship of Israel, as you point out quite well, were evident in Jesus’ day: There were those who believed the resurrection as well as those who did not believe in the resurrection. Both were keenly aware the concept or teaching were not introduced by Jesus who reminded them of the Elijah account (albeit, not in the context of the resurrection) as well as point out to those who did not believe in the resurrection their flawed understanding in Mark 12.

    Furthermore, his response to their scenario involving a woman who had multiple, consecutive husbands all of whom died before her own death related to their warped understanding not only of the scriptures, but of the power of God. Their misunderstanding overshadowed another matter, but seemingly of no importance to them in their scenario, of a man and a woman in marriage.

    Second, (point# 3) I believe you understood I was not suggesting the burning bush or the bronze serpent were an encouragement for Israel to redirect their worship. You extrapolated that conclusion from my words in a way I never intended and in a way I can confidently say God never intended with the creation of the bronze serpent. I think I can understand why you went there when you make a connection from something I never stated or suggested all the way over to claims of deity. So, I pose the question to you, Yisroel: What do you understand was the lesson God intended for Israel with the creation of the bronze serpent?

    By way of a general observation I will comment on your point about a redirection of worship by drawing on one of your six article links; all of which I read. (I wish people would the one or two additional links I post on my articles. haha) I am often amazed at the lack of understanding and ability to teach among preachers and teachers of the faith that is in Jesus. One such area is the insistence by many of them that Jesus was a prophet. Although I engage with them in discussion and I can refer them to my blog article on the topic they remain adamant in their insistence.

    So, it was a bit amusing to me, to hear you agree with them although I quickly remembered that we humans are just too much alike regardless of our respective faith claims. Yes, I will be quick to clarify that you see Jesus as a false prophet whose claims do not meet the standard and scrutiny of the scriptures. Yet, in your explanation as to prophets you talk about whether they are kind? honest? Was this the standard and scrutiny of Numbers 12 which you never referenced in your article, Yisroel? Furthermore, in that passage God never says anything about a prophet’s character nor what that individual will say, but HOW God will communicate with that individual through visions and dreams. You have placed your emphasis on the character of the prophet and not the scriptures. Abraham is declared in the scriptures as being a prophet, but according to his dishonest concerning his wife Sarah he fails your test of a prophet.

    Jesus never claimed nor do the scriptures ever claim he received revelation through visions or dreams. I am well aware and readily anticipate some of the familiar NT passages cited by some in support of this mistaken view of Jesus. As a matter of fact, I stated to Annelise the Jews ought rightly to have rejected Jesus had he claimed to be a prophet because -get ready- he was no more a prophet than was Moses. I do not say that to be iconoclastic or provocative, but the very context of Number 12 God clarified to Miriam and Aaron that he did not communicate with Moses as in the manner of prophets.
    Peace and blessing be upon you. Gil

  2. Yehuda says:

    Hello Reverend Torres,

    I follow Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog from time to time, and my Thanksgiving vacation has enabled me to come across this very interesting exchange.

    Forgive me for being a bit bunt (Rabbi Blumenthal is far more polite and gracious than I am) but what is it with the apparent inability to keep a statement in the totality of it’s context.

    I of course am not speaking for Rabbi B. who is more than capable of answering for himself.

    You take Rabbi B to task for his seeming dismissal;of the significance of resurrecting the dead in Jewish prophesy. Your criticize him for failing to acknowledge Ezekiel and the resurrection of the widow’s son and then you paraphrase him as saying that “resurrection for Jews is utterly meaningless”

    Rabbi B. said nothing of the sort. let us take a moment to review his exact words, whihc were as follows:.

    “With this in mind you can perhaps appreciate why Deuteronomy 13:2-6 (1-5) is such a critical passage. In this passage our Divine Lover warns us not to be impressed by miracles when they are being used to justify a shift in the focus of our worship”. From the standpoint of a Jew who stands in a covenantal relationship with God – a resurrection is utterly meaningless”.

    So to review. Rabbi B. did not say resurrection is meaningless to Jews in a general way that you have misapplied his statement. What he said was that if a resurrection is being offered as persuasion for Jewish people to adopt an alien form of worship unknown to them or their ancestors then – then! – such a resurrection is meaningless. So with all due respect I submit that it is you who have evaded the point being made. God in Deut 13 made it abundantly clear that we are not to adopt heretofore unknown forms of worship on the basis of ANY miracle proffered as evidence. No exceptions were made for resurrection. An none of the prophecies you cite (Ezekiel. et al) in any way shape or form use resurrection in the context of adopting new forms of worship.

    BTW, in addition to the various prophetic occurrences of resurrection, Jewish Talmudic tradition includes several instances of resurrection being performed by the sages of the Talmud. So again, yes, bringing a dead person back to life is an impressive display of spiritual powers by any traditional Jewish definition. It is not however nor is ANYTHING – a justification for adopting an alien and heretofore unknown form of worship as was the worship proposed by Paul. And the reason is because God warned us in the most explicit terms imaginable not to adopt any such worship no matter what kind of miracle is offered in evidence..

    Would you care to address THIS point rather than the strawman you have erected?.

  3. Gil T says:

    First, I am not troubled by, -although I looked for it- your bluntness.

    Second, I have never taken or used, have no desire or need for any title so you may possibly have me mistaken for some else whom you address in the manner as you do me. My name is Gil and it has suited fine as well as Torres.

    I have acknowledged and extended my apologies to Yisroel for what was a typo of buffoon status on my part.

    Strawman? Ah, I’m reminded of my early discussions with atheists on Orkut several years ago.

    Anyway . . . whatever the Talmud relates concerning resurrections being performed by sages of the Talmud I will not dispute that matter. I will point out what is the much overlooked matter concerning resurrections or claims of resurrections particularly as objections by Muslims.

    1) No, raising a dead corpse back to life makes neither the one raised nor the one who raised him divine, 2) No, Jesus was not the first to raise the dead as he did with Lazarus and others. The reciprocal significance of that resurrection made neither Jesus nor Lazarus divine.

    It is the implications which are for the observer to consider when an states openly and publicly before friends and foes that, 1) he will LAY DOWN his life, and that 2) he will take it up again. This, whether it is read and disregarded by anyone, is what the New Testament records from Jesus. There was no second party who was to raise up his body from the grave. Although I have numerous times no one has ever made such claims invariably someone will inform me of an obscure god, in India usually, who raised up from the dead. My question is: Who is he that no one know about him?

    As I stated in an earlier reply to Yisroel, Jesus never demanded or suggested he was to be worshiped. Similarly, he never rejected or admonished those who directed worship toward him. What Jesus always made clear was the Father was to be worshiped. I do not feel a need nor am I compelled to insist anyone worship Jesus.

    This post comes after subsequent posts by you directed towards in which I will overlook the manner in which you address me. Thank you.

    Peace to you. Gil

  4. Yehuda says:


    Sorry for any confusion about your title.

    You say: “…It is the implications which are for the observer to consider when an states openly and publicly before friends and foes that, 1) he will LAY DOWN his life, and that 2) he will take it up again.” and that no one else ever made this claim

    but a few lines earlier you acknowledged that

    “No, raising a dead corpse back to life makes neither the one raised nor the one who raised him divine,”

    So, by your own words, why should I care about his resurrection even if he predicted it.:

    But the far more important issue which has been reiterated to you in this exchange at least 5 times and which you curiously refuse to address is that Deuteronomy 13 forbids us to consider any heretofore unknown worship – even if supported by a miracle – ANY miracle.

    Why will you not respond to this critical central issue that the worship of Jesus was alien to the Jew and therefore by definition, forbidden?

    Lastly, you keep insisting you feel no need to compel anyone to worship Jesus. That is good. Glad to hear it..

  5. Dina says:


    • CP says:

      Herein the above Blog lies a precious quote in light of your reasons for claiming Yeshua a false prophet.

      You claim the sign of Jonah didn’t happen because Yeshua’s resurrection was given to a evil generation but not personally to the Pharisees.

      You claim the Temple stones left one on another failed because a retaining wall for the Temple Mount was left standing.

      Then R’B says: “The criterion of “fulfilled prophecy” is not so “cut and dried” as it would appear at first glance.”


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.