Defeatist Propaganda

Defeatist Propaganda


One of the methods that can be used to overcome an opposing force is to sow seeds of despair and hopelessness in the hearts of those who would otherwise fight. If the invader can discourage and demoralize the defending army and convince them that their fight is doomed to fail then the invader will probably win.


The same defeatist propaganda can be used to encourage someone to enter into an adulterous relationship. If the seducer can convince the victim that their spouse is a demanding perfectionist and that they can never be perfect enough for him or her then the victim is that much more likely to fall into the trap of a destructive relationship.


The masters of persuasion have employed this tool of defeatist propaganda in their effort to discourage a direct relationship with God and to encourage a destructive relationship with Jesus. Paul argues that the Law that God set down before us is an impossible law and that if one has violated one commandment then they are guilty of having violated every one of the commandments (Galatians 3:10).


In his effort to convince people of the hopelessness of observing the Law Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26. This passage expresses a curse against anyone who does not uphold the words of the Law to do them. Paul contends that this curse applies to anyone who violates any particular commandment. Since we know that man is fallible and imperfect it is obvious that every person will at some point in their life violate at least some of the commandments. This brings us to Paul’s conclusion that everyone is cursed and that attempting to observe the Law is a hopeless fight.


How do we respond to the defeatist propaganda espoused by Paul and the masters of persuasion?


In the same Book of Deuteronomy God Himself refutes Paul’s message of defeat. God assures us through Moses that the commandment He has given us is not too difficult but rather it is close to us in our hearts and in our mouths to do it (Deuteronomy 30:14). Paul recognizes that this passage in Deuteronomy undermines his campaign to discourage a relationship with God. In Romans 10:5-10 Paul presents an interpretation of this passage that can only be described as criminal. Paul uses this very passage that encourages observance of the Law as presented by Moses to discourage observance of the Law to entice people to enter into a relationship of faith with Jesus.


David and Jeremiah also speak of the centrality of obedience to God’s in our lives David says that God did not demand burnt offerings or sin offerings but rather He opened our ears (Psalm 40:7). The message is that it is obedience and submission to God that God wants and not a blood offering that is devoid of obedience. This same message is echoed by Jeremiah (7:22,23) and by Samuel (1Samuel 15:22). Paul presents the passage in the Psalms by inserting the word “body” in place of the word “ears” (Hebrews 10:5). Paul uses this very passage to discourage a direct relationship with God and as part of his insidious campaign to seduce people to enter into a relationship with Jesus.


The fact is that God gave us the Law as a gift of life (Deuteronomy 30:15). God knows that we are imperfect and that we fail (Psalm 103:14). God repeatedly encourages us that when we fail; which will inevitably happen, then the path we need to take is to return to Him and rely on His mercy. This is true both on the level of national transgression (Deuteronomy 30:2) and on the level of individual transgression (Isaiah 55:7). The curse for violating the law applies to those who rebel against God and refuse to accept His sovereignty over them and in no way does it apply to those who look towards God with sincerity and humility and with trust in His mercy (Psalm 37:11).


God is good and forgiving and abundant in kindness to ALL who call to Him (Psalm 86:5). We can be confident in the shelter of God’s wings. It is not in our own deeds that we have any confidence but it is on the abundance of God’s mercy (Daniel 9:18). And with God at our side we have nothing to fear (Isaiah 43:2). All of the propaganda of our enemies is like chaff carried away by the wind (Isaiah 41:16) and our refusal to enter into a relationship that violates our covenant with God will ultimately be vindicated (Isaiah 26:2; 49:23).

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 Atonement. Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to Defeatist Propaganda

  1. Blasater says:

    R’ Blumenthal

    Great point. It is one of my big beefs with the church. They tell us the man from Nazareth is “god”. Paul tells us “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jsus Chrst.” So according to the narrative of the Church, whatever Paul taught, is what “god” taught.

    So, here we have “god” clearly contradicting himself in a very fundamental way. G-d says we can do the law in Deut 30. David delights in the law, even though he is a “known sinner” Psalm 119. And now “god” through Paul is moving the goal posts. Telling us the law was just to show us what sin “is”. A “tutor” to lead us to “chrst”. That the law leads to wrath..etc.

    This is truly a warped vision of G-ds revelation. It prescribes to G-d a human type personality defect (G-d forbid) where he lets us flounder under an impossible salvation program, just to make a point. After telling us, it is not impossible.

    • Paul summers says:

      Hi, Was wondering if you can tell me what the very first commandmant was that was given to man?


      • melissa33774 says:

        “Be fruitful and multiply” Genesis 1:28

        • Paul summers says:

          Hello thank you for your reply, personally I think verse 28 the lord god is speaking about a provision. there are 4 provision between 28 and 30. I don’t see this as a actual commandment. the verse I was thinking of is chapter 2 verse 15 17.

      • Tsvi Jacobson says:

        Paul: When you asked your question about the first commandment I believe it showed a disrespect to Rabbi Blumenthal who stated a serious objection to Christianity. If you disagree with him state your reasons but don’t sidetrack on other issues. I will add a very important point that Rabbi Paul didn’t consider in his stating that if you break a commandment you are under the curse. God himself provided sin and trespass offerings for those who in repentance acknowledged their transgression of even one commandment (Galatians 3:10). . Since God provided the way Rabbi Paul is wrong. in saying you are guilty in not continuing in ALL the commandments to do them. (by the way the word is confirm not continue in Deut 27;26.

  2. Pingback: Defeatist Propaganda – is a New Testament Concept …

  3. naaria says:

    I receive mailings from a ministry whose main mission is to Jews and/or communities in India & Africa, like the “lemba”, “bene Israel”, “bnei Menashe”, other “lost tribes of Israel”, or other places where people are poor or impoverished. They “labor and minister in these ‘harvest fields'” of “despair & hopelessness” around the world.

    I was shocked by one funding request mailing from them that was sent out last year about this time (haShoah Remembrance Day, etc). After a couple of pages describing the modern day horrors of anti-Semitism faced by Jews in Europe (of course, over exaggerated which helps when asking for donations to a ministry), the “rabbi” or Pastor was excited and almost “giddy with joy”. Because European Jews were so anguished, so filled with “despair and hopelessness”, that they would “do almost anything to escape from this anti-Semitism, EVEN turn to Yeshua, the prince of peace”. Yes, anti-Semitism is great for funding missions, recruitment, and for conversion. “Jewish” Yeshua, a refuge from anti-Jewishness? Yes, his “solution for Jews”, in effect, was for them to stop being Jews (except, perhaps in name only – for a while). So “be killed” or convert.

    • Paul summers says:

      Well of course “be converted or be killed” is something that Jesus or the NT does not teach. Anywhere. You cannot be bullied into faith. If you was/could then it wouldnt be faith. Faith is a personal choice. You are saved by grace through faith plus nothing. You see it mentioned 275 times in the NT. Faith is inward not outward. But can be seen externally by livestyle, and by exercising faith outwardly etc.

      • Larry says:

        What does saved by “grace through faith” mean?

        • Paul says:

          Grace means, Gods grace on all humanity, which is given to all. Its His righteous gift of salvation. It is not earned and it is not a reward for being good or for doing good deeds. It is totally unmerited. It is for Jew and gentile. We do not deserve it and we do not naturally look for it. It is not given by ones own birth right, inteligence, gender, or social standing etc. But the offer is there to all who except it, because we have fallen short of the glory of God.
          The means of faith is through His Son Jesus Christ. Having faith in Him. That Jesus died on the cross as a substitutory death to pay the penalty of ones own sins. Having faith in Him that He was raised from the grave and by doing so defeated death. Faith in Jesus as Messiah Lord God and King of Israel. The only begotten Son of the Father……

          John 3 v16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. (Grace)
          And whoever shall believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (Faith)

  4. Yehuda says:

    Rabbi B.

    I was not familiar with the Romans 10:5-10 interpretation of “Ki Korov eilecha” before. (Admittedly, I’m not a “baki” in the NT 🙂 ).

    I think your categorization of it as “criminal” is charitable.

    It’s difficult to see how missionaries can look at inescapable misconstructions such as that – which not only miss the true point but fly directly in the face of the true point – and then try to defend against the charge that the NT takes things out of context with a straight face.

    Anyway, a gutten shabbos.

  5. David says:

    The original poster said:

    “The same defeatist propaganda can be used to encourage someone to enter into an adulterous relationship. If the seducer can convince the victim that their spouse is a demanding perfectionist and that they can never be perfect enough for him or her then the victim is that much more likely to fall into the trap of a destructive relationship.”

    This is just another spin on a common argument against the mediating function of Christ in an effort to highlight yet another supposed failing of Christianity.

    My response is:

    The bible is full of mediators and mediating relationships. Jesus as God’s Son and Christ is the ultimate in God’s plan but not the first.

    Did Moses employ defeatist propaganda in his mediating capacity to bring the Israelites to God, to speak for God to the Israelites and vice versa? As the mediator between man and God was Moses the enemy? Is it adultery when we come closer to God because of and/or through a mediator?

    Was Noah the enemy when he told his family to get on the boat? Because the unrighteous were saved through the actions of righteous Noah, is this adultery?

    When God sends his Angels to speak to us and we to them, is this adultery?

    You are inappropriately mischaracterizing a closer relation and reconciliation with God BECAUSE of and DUE to a mediator as adultery or something from the enemy. It was never called adultery or defeatist propaganda before and shouldn’t now. What God has sanctified man should respect. The practice of mediation was instituted by God.

    • Paul summers says:

      Well said. God calls Israel a stiff necked and wicked people. Its a good job there was a mediator and intercessor (moses) because the very nation that God saved, was going to be wiped from the face of the earth. So they repaid His grace by rejecting Him as Pagan, However He has still promised to redeem them. Now thats grace!!!
      I say thankyou Lord for mediators. what do you say Israel????

      • Larry says:

        I’m not Israel, but, I will pray to G-d and you can pray to anyone – thing you wish. If G-d called Israel Stiff necked wicked people when they were just getting to know him and as they traveled through the desert. I wonder what he would call christians who refuse to get to know him and instead worship another G-d/person/man. Some who even now pray to his mother as co medieator. You can stick with your NEW testment and I’ll stick with the original teachings. Thank you G-d for choosing a “nation of people” who you would trust and help keep your original word and teachings. Thank you R.B. for everything you do and especially how you teach.

        • Larry says:

          I meant—- Thank you Y.B. for everything you do and especially how you teach.

        • Paul summers says:

          Hello, well I cannot speak on behalf the vatican. They have the scriptures just like you. And like Israel they have there own agenders.
          You made a statement that Israel were just getting to know God! Thats a weak and somewhat a imature remark. If a couple just got married and a few days into the new married life one of them had an affair, and the excuse was “sorry im still getting used to this marriage thing, its all a bit new” I hardly think that answer is good enough! Do you???
          Deut ch31 v 16. I think God in His wisdom has all the bases covered. What say you?
          One thing I always read in the OT is God warning Israel to stop worshiping and following pagan gods. Which at most they failed to heed Gods command. He then states the promises if you fail. Disease,dispersion, sword etc. The question is if Isarel are following God, then why the problems that Jews have had and are still having? Where is your King, priest, temple service and land and of course Messiah? The warnings and consequences are very clear. The world at large do not like jews. ( Not my own view) !! Ive worked for the IDF, but you see my point. So Jesus wasnt Messiah and you are following the God of Israel and you are living in the land as promised with all the blessings?
          Shalom. X

          • Larry says:

            It’s not ok for Israel to worship pagan gods but it is ok for you? Good luck with that.
            You may not like Rome and their agenda but remember they teach that Peter the rock, was their first Pope. Most that you believe is their invention. Ps I do not live in Israel, San Jose calif.

          • Paul
            I love it when Christians harp on the sins of Israel as recorded in the JEWISH Bible – all nations sin – the difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism reveres men and women who highlight their own sins and the sins of their own nation and canonized their critical words in the Jewish Bible – Christians revere a man who highlighted the sins of his opponents and these slanderous words were canonized into the Christian Bible – keep on talking – you are just testifying to the world what happens when you deify a man who believed that he was sinless but that everyone else (who didn’t like him) is a brood of vipers and a band of hypocrites

    • David
      Seduction for adultery is when you demand the devotion that belongs to a spouse for yourself – Moses, Noah and the angels did not demand anyone’s worship and devotion – the Jesus of Christianity did

  6. David says:

    The core of my argument was and is to show that God is the author of the concept of mediation and mediators.

    Therefore the characterization of mediator as applied to Jesus is appropriate, and wholly good and holy, and most importantly, is from God himself. To criticize mediation is to criticize God who is the author of mediation.

    Regarding the separate argument of the original poster of the issue of worship of another in place of God and/or as if he were God, which he characterizes as adultery; that is a valid debate to continue with. I think he makes some good points there although he goes overboard in his criticism, piling on as it were.

    Judaism is correct in saying the Trinity is erroneous theology. But Judaism fails to correctly understand the special mediating function of Christ and erroneously also characterizes this aspect of Christ as an extension of paganism.

    So Judaism makes the grave error (or perhaps even graver error) in throwing the baby out with the bath water (that being the mediator Jesus).

    Continuing with the argument of mediation as it applies to Moses and Jesus:

    Moses was a prophet unlike any other. As God says in Numbers 12, When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face – clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD.

    Throwing out Jesus is the equivalent of the Israelites rejecting Moses and attempting to go back to Egypt. If that had happened there’d have been NO communication from God to the Israelites because there was NO alternative mediator sent from God. You can’t pick and choose your mediator. God sends His mediators, not man. Our job is to listen to God through His mediator. God has destroyed those who have attempted to lead God’s people away from His chosen mediator.

    Remember what happened in the revolt of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 leaders of the congregation who conspired against and confronted God’s mediator Moses. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram went down to sheol and the other 250 were consumed by the fire which came out from the LORD.

    Thereafter, Moses continued in power with God’s holy spirit to represent God to the Israelits and Israelites to God. Likewise, it is a dangerous thing to say the least to attempt to lead others away from God’s mediator Jesus. The chief priest, Pharisees, and teachers of the Law revolted against God’s mediator Jesus. God raised Jesus from the dead. God didn’t raise the chief priests. That should tell you which side to be on. Taking the side of Jesus is taking the side of God, just as taking the side of Moses was taking the side of God.

    • David
      Don’t you think its funny that Korah went down in front of everybody – teh only people who think they saw Jesus resurrected were those who had already completely committed themselves to him?

      • Paul summers says:

        Is it still adultery if its all new and you were just getting to know This new way???!!!

        • naaria says:

          Ananias & Sapphira were greater sinners. I wonder how many others then gave all their money to their commune and “forgot to honor their mother and father”, like Jesus accused other Pharisees of doing?

      • Paul summers says:

        Hello. Well thats A answer but not grounded in any truth or consistancy. Are you then stating that you have to actually see judgement from God for it to actuslly hsppen? Yes the ground opened and they died but the ground doesnt open for all who rebell.
        The NT never states or implys that all believed in the ressurected Christ pre death. The disciples were unbelieving at first, and some still doubted at the accension. The 2 on the rd too emmaus were not seeing until there EYES were opened! Seeing Messiah according to the scriptures. Jeshua said to thomas ” blessed are them who have not seen (physically) but believe. The NT is not shy on recording how men are so weak in faith. If the NT was written by frauds it would tell a different account.

        • naaria says:

          You don’t need that much faith to either be righteous or perfect. And bodily resurrection, which no one actually witnessed, is not what is being described on the road to emmaus or the spirit that went through walls. Thomas is different in different gospels and according to John, many of the disciples “went home” and are never mentioned again. Some went back to fishing in Lake Kinnereth, because the “resurrection and ascension” so impressed them. It is hard to believe that some texts were written by men “who didn’t believe what they wrote”, as you seem to suggest. But some NT writers do write that some other believers who wrote were heretics, frauds, and forgerers and they told a different account (or perhaps the account selected by the Roman church that you have faith in). Soon, after that, many of the Christian martyrs would be killed by other Christians.

          • Paul says:

            Hi, Sorry a little late on reply.
            1. Well of course being perfect and righteouness are not requirments to be saved. Just Faith in Him is required. (grace through faith)
            2. Why state no one witnessed the ressurection, when over 500 did.
            3. The ressurected Messiah was not a spirit.
            4. Yes some went back to their normal way of life. But they were told to just wait for the comforter to come. Its only then at Pentecost was the church actually born and all disciples were given power from on high. Then the gospel was preached. They couldnt do anything in there own strenght until then.
            5.All four gospels were written by the four who believed. It was nt written by non believers!
            6. Who are these frauds who wrote a different account?
            7.Why state I believe in Rome when I dont.
            8. True believers in Jeshua do not go around killing!, can you please explain that comment.

          • Blasater says:

            Paul wrote: “Just Faith in Him (jsus) is required. (grace through faith)”

            Are you sure Paul? I dont see any coherent statement within the NT. John 3:16, seen all over the place. Belief only….Then there is “believe and be baptized” and then you have Apostle Paul’s mini-torah. He lists many things and commands them, if they DO these things….they will NOT be saved.

            19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

            3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

            9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

            See, it isnt as simple as grace through faith…or simple belief. There are things a person can not do!

      • David says:

        There’s a reason why he appeared mostly to his followers. Even they didn’t fully comprehend at the time of his death what it all meant. He, Jesus, had to explain it all to them through scripture after His resurrection. And because they were witnesses and wrote it down do we also understand. So you can now make an informed decision, to believe or not. It was not written that He would appear to the whole world at that time. That happens later.

        Regarding other evidence, have you read the account of the guards who reported what they saw to the chief priests? In the end you either believe in the scriptures and that He, Jesus, is the one spoken of or you don’t

        Luke 24:25 – 27 And he said to them “O unthinking ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and then to enter into his glory?” And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

        44 – 47 “These are my words that I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled that are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.” Then he opened up their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise out from among the dead the third day, and the repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

        John 20:30 Then Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in this book, but these are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

        • Yehuda says:

          Paul and David,

          I’m guessing that neither of you accept the the Book of Mormon as being a true testament that clarifies the real truth about God and Jesus.

          And if I am right in my guess, can you give me a concise explanation (a few sentences) as to why you do not?


          • David says:

            I never really thought about it. What I found out just now in about 1 minute of research on the internet (which I gather you already knew) is that the Book of Mormon has been proven to be full of errors and has been in a state of continuous corrections.

            But for me personally more than that, any prophets new or old and/or prophecies have to have what I call a chain of custody from God in the form of either witnesses or prophesies and confirmation from God in the form of miracles. Jesus had that and the so called prophet, Joseph Smith, who supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon through divine inspiration, had neither a chain of custody nor miracles from God to authenticate his prophet status.

            The only exception to the chain of custody would be the first prophet to transpose God’s word into the written language, that being Moses of course. In the case of Moses, God displayed an abundance of miracles to make up for the lack of a chain of custody of prior prophesies and prior witnesses concerning him.

            That’s the technical reason why I believe what I believe. But the technical reasoning only supports a deeper belief in God and His son Jesus which comes from the heart.

            In the end I think we all believe, you and me included, what we want to believe and then we justify it by whatever means makes the most sense to us. You’ll never convince me and I’ll never convince you. That, I think we can both agree on. I can show you all the evidence in the world and you’ll tell me why it’s wrong. And you can show me all the evidence in the world and I can tell you why you are wrong.

          • Yehuda says:


            Thanks you for your response.

            You said: “But for me personally more than that, any prophets new or old and/or prophecies have to have what I call a chain of custody from God in the form of either witnesses or prophesies and confirmation from God in the form of miracles.”

            So I take that to mean that chain of custody means means both A and B where:

            A is
            i) witnesses or
            ii) prophesies, i,e, correct predictions, and

            B is miracles

            Do I have this correctly? If so, what exactly are “witnesses”? Witnesses to what?

          • Yehuda says:

            Also, As to your following comment:

            “In the end I think we all believe, you and me included, what we want to believe and then we justify it by whatever means makes the most sense to us. You’ll never convince me and I’ll never convince you. That, I think we can both agree on. I can show you all the evidence in the world and you’ll tell me why it’s wrong. And you can show me all the evidence in the world and I can tell you why you are wrong.”

            That is probably true, but what often get’s overlooked in these discussions is that neither I nor Jews in general have any intention or agenda in trying to convince you of anything. By contrast many Christians (not necesssarily you) do want to convince me of what they believe. And that places a burden of proof on them that:

            1) is based on and is consistent with the Hebrew bible which is the only scripture we both accept as sacred, and

            2) is sufficiently inescapable to overwhelm the risk of idolatry which is the issue at stake.

        • David
          Your original point was that God demonstrated that Korah was wrong and that Moses was right – my point is that God did NOT do the same for Jesus – all you have is a book written by people who were already comitted to him – if you want to ignore the fact that this book was written by people that were so deeply affected – that’s your choice – but don’t expect other people to call it “evidence”

          • David says:

            Yourphariseefriend wrote:

            Your original point was that God demonstrated that Korah was wrong and that Moses was right – my point is that God did NOT do the same for Jesus – all you have is a book written by people who were already comitted to him – if you want to ignore the fact that this book was written by people that were so deeply affected – that’s your choice – but don’t expect other people to call it “evidence””

            Isn’t that just like the pot calling the kettle black – “all you have is a book written by people who were already committed to him.”

            So what is the argument that so many give for not accepting the God of Israel? Isn’t it something like: all you have is a book written by people who were already committed to him? Where’s your God, so they ask. He only exists in your book, so they say. The items written such as the ten plagues in Egypt, if true, are nothing more than mere coincidences and do not prove anything let alone a God, so they say.

            Your problem is that we’re in the same boat regarding credibility but you just don’t know it and don’t accept it.

            That’s why we have so many varied beliefs and faiths and non-faiths in the world. Even within Judaism as with Christianity there are now and have been a wide variance of beliefs.

            If Judaism were so clear cut and provable we’d all be Jews. And same could be said of Christianity as well a Islam, as well as non-God beliefs etc.

        • Blasater says:

          David wrote “Your (Judaism’s) problem is that we’re in the same boat regarding credibility but you just don’t know it and don’t accept it.”

          That it simply not the case. The church claims that man from Nazareth was god in human form. Yet this god-man did not bother to write one single word of his own. He did not bother to hire a scribe. He did not have even a disciple write anything down. The “Gospels” were handed down by oral tradition for 2 generations before being committed to paper…in Greek…the language of the pagans. Why would “god” in the era of pen and parchment, not write one word? Why would he leave the four gospels in such a mess? Matt is littered with errors. John has hellenist written all over it, “luke” was a greek and Mark has his own issues too. Let alone the Pauline debacle.

          At least in Jewish doctrine it was G-d Himself who wrote the 10 commands…in Hebrew.

        • Blasater says:

          David wrote: “Did Adam? Did Noah? Did Abraham?” (write their own words)

          They didnt have pen and parchment like Jsus…did they. Even G-d had to write in stone. But eventually it was put on parchment and that had exited for 100’s of years by the time Jsus…god in the flesh…appeared, yet never recorded a single word of his own. Strange. He could stopped a lot of future bloodshed if he would have taken the time. Dont you think?

      • David Kaufmann says:

        I think it is interesting that the devotees of J waited 50 days after his death (at which point the corpse would have been both well rotted and unidentifiable!) before revving up before the public and alleging that J was resurrected! Does anybody find anything kinda suspicious about that??
        Regarding the defeatism of christianity, in addition to the “you cannot keep the law and you are already hopeless” ideas, shall we discuss the great big devil and his army of demons which drags 99% of all the people who have ever lived to the eternal burning hell because they don’t “believe in Jesus,” all in the face of the god who “is not willing that any should perish!” ? Or perhaps the “rapture” which evacuates the christians from the evil world which “god” simply cannot snatch back from that big devil? Or the philosophy that with gleeful horror delights in the disasters and evil in the world as a sign that “Well, this means that Jesus is coming soon and we’ll be gone from here, leaving those poor schmucks who did not believe in Jesus to go through unbelievable torments! Well, their fault! They should have given their hearts to Jesus… Like WE did!…. so sorry!”
        I KNOW about all this stuff of christianity! I lived neck deep in it for 50 years before I discovered my Jewish roots (Both my mother and father) and rediscovered Who G-d REALLY is, does and expects and gives! Sorry christians! You have NOTHING to offer me!

        • David says:

          Remember that the witnesses to Christ’s 3 year ministry on earth and resurrection are Jews. They were seeing and believing within their Judaism system of faith. They preached with the power of God in the Temple the good news of God from scripture and their first-hand accounts of how God’s plan was being fulfilling in their time. But they, like Jesus were eventually treated much the same as the prophets of old.

          Regarding the biblical account of how we get to life in the age to come and where it is, there is the rapture of the Christian Church, the resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust (in that order) and we live on the earth.

          Job was excited (he said, “how my heart faints within me”) about being in the “flesh” and seeing God for himself at the time of his own resurrection after his death.

          Isaiah 26:19 Your dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. Oh dwellers of the dust, awake and sing for joy!

          We will have a “body” like Christ’s body, like His glorious body even now, flesh and bones and live on the earth.

          The rapture doesn’t “evacuate” anyone from the earth. The raptured church “meets” Christ in the air, but doesn’t “leave” the earth to go live somewhere else. It at that time is then His army along with His angels, so the church and angels become the “armies” of Christ. They all come to earth together and conquer the earth during the time of the tribulation. Then after the time of tribulation when the earth is conquered, begins Christ’s 1000 year reign on earth, and the resurrection of the just. After that is another battle and the resurrection of the unjust.

  7. Larry says:

    Yawn. You can only throw something out that you own David. Owning, /worshiping a pagan god would be adultery.

    • Paul summers says:

      Are you stating that you own God?

      • Larry says:

        Yes, you would own the belief in Jesus as g-d.

        • Paul summers says:

          response to “VIPERS” comment.
          When Jesus sat, talked and eat with the tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners in general. How did the Pharisees respond? With love and compassion, or was He rebuked for mixing with the undisirables? Jesus mixed with all classes. It was at most the average person who excepted Him. It was the Leaders who hated Him. Why??? Because they had taken the law of moses and corrupted it for there own ends, pharasaric law not mosaic law. 1500 added laws to the sabbath alone.
          Love the Lord God with all your heart and love your neigbour.
          Brood of vipers, hypocrites??? I think so!!

          • Larry says:

            Think so huh? Careful, if you get caught up with your thinking, you’ll become a victim of your thinking.

          • Paul
            how do you know who accepted and who rejected Jesus? how do you know what their reasons were? All your information comes from a book that was written by people who were already comitted to Jesus – and the product is a book that demonizes their opponents – I would be suspicious

          • naaria says:

            Where were the Pharisees in the land of the gentiles, the Galilee, and why were they mixing with all these classes of people? If the Pharisees were such “sinners” and undesirables, why didn’t Jesus concentrate on them (not just those Pharisee followers of Jesus mentioned in the gospels or acts), so that they could witness to the Herodians, the Sadducees, the pagan Romans & soldiers in Judea (where most of the opposition to the pagan enemies of God, cruel taskmasters, were stationed)? Why were pagans in Tyre & Sidon, so much more receptive to unbiblical, disgusting ideas like “drinking blood and eating the flesh of a man”, and yet this “hotbed of those who presumably had such great faith in Jesus” remained a region of sinners that never became a great center of Christianity?

  8. Paul says:

    Again your answers seem so obsurd! You state that a book was written by comitted believers. Well that seems pretty obvious to me, I hope it was LOL!!, who else would write it non believers??!! Would pagans write the OT????????????????????
    Should the scribes have written the life and ministry of Jeshua?

    It was actually the Pharisees who demonized Jeshua, not the other way round. Many times Jesus cast out demons.Show me a scripture contary to this.

    You will see Jeshua Lord and God in all the scriptures. I wouldnt follow the words of the pharisees and folklore of the sages in Talmudic writings. I would be suspicious.
    Question…………. Do you think Jeshua response to the leaders was justified when Jeshua over turned the tables in the temple?

    • Paul
      You are reading a work of propaganda – no other factor works to influence a person’s “read” on life as does devotion to a leader – I ask you Paul – if someone claimed to be God – BEFORE a resurrection and BEFORE fulfilling any prophecies – woudl you believe in him? What would you say about people who would accept such a claim?

      • Paul summers says:

        Well thats a question not an answer,. How about a answering my question??

        So for the 2nd time, “was Jesus lawful to overturn the tables in the temple compound”

        I have a good idea what your answer will be.
        Answer that I will show you the same respect and answer yours.

    • naaria says:

      if Jesus was upset enough to overturn tables in a “failed attempt to cleanse” his & his Jewish brothers Father’s house, what concern did he show to the much greater abominable actions of the pagan Roman Generals (and later Roman Emperors) Vespasian and Titus? Why is one NT text named “Titus”?

      Outside of the NT, where is there evidence that Pharisees (which means “separated ones”) lived in the Galilee, the “land of the Gentiles” or the Hellenized Decapolis or “mixed” with non-Torah observant people and associated with those “pagans”? Why would these “legalists” & “Temple fanatics” be so far from their beloved Temple in Jerusalem?

      Some NT writers do admit that some of the followers of Jesus were heretics and some were even “anti-Christs” and some of his followers even forged letters from Paul (some Christian scholars only accept 7 of Paul’s letters are “authentic”). Many, many apocalypses, letters, “acts”, teachings, gospels, and other writings were written by early followers of the Christ Jesus, but Rome (or Alexandria, or the Syriac or the Coptic Church, etc) accepted (200+ years after Jesus) only a very small fraction of those writings as “authentic” and not heretical. Since the early church fathers & the early “churches” often disagreed greatly with each other on what was scripture and what “was of the devil”, how confident are you that Rome selected the right few texts and taught the right teachings for the next 1000-1500 years?

      There are many contradictions in the NT, so if the texts are “inerrant”, then we must conclude that Jesus was a hypocrite. For how often Paul contradicts Jesus, see the Bet Emet Ministries websites (as believers of Yeshua, they at least can cause great doubt or confusion among a good majority of believers).

      • Paul summers says:

        For the 3rd time now?!
        Ill make it easy.

        Y = Yes
        N = No.
        No long and going around in circles answers required. X

      • Paul summers says:

        Show me one contradiction.

        • Blasater says:

          Matthew 1:2―15 – His list of generations does not agree with l Chronicles Ch. 1―3
          Matt. 1:16 – Trying so hard to make Jesus appear to come from David’s lineage that he ignored Jewish law. The Hebrew bible states that a Hebrew’s genealogy and tribal membership is transmitted exclusively through one’s PHYSICAL father, never the mother. (Numbers 1:18 Jeremiah 33:17)
          Matt.5:43 – had Jesus say, “thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.” Leviticus 19:18 does not mention any enemy, only “…love thy neighbour as thyself.”
          Matt. 15:11 – “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Contradicted by all the dietary laws in the Hebrew bible.

          Matt. 1:23 – Mistakenly uses the Septuagint word for virgin instead of Hebrew “HaAlma”, the young woman.
          Matt. 1:23 – Misquotes Isaiah 7:14, “they” will call Jesus Immanuel, whereas Isaiah wrote “his mother” would call him Immanuel – not “they.” Jesus was not named Immanuel.
          Matt. 3:3 – Misinterprets and alters Isaiah 40:3 – “Prepare the way of the Lord.” Not so.
          Matt. 4:15 – Added “Galilee of the Gentiles” to Isaiah 9:1―2. Not in the Hebrew Tanakh (OT).
          Matt. 8:17 – Took Isaiah 53:4 out of context – Isaiah was relating to a leper (nagua).
          Matt. 12:17―21 – Taking Isaiah 42:1―4 out of context – the Servant was Israel four times. And then changes verse 21 to read: “and in his name shall the gentiles trust” (Isaiah 42.1―4).
          Matt. 13.14―15 – Took out of context Isaiah 6:9―10 of people being “blind”

          Matt. 2:5―6 – Misinterprets Micah 5:2 ― the Messiah coming from Bethlehem. It was David a Bethlemite, born in Bethlehem and from his seed would come the messiah.
          Matt. 2:15 –Taking Hosea 11:1 out of context, Jesus being called out of Egypt. It was Israel who was called out of Egypt.
          Matt. 2:17―18 – Distorts meaning of Jeremiah 31:1―17 of Rachel weeping. Rachel doesn’t weep for martyred children.
          Matt. 11.10 – By changing the pronoun in Malachi 3.1 “before ME” or “before YOU”?
          Matt. 13:35 – The Christ will speak in parables – distorting Psalm 78:2
          Matt. 21:1―7 – Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time – good trick ― (Zechariah 9:9)
          Matt. 22:43―44 – Capitalizes the second lord – altering the meaning of Psalm 110:1 There are no capital letters in Hebrew.
          Matt. 23:35 Mistakenly gave Zechariah’s father the wrong son. Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada, not Barachiah. II Chronicles 24:20――21
          Matt. 27:9 – Quoted the wrong prophet ― was not Jeremiah but Zechariah
          Matt. 27:9 – Book of Zechariah was never about any “potter’s field”

          Matt 2.12 – Contradicts Luke about going to Egypt after Jesus’ birth.
          Matt 9:9 – Becoming one of the 12 conflicts with Luke and John.
          Matt 27:57-66 ― Disagrees with Mark, Luke and John at the “burial scene”

          Matt Chapter 2 not verified by any other writer and not logical
          Matt 2:16 – Got mixed up about Pharaoh & Herod’s Killing of the innocent babies (read the infanticide in Exodus 1:15―22 regarding Pharaoh being told of the Messiah)
          Matt 2:23 – Jesus dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene”. No prophet ever said this.
          Matt 23:37 ― [thou] that killest the prophets. Which prophets did the Jewish people kill?
          Matt 27:51 ― And behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain – event never happened
          Matt 27:52 ― The graves were opened and the dead went to Jerusalem – never happened
          Matthew 9:9 ―The author wrote in the third person. This was unusual as no other author wrote that way. Makes one wonder if Matthew himself wrote this book.

          • Paul says:

            There is alot to reply to here, so I will go one step at a time;
            Time is against me, so I will give you a scripture to ponder over. Jeremiah ch 22 v24-30.
            Now read the genealogy of Christ in Matthew and tell me what do you see.
            If you read Lukes account it wil be different in parts. Theres a reason for that.
            Finally looking at your statement about Fathers in Jewish culture, I agree with you. But read Gen 3 v15. Who is God speaking to. Adam or Eve?

          • Blasater says:

            Paul wrote : “Jeremiah ch 22 v24-30.” (regarding the cursed line)

            Yes, Paul, Michael Brown and many others make the argument that the curse was lifted. It was not lifted. Coniah (Jeconiah)’s curse was only partially lifted to that of a governorship….He nor his descendants ever sat on the throne of David….

            Luke has Jsus descended through Nathan…not Solomon. No can do. It must be Solomon. It is said that Luke is Mary’s line, but the text does not ever say that it is Mary…only Joseph.

          • Paul says:

            Hi, Well at least we are on the same subject here. And I think we agree on something. I wasnt pointing or saying that the curse was ever lifted. Ive never thought it was. Thats quite new to me. Not sure what people mean? Anyway The point of the text is excatly the oppersite. Joseph couldnt be the natural Father of Jeshua, because if he was his natural father then Jeshua could not claim the right to the Davidic throne. Ref the Jeramiah text.
            Matthews geneology shows why Jesus could claim the right but not through a natural father. (ie virgin birth)
            You have to see it as it was written. The english language is strange in translation. But the original greek highlites the english error, We do not use the word “THE” before a definite article name…. ie THE MATTHEW, THE LUKE” but if you read the original, greek all names in the geneology do have the word “THE” and this correct in keeping with greek grammar. On further reading the text you will see that Joeseph names appears with the word “THE” missing. So the reader will understand that the heritage comes from the mothers side not the fathers. This is done keeping in line of Jewish law. The mothers name couldnt be used. So the word “THE” directed the reader to whos line the child was born. And in this case it was Mary. This will help you understand the Solomon/Nathan question.

            Ezra 2;61 Nehemiah 7;63 are other texts that verify this example of Jewish law.

          • Blasater says:

            Even if Mary’s genealogy is presented it doesnt save the christian narrative. Tribal affiliation is only through the father. So, even if Mary was of the tribe of Judah and Jsus had no tribe from his father, he cant get it from his mother. Let’s say that a child is orphaned at birth and has no known parent. And he is adopted by a woman from a Cohen tribe, can he be a priest? No, he can not. Likewise, Jsus without a father could not be adopted into Mary’s line. (And it has to come through Solomon anyway…not Nathan…Luke is still invalid there)

    • David says:

      And this is for you:

      Accept that others are entitled to their own opinion, just like you. What are you afraid of, that a Jew might think for him or herself?

      • Blasater says:

        David– Two simple questions for you.

        1) Where in Tanakh (OT) is even one verse that says that messiah will end the law?
        2) Where in Tanakh, is even one verse that says that messiah will do (fulfill) the law on our behalf?

        • David says:

          Here’s a simpler question for you.

          Where in either the OT or the NT does it state that a Christian is confined to the OT?

          • naaria says:

            Most of the scripture that is mentioned in the NT is the “OT” or non-canonical writings. Of course, some Christians, like Marcion, rejected ALL of the “OT” or Hebrew Bible. And most others, used Greek translations of the Hebrew text or read the “OT” as allegory and not as the literal Word of God.

          • Larry says:

            Christians aren’t mentioned in the so called Old Testament. There are warnings about about worshiping false gods though.

          • Larry says:

            I would like to hear your answer to blaster question

          • Blasater says:

            David wrote “Where in either the OT or the NT does it state that a Christian is confined to the OT?”

            Try Deut 4 and 13. Chapter 4 lays out G-ds nature. Chapter 13 (and 18) G-d gives us a test by which all future “claims” can be checked.

            You seem to be making the argument of a Mormon. So it is okay that Mormons added books to the NT? I guessing what you dont like about the Mormons, you think is okay for the church to do to the Jews.

  9. David says:

    Yehuda wrote:

     Yehuda
    “…what often get’s overlooked in these discussions is that neither I nor Jews in general have any intention or agenda in trying to convince you of anything. By contrast many Christians (not necesssarily you) do want to convince me of what they believe.”

    I think many Jews on this blog (especially yourphariseefriend) try to “convince” other Jews on this blog that Jesus and Christianity are bad. And of course they are entitled to their opinion. But I’m entitled to mine too and I have a right to defend both Christianity and Jesus with the truth by pointing out propaganda and lies when I see it.

    • Yehuda says:

      Like I said, you’re entitled to your opinion.

      I note for the more discerning readers, that after David quoted me and the distinction I made he made no effort to deny it’s basic accuracy. Something to think about.

      And as for trying to convince Jews that “Jesus and Christiniity are bad”, I think you miss the point. What yourphariseefriend and me and others on the blog do is try to explain why Jesus and Christianity are irreconcilable with Judaism. And if you are a Jew, such pursuits are indeed bad for you, but no more or less bad than say Hinduism or any other belief that deviates from the Torah.,

      • David says:

        I admire your support of your phariseefriend.

      • Paul summers says:

        Hello. Sadly Judaism does not excist anymore. Without a temple or priest your LAW cannot operate. The temple, priest and LAW were all consecrated with blood. On a daily, weekley, festival basis. If the system stood then, then by right today also!!

        • Yehuda says:


          During the Babylonian exile the Temple lay in ruins and the priesthood ceased to function.

          Were Ezekiel, Daniel, and Haggai mistaken in their belief that Judaism continued to exist?

          • Paul summers says:

            Hi, no of course not, and I see your point. But of course, then those periods of time were only on a temp basis. As per Gods written word. ie 70 yrs etc. these were small periods of time. Since 70 AD, thats over 2000 yrs !!! It staggers me that your whole biblical period was centred around the promised land, temple service etc and today you have in affect nothing as such. In Deut God warns Israel about the punishment for following pagan gods etc. If Jeshua is pagan and you do not believe in Him, then what god/gods are you following? It cant be Adonai because He said He will bless you. If you are blessed as per scripture why arent you living in Israel as per scripture. I get the impression that most Jews seem to like the idea of being victims , and more victimised you become Messiah will come, and not waking up to the fact that your present situation is down to fact that you rejected Messiah for being in league with satan.
            Only the Lord God of Heaven Adonai through His grace can show you the truth.

          • Yehuda says:


            So let’s be clear then. You are willing to modify your position that Judaism CAN exist in the absence of a Temple and sacrificial rights. But you believe that it can only be “temporary”

            Good. I agree.

            Did the Torah say that the punishments of exile can only happen once and for 70 years?

            Jews today continue to believe that our current situation – which we acknowledge to be sub-optimal is indeed temporary. In fact the very sections of Deuteronomy that you point to describing our punishments also culminates (see deut 30) with Gods assurance that we will ultimately be redeemed and vindicated. Exile periods as described in the Torah have no time limits on them and the biblical prophecies – especially Ezekiel’s temple prophecies – describing the period are obviously in the future as they have not been fulfilled.

            So in the final analysis, your issue here is only about at our belief that this sub-optimal state could last 2,000, That is a matter of your personal incredulity rather than a biblical objection. So it’s not our problem.

            Also, I’m always mystified about the fact that open-ended exiles in the Torah are problematic to Christians when they last 2,000 years, but Jesus promise to return within a generation being 2,000 years is not a problem. Maybe it’s just me.

            The balance of your remarks, namely:

            ” If Jeshua is pagan and you do not believe in Him, then what god/gods are you following? It cant be Adonai because He said He will bless you. If you are blessed as per scripture why arent you living in Israel as per scripture.”


            ” I get the impression that most Jews seem to like the idea of being victims , and more victimised you become Messiah will come, and not waking up to the fact that your present situation is down to fact that you rejected Messiah for being in league with satan.”

            are just classic anti-semitic tropes

            The balan

        • naaria says:

          Are you saying you that an “ism” can be a phantom? Then why do you object to something that does not exist? Paul (in the NT) gave some conditions, whereby if they were not true, then faith in Jesus would be absurd, could be proven a lie, and would be a blasphemy to God. The NT says that Jesus indeed was a phantom. Not everyone could see him. Only if someone’s “eyes were opened” could they see him, which is a claim like, “if only someone ingested ergot or LSD could their eyes be opened” to “reality”. It is saying he was a “subjective reality”, not a real reality. More like a belief like that of a few “star trekkies”? Like those who believe a certain reality so much that they learn “the Klingon” language? Jesus had to “teach his own disciples” that he was “resurrected”; they didn’t experience him as a bodily resurrection, they were told what to believe. He supposedly could walk beside them as an apparition, who disappeared before their eyes, as soon as their eyes “were opened”? That is why some of his own followers could no longer followed him in the days and weeks ahead. Only select few could still “believe” in him, and it was their subjective faith that made him “real”. But even that faith soon died and he was only an idea to those few.

  10. David
    Where did I say that you don’t have a right to your opinion – you could believe what you please – My objective on this blog is to demonstrate how Judaism is rooted in truth – while those who demonize us are not – if you don’t want to be confused by the facts or by logic – you came to the wrong place

    • David says:

      On the contrary, your objective on this blog is to disparage Christianity and speak ill of its founder. You twist the truth and publish it as if it were the undisputed truth.

      I expose your error and hypocrisy. You accuse me of either demonizing you or being confused.

      • naaria says:

        How can one not “disparage” Christianity when it so disparages the Hebrew Bible, which supposedly it was supposed to be based upon? Or how can one not speak ill of its “founder” (a man “founder” vs. a God Creator) and hold on to Truth that existed before Roman propaganda or Hellenism shaped the way many today think? When it’s founder speaks so ill of his own brothers and sisters (and Father & Mother) with so little evidence, with so much venomous hate (that we could only expect from an Edomite or a Babylonian or a Roman General or Emperor dictator who claimed to be a god & demanded worship from Jews, who would rather die than bow down in worship to a man, or a statute, or a god in human flesh), so little love or compassion, so little forgiveness? So little tolerance (or was it ego) that he cursed a tree? And soon he was cut off & forsaken?

        For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

        What is wrong with loving the Father? Wanting a direct relationship with God? Especially for those who strive or sincerely attempt to be worthy Daughters and Sons of God?

        • David says:

          At least you admit it unlike some others.

          But don’t you find it unjust if not hypocritical that you and other Jews led by myphariseefriend who support the practice of disparaging a religion and speaking ill of others, are never invited to leave this blog? While people like me who don’t agree with the practice and who are on the receiving end of such remarks (I’ve been called “pagan idol worshiper” among other names) get asked by myphariseefriend to leave the blog?

          Have you ever seen a Jew who supports myphariseefriend’s position get invited to leave?

          • David
            I didn’t ask you to leave – I told you that if you expected to not get the truth shoved in your face you came to the wrong place – I stand by that statement

          • naaria says:

            I am not a Jew, so I can’t speak for those “other Jews”. But, I know all don’t agree with Rabbi B. Just as I know that many Christians don’t agree with many other Christians on many issues and on many doctrines or teaching. In fact, some modern Christians don’t consider other Christians even Christians, even enslaving or persecuting them and even disagreeing to the point where they would kill each other. Look at what happened to Mormons in America or look at places a few years ago like Ireland. There are some who believe if you read any Bible other than the KJV, you are reading a Bible written by Satan. There are some Christians who don’t believe in Satan or in Hell. There are unitarian Christians & there Trinitarians. There are a few who are Gnostics and a very few who are Marcionites, Naasenes, or Essenes or some other new age sects. and part of “Nazarene Judaism”. There are some who preach that Paul never stopped being Saul or they believe Paul invented Christianity and therefore Paul was THE worst of all the heretics. I have read about or heard more venom spewed out by Christians against other Christians, then any bad that I have heard Christians speak about Jews. I have heard more Christians who were and still are anti-other-Christians than I have heard anti-Jewish talk.

            So which Christians who love Jesus are the real hypocrites and what NT scriptures show them to be wrong in their Christian faith? Don’t be surprised if they read just as much or more scripture to you, if you criticize them. So many Christians (and Jesus in the NT) disparages not only Jews and Judaism (past & present) but other Christians.

            But I don’t see Rabbi B. and the majority of Jews who might comment here, as setting out to “disparage Christianity” and especially not to “be mean” to individual Christians. Most are too religious, too ethical or spiritual” to “attack” others (lashon haRa and all that). The vast majority of the time, most Jews are much too timid in their self-defense of their faith, their religion, or themselves. If you have any real objectivity, you will see how obvious that is and you will know that if they “wave the anti-Semitism banner” or “ADL card”, then you know that the mean spiritness, anger, bias, predjudice, and “anti-Semitism” directed at them has gone way beyond what is indecent or what can be tolerated by a civil people. If you do not want to be seen as “anti-Semitic”, stop being so “anti-Semitic”. Instead of disparaging them, you should admire them for their civility. If you want to sway them with your arguments, make better arguments. Show them how nice and reasonable you can be, not how hypocriticap, insulting, and narrow-mindedly arrogant you can be.

            I don’t think anyone really wants you to leave, because you make some of their best arguments for them. You are educating them on your on all your best “strong points” that fail to convince any but the most gullible. I know don’t mind anyone “cussing me out”, because first, they are “punching at a phantom” so I can’t take the insult as personal (I might even incite them more), and when they give me their best arguments, I just see it as rehearsal for future debates against far more capable opponents or debaters.

          • naaria says:

            Actually, being called a “pagan idol worshipper” is not so bad compared to what the Hebrew Bible has to say about idolatry or worshipping something or somebody who is not God. But idolatrous worship (which is how one must objectively view certain beliefs and practices of certain Christian sects) is not the same as “the sin of idolatry”. As much as many rabbis might argue against Islamic beliefs, Maimonides, the 12th century c.e. Jewish scholar and philosopher, did not view Islam as idolatrous (in the “Mishneh Torah” in the chapter on “Laws of Forbidden Foods, 11:7″). Judaism isn’t based on ״personal faith, beliefs or opinions” or sectarian doctrine, but upon authoritative traditional teachings that are well grounded in scripture and on legal codes or community standards of ethics & law based on reasoned interpretation of their Holy Scripture. In Christianity, many beliefs are based on writings of a few “biographers” of a man or upon letters (the majority supposedly from one man) to fellow believers (of a few “churches”) who preached and missionized about a person he didn’t even meet and that almost 2 decades after that man died. And those writings show clearly that those authors disagreed with each other on several KEY points of fact, practice, or belief.

        • Paul summers says:

          Hi, so just remind me again, as I couldnt see it in your reply, ” what and why is God Justified for putting you in excile? You admitted that you are but forgot to say why.

          • Yehuda says:

            Because we have sinned. Plain and simple.

            If you harbor any notion that Jews deny that, it is yet another of your anti-semitic prejudices.

            Where we differ is in the identification of that sin. You identify it as the rejection of Jesus, which is understandable because in your religion that is the one and only sin for which man can remain unforgiven. Judaism, on the other hand looks to the Torah, to make that identification. We believe the exile will end as described in Deuteronomy 30, when we return to observance of all that God commanded to a satisfactory level. Since at least 90% of the Jewish population remains ignorant of or unconcerned about the Torah, we are not there yet.

          • Yehuda says:

            Forgive but I want to elaborate on this last thought as this came up on another post thread a couple of weeks back.

            Paul, your last question reinforces an impression that I have – and I admit it’s only an impression – that Christians, especially evangelicals, have difficulty accepting the idea that Jews can and do see themselves as habitually sinning and in need of spiritual repair. Christianity is fed so much about Jewish self-righteousness, stiff-neckedness, and spiritual blindness, that you genuinely think that we have difficulty admitting to being spiritually wanting.

            Have you ever seen traditional Jewish prayer liturgy, especially but not limited to that of the high holy days?
            Have you ever listened to a traditional Jewish ethical sermon of the type to which Yeshivah students are exposed to regularly?
            Have you ever read or listened to Jewish treatment on the topic of why we understand ourselves to be in exile?
            Do you honestly believe that we walk around thinking we are perfect in God’s eyes?

            You really need to come to understand that just because we do not concede to being guilty of the one and only sin that matters to you, does not mean we see ourselves as guilty of nothing,

  11. Paul
    To answer your question – yes – the way the story is described in the Christian Bible – Jesus did what is unlawful when he turned over the money changing tables in the Temple – he also did what is unlawful by demonizing an entire nation and their beliefs

    • Paul summers says:

      Hi, thanks for the reply. You mentioned that Jesus demonized the nation. I cant see in scripture where He stated thus? He did say “this wicked generation” is that what you mean?
      Secondly why unlawful to turn over the tables? I thought the temple was a holy place for sacrifice, not a market for profit. If you walked today into a synagoue and saw the same, are you saying it would be excepted??

      • Paul summers says:

        First of all can you please stop with the “anti semite” banner that you keep waving. Im not as you say. Only because someone doesnt agree with, doesnt make him prejidice. Im a gentile and you are Jewish, please get over that fact! Its boring
        As far as im concerned it was Jewish blood that attoned my sins, doent make me a very good anti semite, does it. Anyway…..
        I am keen to know how the 90% of non believing Jews will hear the scriptures from a Torah point of view. Do you still believe in prophets calling the nation to repent?

        • Yehuda says:


          Fair enough. I will stop waiving the “anti-semite” banner because it is in fact a loaded emotion-charged label.

          However, if you do happen to harbor any of the misconceptions I pointed out above – and you have not made any effort to deny them – then I would certainly encourage you to disabuse yourself of these misconceptions because they are patently false.

          Now as to your question about the 90%. Good question. Well, you may or may not be aware, that Jewish outreach is a vibrant enterprise with many individuals and organizations involved in bringing knowledge of the Torah to our less affiliated brethren. Results have been mixed but encouraging. We believe it is our duty to continue these efforts with the hope that our successes will increase. Of course we always believe that for an effort of this scope, we need God’s help. So if you want to think of that as prophets calling for repentance, you may. It’s not prophecy per se, but to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, in support of this goal, we have a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,

      • Paul
        calling people “children of the devil” is “demonizing”
        The Temple is a holy place and the tables were not there for profit – the were to help the people get the sacrifices they needed according to the law of Moses
        Paul – when he turned over the tables (if he did) – you can imagine that coins went rolling into the crowds – who lost the money?

        • Paul says:

          Hi Thanks for reply,
          Yes we agree the temple was a Holy place. I think the point is being lost though, I dont think the issue is with rolling coins and where they landed. Its a case of who was making a profit in Gods Name and His statutes. Ultimatley the blame was the Priests and Leaders. They were in charge of the running of the temple. And were making a living out of this, or at least were just ignoring it. Just like the tax collecters, they were receiving money from the people under Roman Law and then adding a sur charge and keeping it for themselves. Its wasnt a issue (I think?) to sell the actuall sacrifice, but to con the buyer was. Thats the issue that Jesus had.

          It was always the issue of the heart with Jesus. The motive of the individual. Not actually was being done ie the Law, but the manipulation of it. Which was rife. The Sabbath being one of them. Jesus said that He had come to Fulfil the Law not to destroy it. If it was right to profit out of the sacrifice system then Jesus would not have had a problem with it. If Jesus thought that the people needed coins to inherit the Kingdom then Im sure He would have said take all the money which is on the floor. But Messiah came to give internal Life in His Fathers Kingdom, not gold or silver that will one day rot and rust away.

          Ps I know the Church is also guilty of this!

          Shalom. x

          • Paul
            How do you know that the priests were making a profit off the selling of sacrifices? – and if the priests are making a profit what right did Jesus have to make the customers lose their coins? – Did his attention seeking act accomplish anything anyway?
            What is your problem with the rabbinic understanding of the Sabbath – God preserved that eternal sign of his sanctity precisely within the community that you were taught by Jesus to deride – and God did NOT preserve this sign in the community of Jesus’ followers – what does that tell you?

      • naaria says:

        Jews came from various parts all over the Mediterranean area on an annual or 3 times a year pilgrimage to Jerusalem. They could exchange Roman or Egyptian coins (with idolatrous symbols) for clean Shekels and give their Tithe to God without a “slap in the face” using dirty money (mammon?). Most Churches today (even using technology and modern banking systems) prefer that you give offerings & tithes using the legal currency of the area. And, your church might not take any credit cards or they probably don’t cash your paycheck, since your church is not the only business place in the whole town, just so that you can drop a dollar or $1000 in the offering plate. Well, maybe your church is in the desert, 50 miles away from the nearest town (where no place is open on a Sunday Morning) and you got to walk that distance, then they may do things a little different. Reminds me of schools in the “pioneer days” of America in the 1800’s, where the parents might bring a chicken or a dozen eggs to teacher as “tuition”. Or the child might bring an apple for the teacher as a token “paycheck”.

        And likewise in the Temple, 2000+ years ago, if you want to offer a lamb, would you want to carry it & lead it by rope for 100’s of miles for who knows how many days or weeks or would you prefer to exchange a coin for one in the Temple. Or exchange a coin for a cup of dry flour instead of offering the same coin in the “offering basket”. Read the Didache, a sort of church guidebook or teachings of the apostles in early Christianity. Even churches today do what Jesus would think is much more horrendous & commercialized or corrupt within the church building. I am not talking about bingo or raffles. But, often when a church had a visiting speaker, after the service they have the audacity to sell tapes, cd’s & books. Even if it is “non-profit”, that money is not going to the church, the books aren’t bought at cost to put in the offering basket and put in a Tithing envelope. The Didache has some negative words to say about the conduct of apostles who stay for more than 1 day on their journey and aren’t good guests.

        • naaria says:

          Often the NT writers present a Jesus who knows very little about the geography of Judea or the Galil, or little about livestock or of farming in the region, or little about Jewish life or culture, or not much about the religious practice of Jews (except what they read of the “ancient Israelites” 500+ before Jesus). Reads so unhistorical and so much like Roman propaganda. Well, maybe according to Josephus, the Jewish Messiah, was the Roman General Vespasian, who waged war against the Jews and soon became the Emperor of Rome (& his son Titus, who later also became Emperor, continued the war until the Temple was “destroyed”). Or maybe someone who had a “beef” against the Jews & the Pharisees as he did. That sort of thinking might explain why the cruel, mass murderer Pilate could be named as “saint” in some Christian churches, since according to the gospels, he was such a fearful wimp and seemed to be such an innocent, nice guy. Or at least, a greatly misunderstood man, who was clean of sin, because he “washed his hands”. A little bit of water (& a few written words) seems to be a very effective means of atonement. Or perhaps, the victor writes the history book. And a “defeatist propaganda” for those who refused to die or be defeated.

          There is no hope for Jews without a Temple. But they, faithful servant of God, survived & are still here. Maybe those who peddle “defeatist propaganda” should ask themselves if they really believe that “with God all things are possible”.

  12. David says:

    myphariseefriend said:
    I didn’t ask you to leave – I told you that if you expected to not get the truth shoved in your face you came to the wrong place – I stand by that statement”

    So is part of that truth being “shoved in my face” that I accept how I’ve been address here on this blog as an “idol worshiping pagan”, since you so kindly informed me that I was in the wrong place after that exchange as well? By the way isn’t that considered a personal attack on me which is supposedly against your own rule?

    I don’t think I’ve been here more than a couple months straight at one time without you telling me in one way or another that I came to the wrong place or words to that effect (I call that being invited to leave).

    If this is a blog for sharing opinions then it shouldn’t bother you that I have one. On the other hand if it’s a blog with an agenda, such as to demonize Christianity and speak ill of its founder and/or other Christians then I can see why it bothers you that I’m here, a Christian with opinions contrary to your agenda.

    • Blasater says:


      You want to share? Answer this. For the NT to “dovetail” with the OT, it must be congruent right?

      Then please answer rather than dodge. Christianity MUST answer these since they are foundational.

      1) Where in Tanakh (OT) is even one verse that says that messiah will end the law?
      2) Where in Tanakh, is even one verse that says that messiah will do (fulfill) the law on our behalf?

  13. David
    It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you are here – in fact I am happy for you to be here as long as you want – it is you who seem to have a problem with this blog – you seem to have a problem with anyone changing their beliefs on the basis of facts (after all you did write: “In the end I think we all believe, you and me included, what we want to believe and then we justify it by whatever means makes the most sense to us. You’ll never convince me and I’ll never convince you. That, I think we can both agree on. I can show you all the evidence in the world and you’ll tell me why it’s wrong. And you can show me all the evidence in the world and I can tell you why you are wrong.”)
    David – the purpose of this blog is to help people who want to have their faith rooted in truth and are willing to change on the basis of truth – Thank God many people have changed their beliefs. If this is not what you are interested in – then you came to the wrong place – that is not an invitation to leave – it is just a description of where you are

  14. naaria says:

    Who does it surprise, that the main “defense” against defeatist propaganda is just more repeating of that the old propaganda of defeatism? They accept the tired old propaganda of “Your temple” is gone”, “you are in exile, why?”. Instead of trying to show that they do not promote defeatism, their answer is “you were defeated so now accept your defeat” or nonsense like “you do not ‘exist’ because we determine the terms of what or who should or should not exist”, “because your continued existence show that we were and are wrong”. “We can disparage you with our insulting & arrogant, angry words of “love”, but just accept it” and “don’t be so mean by defending yourself by quoting “old” scripture that was defeated by “new, added-on” scripture.” “And don’t you open-minded non-Jews reject the approved propaganda and defend the “defeated” Jews who no longer have reason to exist, because then we didn’t when the war either by sharp sword or sharp words”.

    • naaria says:

      That should have been “we didn’t WIN the war with either sharp sword or sharp words”.

      • Paul summers says:

        Hello blaster.
        Ref Jesus and His father Joeseph. Ok lets look at it this way. so much is emphasized who followers the family line etc. which is good and proper. so f messiah is yet still to come, and he will be from the house of david, how will he be able to justify himself The jew will argue like you are doing. The NT presents records. What source will Israel use, all records of Judah have gone.

  15. Yehuda says:


    Your question is based primarily on a Christian notion of the role of the messiah. As a Christian, you are inescapably preoccupied with properly identifying the messiah because you have a fairly large stake in making that ID – you worship him. Thus for you making the correct ID is the first, if not the only, real objective.

    Judaism on the other hand, while certainly concerned with his identity, is far more concerned with the successful accomplishment of his earthly mission. e.g. the rebuilding of the temple, the restoration of the Torah in its fullness, and the universal knowledge of the one true God. So from the Jewish perspective, we can afford to wait to make that ID until we see it manifest in these developments. However, if you would like a more pragmatic answer I could simply point to fact that the messiah’s arrival is, according to the prophet Malachi, to be preceded by the herald of none other than Elijah himself. We will certainly be able to rely on Elijah to make the ID for us.

    • Paul summers says:

      Hi, thanks for your reply. Ok, here is a question that doesnt get aired much. Le us assume that Israel had accepted Jeshua has Messiah. What would have been the outcome?


      • Yehuda says:

        My simple answer is I don’t know. You are asking me to speculate about something none of us can claim to know.

        My Speculation: If it would mean that we would simply now have millions of Jews who ascribe some sort of theological significance to Jesus while living in a world not unlike the one we live in today, without a Temple, and without universal knowledge of God, then on the whole it would just mean that the the Jewish corpus would be even further removed from the on true God than it is today and the the small remnant of of Jews faithful to the Torah – who I am certain would still exist – would probably have faced even more ferocious persecution over the last 2000 years than they have, owing to a significant population of Jewish collaboration.

        • Paul says:

          Hello Yehuda

          Thanks for your answer. Yes its a difficult question, and trying to speculate on something that never actually happened can lead to all sorts of probabilities. However/but if the scriptures/OT were read and interpreted as they should be then one can actually see the outcome with clarity and without the cause of having to speculate. Of course this interpretation can only come from the camp who believe in Jesus as Messiah. How you would respond to that is of course your own right and freedom as a child of God.

          The scriptures (as far as Im concerned) actually spelt out a different future for Israel and the nations, post crucifixtion of Jesus. In fact quite the oppersite is stated. The future for Israel could not have been more glorious. And you cant get anymore blessed by Adonai than by living in the Kingdom that God promised His children Israel.

          Im sure we both agree to some point that since the death of Jesus many groups have blamed the Jews for being Christ killers. Unfortuneatley for innocent Jews world wide, Jews are NOT Christ killers, and the perbritrators of these slanders and crimes are very much miss informed, and are very ignorant of scripture and the predestined will of God.

          The NT teaches right from the start that Jesus was born to die. Very simply if the Jewish leaders had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the following would have happened;

          1. The Jewish leaders would have glorified God for Messiahs arrival.
          2. The Jewish leaders and Israel would have appointed Jesus as King, placed Him in the temple as conquering redeemer from Rome.
          3. The Romans, would have crushed this rebellion. Jesus and the His nearest allies (priests etc) would have been arrested.
          4 After a trial of some sort Jesus and His co conspiritors would have been crucified.
          5. After 3 days Jesus would have ressurected, and the Millenial kingdom would have been brought in.
          6. All of Israels enemies would have been crushed.

          That in a nutshell is what would have happened. But of course it never did. Israel never changed history. Israel was always going to reject Jeshua, and they did on the grounds of being a demon. Matthew ch 12. Messiah had to die to come back. Thats why believers in Christ believe in 2 advents. Thats why the Tanach teaches 2 advents. Either way its still 2 comings of Messiah. (Suffering servant— conquering King).

          Messiahs second coming is now on hold but it could have come in over 2000 yrs ago.
          The only difference now is, because of Gods grace that we are now living in the time of the gentiles, a time which will come to an end, and the fulness and the restoration of Israel will eventually come in for all who believe in Him. Your rejection of Him is my acceptance into the commonwealth of Israels promises and blessings. Thats why me a gentile can worship the Jewish God Adonai.

          This is nothing to do with trying to convert a Jew to Christianity. Its to do with showing you what God has done for His children who call on His Name.

          So who is responsibil for His death?
          1. God. Because God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.
          2. Jeshua. He came to do the will of His Father.
          3. You and I. Because we have all fallen short of the glory of God. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

          X In peace.

          • Yehuda says:


            I actually do believe that your say everything you said in your last post in sincerity and I appreciate the good will that underlies it. Of course you realize that I don’t consider the NT to be sacred scripture any more than either of us do the Koran or the Book of Mormon, so the answers it provides to your question are not really of interest to me. And as for the one appeal you did make to the Tanach – that it teaches of 2 advents or 2 comings of Messiah – well, no it doesn’t.

            Peace to you as well.

      • naaria says:

        There is no real historical evidence that Jews even ever heard of a Jesus, until way after non-Jews were promoting several different versions of Jesus in the 2nd century+ c.e. According to most Christian scholars, the gospels were written years. after the “destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem”, after the messiahship of Jesus had failed. Those who speculate that there were many followers of Jesus in the Galil & Judea, can’t tell us what happened to those thousands (even 10,000+) after the Roman emperor’s war against the Jews. There is historical evidence of a later messiah “bar Kochba”, 100 years after the supposed messiahship of Jesus failed. Although bar Kochba failed, he was more of a messiah than Jesus, who later became the “Christ” of the enemies of the Jews.

        • naaria says:

          Since there were many different versions of Jesus in the first 300 years of Christianity, if Jews had accepted Jesus as a messiah, Jesus would have had to be more Torah observant and much less different from a man-god or the Christ of Paul or of Marcion or Tertullian or Origen. The “Jewish Jesus” would have been a Jesus most of the non-Jewish world would not have accepted, no more then they have accepted the Mishna as their new testament. In fact, many non-Jews would have never accepted Jesus. But many non-Jews would have accepted the Judaism of the Pharisees, since there were many “God-fearers” in the first century c.e.

  16. Dear Rabbi, As far as i understand the passage of Galatians 3, i don’t think Paul discourages the Law observance, rather encourages people of God who have felt guilty by failing to observe the law. Paul contends that the Jewish people are saved by faith in God and by His grace in His covenant, not by their deeds of observing the law. So gentiles to whom the law was not given, can be saved by faith in Yeshua-God’s sent one, God’s son, God’s power, God’s wisdom, God’s image…(NT never says Yeshua IS GOD) and by His grace in His covenant. Why? listen carefully what Paul says in Galatians 3:17, ” This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” Then, what is the purpose or function of the Law? Paul explains in verse 19-22, “Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.”

  17. My finite knowledge of the NT understands this way. Scripture has shut up all who claim to be saved by their perfect observance and deeds of the law, so that what was promised by Abraham, which is the Word of God, being given through faith in Yeshua Messiah (the Word, the Dabar, the Logos of God), might be given to those who believe. Therefore, Christian belief is this: only God is my Salvation; i am saved because of what God has done in Yeshua.

    • Dina says:

      Gean, that claim is not a Jewish argument. It is a straw man.

      God assigned to us personal responsibility for our spiritual destiny. See Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 30:11-16, Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33 for just a small sampling.

      How does it make sense to you that God would give us a set of laws and rules for proper conduct, tell us that these laws are eternally binding, promise that He will reward and punish us according to our adherence to these laws–and then turn around and say, ha ha, I was just kidding! All you really have to do is have faith! Whatever that means! It means different things to different Christians, but don’t worry! All your actions are worthless now!

      Your view turns God into a liar or a buffoon, if not an outright sadistic tyrant, God forbid.

      • Fred says:

        Gean, even the concept of “faith”, the very definition of the word, is different between Judaism and Christianity. Jewish faith ( emuna) is holding steadfast and doing what you have agreed to do, according to a covenant. Faith IS doing, not believing. Jewish faith is not just about having confidence in something you were told or read in a book as being true.
        The Christian concept of faith is believing and trusting something that is intangible, or as Paul so perfectly described the Christian concept of faith: “the substance of things hoped for”. For the Christian, faith is defined as believing as true a series of concepts and teachings as his means of eternal salvation. The Christian believes that he is “saved” (another word that is defined differently between Judaism and Christianity) by “believing” in Jesus. That is why Paul created a dichotomy between faith and works. For the Jew, keeping mitzvot ARE expressions of faithfulness. In Judaism, if there is a dichotomy between works and faithfulness, then both words become meaningless.
        In Judaism, faithfulness, emuna, IS an action- a work. In Christianity, faith is a mindset; an attitude- an emotional feeling.

        So lets compare apples to apples and understand that the same words used by Jewish people and Christians can have completely different meanings. And it is important that we understand the terminology and define our words clearly.

        • Fred The use of “emuna/faith” in Exodus 17:12 illustrates your point

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • The New Testament is not a replaced or brand new testament; it is the final revelation of the Tanakh. Yeshua said in Mt 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Paul says in Romans 2:13, ” For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

          WE all need to listen carefully what a godly Jew, the brother of Yeshua, said in James 2:17-24:
          “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
          But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
          Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
          You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
          You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
          Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
          You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
          And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”

          • LarryB says:

            The New Testament is not a replaced or brand new testament; it is the final revelation of the Tanakh.
            DEUT 4:2 Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

          • Brother Larry, this is my understanding of “do not add to the word.”

            Deuteronomy 1:5 tells us what Deuteronomy is– “Beyond the Yarden, in the land of Mo’av, began Moshe to DECLARE this law, saying,” The word “DECLARE” is באר which means “expound or make clear, make plain.” Even though Moshe expounded the Sinai Law, taught the true meanings of the Law, and made it clear and plain for the applications, Moshe is not regarded as someone who “ADDED” to the word of God. The Deuteronomy is not called “a book of Moses or paraphrased word of God, etc,” the Deuteronomy is still called the Torah- the Law of God!

            Likewise, Yeshua expounded the Law, taught it more specifically, and made clear the spirit and heart of God in the Law at Mt. Beatitude near Galilee and through his conversations with many Jews.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, after Moses, no one was given the authority to change, contradict, override, or in any way add or subtract to the Law. Moses was the only one who transmitted God’s law to the people.

            Therefore, the fact that Jesus did exactly that is proof that he was a false prophet.

          • Fred says:

            Gean, “James” ( real name Yakov, or Jacob) was not a Christian, as the term came to be defined.Christians have struggled for millenia over what to do with James. Martin Luther called James’ book “an epistle of straw”, took it out of the Bible and put it in the appendix.There is not a single word about the divinity of Jesus, blood or justification by belief to be found in James. The teaching that James was defending was quashed at the council of Jerusalem by Paul and Peter, and disappeared with the destruction of the temple.

            His comment on Avraham was a purposeful rebuke of Pauline Christianity in direct response to Paul’s comment that Avraham was justified by faith only. But here we go again. The word “Justified” is defined differently between the two religions. In Christianity, the word is connotative of not being held accountable for your actions, of “justification” for your wrong deeds being your ticket to heaven, since Christianity teaches that one must be absolutely perfect, with a spotless record, or he is damned for all eternity. That is the entire argument for Jesus, the blood and the gospel. If a person can be “counted righteous” because of a work, then Jesus died in vain. Paul knew that James made Jesus irrelevant. James was the antithesis of the gospel, and Luther knew it as well. Luther was an evil man, but he wasn’t dumb.

          • LarryB says:

            “Brother Larry, this is my understanding of “do not add to the word.”
            If you truly want to understand what the Torah teaches, go and learn from the people it was given to to teach. You cannot expect to understand the Torah and its teaching when you already have a belief system and have given your heart to it.

          • That’s right Larry. I am learning very much from the conversations with my fellow Rabbis and Jewish friends here and frankly find the truth of the New Testament because of them.

            As you rightly pointed out, when Christians take the New Testament verses or theology or doctrines and put those into the Old Testament, the Old Testament will be torn out- it makes a hole.

            I recently found that Yeshua said exactly the same thing! Mt 9:16 says, “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.”

            In this saying of Yeshua, ‘a piece of New cloth’ represent a verse or theology or doctrine of New Testament, and ‘Old garment’ represent ‘Old Testament.’ So, if we apply the NT into the OT, it makes a hole and gets worse!

            In other words, (I believe..) one of the important messages of this parable is that We must take the OT (a piece of the old cloth) and put it into the NT (the new garment), then it makes a whole and complete Revelation of God! Then, Shalom- healing- Complete!

            That’s why the author of the Matthew’s Gospel put the story of the healing of a woman who had a problem of bleeding for twelve years right after this parable of ‘old and new garment’.

            I think, The woman represents the Law- the priest’s work of sacrifice of animal blood on behalf of twelve tribes, and the ציצת (Num.15:38) of Yeshua’s garment represent the New Testament. When the woman (Law) comes and touches the fringes of Yeshua’s garment (NT), she is healed and Shalom comes.

            If the people of the New Covenant comes and teach the people of the Old Covenant about the Old Covenant, it makes a HOLE.
            If the people of the Old Covenant comes and touches and learns from the New Covenant, it makes whole BOTH people of God.

            Why? because Matthew uses the word “αγναφου” for “New” cloth in Mt.9:16. “α= opposite? not ye?” +” γναφου=laundry, white, finished, milled” So, “αγναφου= new=not whitened yet. ”

            The New Testament without the Old Testament is a detached branch without root, and unwashed cloth. That is why when Yeshua appeared with Elijah (the Prophets) and with Moshe (the Law) on the high mountain, His Cloth (the New Testament) appeared so perfect and white. Not his appearing alone but WITH Moshe and WITH prophet!
            “His clothing became glistening, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on eretz can whiten them.” (Mark 9:3)

            Forgive me if I my words seem to abolish the Law, I wanted to see the Completeness and Shalom of the Law.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, why does it not disturb you when the authors of the Christian scriptures quote the Hebrew Bible out of context, mistranslate it, and twist it to force it to say what they want it to say?

            Some examples from Matthew:

            From Hosea: “I called my son out of Egypt.” To make this sound like it’s about Jesus, Matthew cuts off the part of the verse that says “When Israel was a lad I loved him.” In context, this verse is talking about God taking the Children of Israel out of Egypt.

            From Isaiah: “And the virgin shall conceive and she shall bear a son and they will call his name Emanuel.” This is so flagrant it almost renders me speechless. (That’s saying a lot.) The original verse actually says, “And the young woman is pregnant and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Emanuel.” Not to mention that the verse in Matthew completely ignores the surrounding context. Too long to go into here.

            From nowhere in the Hebrew Bible: “And he shall be called a Nazarene.” This verse is completely made up!

            So why on earth would you want to defend those who misuse, misrepresent, twist, and outright lie about God’s words?

          • Dina, as you said, sometimes the quotation of the Hebrew Bible in the Greek Bible distrubs me and throws many questions. However, the more I study, the more I realize the Yeshua events did fulfill the prophectic words, visions, and events of the Tanakh. Please follow my arguments.

            1. Matthew 2 delicately used the word “a lad” two times in verse 13 and one time in verse 14 to indicate the fulfillment of the latter part of Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a lad I loved him.” For the Hebrews in Egypt, God called “Israel is my first born son”(Exodus 4:22). The NT says Yeshua is the first born Son. ” For whom HE(HaShem) did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, that he(Yeshua) might be the firstborn among many brethren” Romans 8:29 Both Israel and Yeshua is first born son of God. Thus, Matthew did not ignore the context of Hosea 11:1.

            2. As the Tanakh uses the word “עלמה” as a marriageable age, young woman who did not marry or bore a child, the NT uses the word (parthenos) in the same way! (please look at 1 Corinthians 7:34).
            Elsewhere from the birth narrative, Matthew uses the word only in chapter 25. Interestingly it does not say anything beyond the fact that the virgin (parthenos) in Matthew 25 is the pure (spiritual sense) bride of the Messiah. If Matthew meant the ten brides as “virgins in terms of sexual experience” No wives, including my wife who bore five children, any married women among the people of God could be saved!
            Matthew 1:18 says Mary did not “come together (Sun erchomai= together come) with Joseph after being espoused to him.” Matthew uses The Greek word “Sunerchomai”nowhere else except here, and 1 Corinthians 7:5 only “IMPLIES” the physical union of husband and wife, using this word. All the other usages of “sunerchomai” in NT has nothing to do with sexual union but means “assemble, going together, gather together, etc.” Christians know Mary was a virgin because of only Luke 1:34. Therefore, As Tanakh uses the word “Alma” as inclusive and general language of unmarried and young woman without necessarily inferring to the unexperienced of intercourse, so the NT uses in the same way. Therefore, Matthew is not flagrant in quoting of Isaiah 7:14 in his gospel.

            3. “and he shall be called a Nazarene” in Matthew 2:23. Please look at the context of the verse which says “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was SPOKEN by the prophetS, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matthew as a CPA in the land of the 1st century Judea, must be a meticulous man, i guess, who chose a word very carefully, did not say “written by a prophet” but say “spoken by prophetS- plural” If the NT says “written by a prophet or prophets,” we will surely find it in the Tanakh, but if it says “spoken by” we might find it if it was later written and might not find it if only transmitted orally. I guess same Example is found in Ezra 9:11 & 12, and this will be also my questions to Jewish brothers and sisters here. I see only one prophet Moshe said it in Deut.7:3 ane Ex.34:11-16, who else spoke it? Is there any other prophet who spoke Ezra 9:12? Why it says,”the commandment by the prophetS? Also, does the “commandment” include Ezra 9:12 or only 9:11? It seems to me that as Ezra meant a general message of prohibition of intermarriage according to the prophetic traditions, spoken by more than one prophet, without necessarily direct quotation of Scriptures, Matthew uses “he shall be called a Nazarene” in the same sense. “נזיר” means “committed one, sperated one, dedicated one,” right? What kind of prophet would not have said in their daily conversations and teachings that the coming Messiah would be a dedicated and committed one of Israel? I don’t believe the prophets in the Jewish history have spoken that the Messiah would be as same as ordinary people.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I find it very difficult to follow your reasoning. If I must be honest, I don’t follow most of it at all. Therefore, I will respond to whatever I can.

            Regarding Matthew’s quoting of Hosea, I can’t believe you take your own argument seriously. Israel is called God’s firsborn son, the NT calls Jesus God’s firstborn son, ergo, the verse is talking about Jesus.

            That is real Scripture twisting, Gean. Come on, man! Hosea is talking about Israel’s exile in Egypt and their being called out by God. He is most definitely not talking about Jesus. That is why Matthew conveniently truncated the verse. Forgive my bluntness, but I think your explanation is every bit as shameful as Matthew’s excising. I’m sorry, but I can’t stand it when people make a mockery of God’s words.

            You ignored most of my arguments about Matthew’s outrageous mistranslation and misapplication of Isaiah 7:14 and narrowly focused on the word “almah,” saying it has to mean an unmarried women with no sexual experience; therefore, translating it as virgin is correct. You are wrong and I will show you why. Take a look at Proverbs 30:19-20. The word “almah” is used and it is clearly referring to a woman with sexual experience. A virgin would not be able to pretend to be innocent because after her first time there would be a sign that she had been intimate, whereas a non-virgin could say “I have done no wickedness.”

            But there are a host of problems with that verse the way Matthew uses it. Some of them I showed you, but there are also a bunch of articles on this website that deal with it which I highly recommend examining.

            As for my argument about “he shall be called a Nazarene”–I throw up my hands in despair. If you’re going to just make stuff up then all I can say is that you’re making stuff up.

            I know I’m being harsh, but it makes me so mad when people lie about God’s words and then defend their lies with more lies. And the most maddening part of it all is that they don’t even realize they’re lying because they’re deluding themselves.

          • Who can deny that the Hosea was talking about the Exodus? Of course it means it! but the prophecy was pointing to Messiah event additionally. As Tisha b’Av fell on BC 586 and additionally AD 70 and as the prophetic warnings in Deuteronomy have been fulfilled repeatedly throughout the times of Judges and Kings, the Hosea prophecy has been again fulfilled in the life of the Messiah. Isaiah 55:10 “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my WORD that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Yes, also! according to Ecclesiastes 1:7 and 9 the fulfillment of the Word of God repeats!

            Exodus event itself is prophetic connotation of salvation event for Gentile believers after God has done in Yeshua. But it has been hidden to

          • Dina says:

            Gean, the verse in Hosea is not a prophecy. Note the past tense and the reference to a specific event.

            In order to believe that this is about Jesus, you have to first believe in Jesus and you have to believe Matthew that this verse is a prophecy about Jesus. This is called circular reasoning. In the absence of these two beliefs, it would never occur to you that this a prophecy in the first place.

            What Christians have done to our sacred text is horrific. They have abused God’s words to prop up the greatest crime against God possible, the sin of idolatry.

          • O.K.. Please pray for me that i could find the truth and interpret and understand the prophecy of the Bible so that we will execute the will of God in this word and prepare the way of the Messiah.

          • Dina says:

            By the way, I think it would clarify matters if we defined the word “prophecy.”

            To me, a prophecy is a message from God delivered by a human.

            A prophecy that contains a prediction must be clear. For example, God told Abraham that he would have a son and he would call him Isaac. Abraham had a son and he called him Isaac. Simple, clear, end of story.

            In other words, it must be clear to the hearer that the prophet is predicting something that is indisputably obvious what he means.

            Dual fulfillments and shadowy interpretations can be imposed on the text by anyone with an agenda and have no place in the quest for understanding what God wants from us.

          • It appears that the church age and the Gospel event have been hidden to the eyes of many Jewish people according to HIS providence.- Deut.29:4″But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear”

            Proverbs 30:19 and 20 has different words. Almah and adulterous woman? Do you mean the Almah IS the adulterous woman in v.20? What is your logic?

            Could you please tell me why i lied and made you mad ( forgive me if i harmed your health, i am blessed with your passion for the word of God though). I drew my argument from clear scripturual evidence both in OT and NT and from the plain meaning of “Nazarene.” In what point, do you refute specifically?

          • Dina says:

            Oh, Gean, I’m not mad at you personally and I don’t believe you are deliberately lying. I believe you have been misled–and quite likely through no fault of your own.

            If you love God and you treasure His words, you must bristle with righteous indignation when you see idol worshipers ripping His words out of context and misrepresenting them to the very people He chose to be His witnesses in order to lead them astray. So when I say “mad,” please understand that I am standing up for our Father, our King.

            Let’s go back to what you wrote here. Take a look again at those verses in Proverbs 30:

            Verses 19 and 20: The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake upon a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman. So too is the way of an adulterous woman–she ate and wiped her mouth and said, “I have done no wrong.”

            What do the four pairings in verse 19 have in common? None of them leave a trace. After an eagle flies through the sky, it does not leave a trace that it was there. After a snake slithers across a rock, you can’t detect its presence. Once a ship passes through the ocean, you would never know there was ever a ship. Once a man has his way with a young woman, you would never know they ever had intercourse.

            Hang on, wait a minute! If she were a virgin, then there would be a trace. So in this context, the almah can’t be a virgin!

            The next verse continues with this comparison. An adulterous woman can pretend she didn’t sin because after the sin there is no trace (the eating and wiping the mouth are a euphemism for illicit relations).

            I think this would be obvious to you if you didn’t need “almah” to mean “virgin.”

            You asked me where Christian scripture lies, but I have provided you with a few examples (there are many more but first let’s deal with these). Your explanation of Nazarene is something you or someone you trust made up. Matthew appeals to the prophets that the messiah must come from Nazareth and even quotes them that “he shall be called a Nazarene.” Not only have the Hebrew prophets never said any such thing, not only do we not have any oral tradition that the prophets said any such thing, but the city of Nazareth is not even mentioned in the whole of Tanach. You (or your source) resorted to an explanation that Matthew is quoting some prophets who never recorded their prophecies. That argument has zero credibility. Why on earth should anyone believe it?

            The fact is, Christian scripture is full of lies and distortions about the Torah. Not only have you fallen for them hook, line, and sinker, but you have fallen for the most convenient lie of all: “It appears that the church age and the Gospel event have been hidden to the eyes of many Jewish people according to HIS providence.”

            Stating that we are spiritually blind absolves Christians from the responsibility of taking our arguments seriously. They can comfortably say to themselves that we don’t know what we’re talking about since we can’t see the obvious truth.

            Do you realize that once you have written off the other side then honest debate is impossible?

            There are so many problems with what you said that one hardly knows where to begin. What does it say about God if He hides the “truth” about “salvation” from His firstborn son, Israel? What does it say about God if He hands this truth over to the gentiles and then condemns His chosen people to eternal damnation through no fault of their own, having Himself hidden the truth from them?

            What kind of a cruel God do you believe in, Gean?

            I see you quoted from the Torah to support your idea that God has hidden the truth about Jesus from us. It’s a perfect example of quoting out of context. If you read the first eight or so verses in Deuteronomy 29, you will see that Moses is telling the people of Israel that God did not give them “a heart to understand and eyes to see and ears to hear” until they had experienced the full awe and majesty of God’s open miracles in their forty-year sojourn through the desert. This has nothing to do with God hiding the truth about Jesus from His people.

            Furthermore, you ignore all the damning Biblical evidence to the contrary. God said His words would never depart from the Jewish nation (Isaiah 59:21), that even when we stray we would still preserve His truth (Psalms 78:1-8), that we are His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10)–and none of this will ever, ever, ever change because God is not a man that He should lie nor a son of man that He should regret [His words] (Numbers 23:19)!

          • I appreciate for the explanation. Then are you saying that The Almah cannot be a virgin because there is no trace? Is it because there is ‘no trace’ or there is ‘no way to know and find the trace’?

            Didn’t the prophet Moshe say in the Torah? 1. Genesis 49:26 & Deuteronomy 33:16– Joseph as a Nazir, the seperated one from brothers. His brothers persecuted him and sold him, but providentially due to the persecution and exile, Joseph became a prime minister and saved many houses of Egypt and the house of Jacob. IN the lattter days, the brothers’ eyes were opened to recognize his brother. I hope you will be able to compare the salvation event in the life of Joseph and Yeshua. Likewise, i believe that in the latter days, Jews will recognize Yeshua as his brother, the true Israelite, the savior, the Jewish King and the Messiah.
            2. Numbers 6 talked about Nazir.
            3. Judges 13:5 tells Samson as Nazir. Samson’s behavior seemed unreasonable — ” his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD” (Jud.14:4) Yeshua’s behavior seemed to be odd to the Jews, but it is according to His providence. Samson spoke in parable and riddles (Marshal); likewise Yeshua’s teaching was mostly delievered in parable. Everything worked together providentially so that Samson killed many enemies by his death. I see the God’s victory over the power of sin through the death of Yeshua here.
            4. Amos 2:11 says about Nazarene.

            God does not cover the eyes of His chosen people to eternal damnation; never say that, sister. Neither the Bible nor the church say that. God covered the eyes of the Jews so that they would fail to recognize Yeshua as their Messiah, thus deliever him to crucifixion so that God would save not only Jews but also gentiles. Wherever God’s chosen do not see, the Gospel leaves them and go to the gentile world. When the fulness of Gentiles comes in, God will open the eyes of His beloved people (Genesis 45:1, Romans 11:25)

            Why Moshe did not say ” לפני הימים ההם” -before those days(?) to mean what you said? Didn’t he say, “עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּֽה׃ ” -until these days? That obviously includes the time after seeing the great miracles of the exodus and the moment of the speaking of Moshe at Moab.

            I want to say Amen and Halleluyah to the last paragraph of your post! One thing i want to mention is this. Your term- “We” includes “the Jewish messiah and his disciples” Additionally, since God’s words are given to humans by His inspiration of the Spirit, the true Christians filled with the Spirit of God also are part of “We.”

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I don’t have time this week to address your whole comment but will say quickly just this. I hope to get to the rest another time.

            It would be worth your while to contemplate that the prophets never, ever predicted that the Jews will learn the truth about God from gentiles like you. Instead, the prophets predicted that the gentiles will learn the truth about God from the Jews. See, for example, a small sampling: Jeremiah 16:19, Isaiah 60:3; Zechariah 8:23. The verse in Jeremiah is especially noteworthy because it has the nations of the world saying that they inherited lies from their fathers. It doesn’t have the nation of Israel saying that.

            Furthermore, in the verses I cited about the Jews preserving God’s testimony, you failed to note a key element. The Jews, according to these passages, will preserve God’s truth by transmitting it to their children for all their generations. This is made especially clear in Isaiah 59:21, where the prophet refers exclusively to biological offspring. The other verses make this clear as well, if you examine them carefully. I have already pointed out that God commands us to preserve His teachings primarily through instructing our children.

            You must surely realize that Jesus (who had no offspring) and his disciples are categorically excluded from God’s promises of testimonial preservation and so on because early Christianity did not survive as a Jewish movement. Thus there is no Jewish parent-to-child chain of transmission of your notion of truth.

            Another example is that God gave the Sabbath to the Jewish people as an eternal sign (Exodus 31:13, 16-17). The Jewish people in every generation has observed the Sabbath faithfully and transmitted her observances to the following generations. The early Christians failed to keep this basic sign, they failed to pass it on to their children, ergo, they cannot be the faithful witnesses of God. On the other hand, the much maligned Pharisees were the only Jewish movement to survive Second Temple Judaism and every single Jew today (with the exception of the occasional convert) is descended from the Pharisees, such as me (!). Only Jews who stuck to Pharisaic teachings managed to maintain their identity as Jews. Everyone else faded away. We see that happening again today with the frighteningly high rates of assimilation among unaffiliated or non-Orthodox Jews (Orthodox Jews are the modern Pharisees). The plain truth is that God simply does not preserve the identity of the descendants of those Jews who are faithless to Him and His Torah. Including the early Christians, who lost their Jewish identity within a few centuries.

            Truth is, I ought to stop now but I have to address this notion of spiritual blindness. How could God purposely take away the free will of a people–especially the one chosen to bring light to the world–and then punish them for it? Your own scripture says that one can’t get to God without Jesus and one who doesn’t believe in Jesus is eternally damned, so it’s disingenuous to say “God does not cover the eyes of His chosen people to eternal damnation; never say that, sister. Neither the Bible nor the church say that.” If a = b and b = c than a = c. If God prevents you from believing in Jesus and those who don’t believe in Jesus go to hell, then God is sending those He’s blinding to hell.

            And if you think we are spiritually blind, you need to address in a searingly soul-searching way how seriously you take our arguments and how carefully you actually consider them. You can’t be a serious truth seeker if you think everyone who disagrees with your theology must be spiritually blind. And what does Genesis 45:1 have to do with God blinding the Jews to Jesus anyway?

            This brings me back to the beginning–you guys are the ones who are going to say, “”Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail!”

        • LarryB says:

          Where is the matrix download when you need one?

        • Fred, theology is theology. According to the Revelations 20:4, the saved ones who entered the first resurrection when the Messiah comes are saved by their witnesses of Yeshua, the Word of God, rejecting the idol worship and mark of the beast. 20:12 and 13 says people are judged before God according to their works. Faith without works are dead faith, the NT teaches.

          • Eleazar says:

            “Fred, theology is theology.”

            Yeah, send that to the millions of Christians who think your theology is heretical. Then come back and talk to me.

            “According to the Revelations 20:4, the saved ones who entered the first resurrection when the Messiah comes are saved by their witnesses of Yeshua, the Word of God, rejecting the idol worship and mark of the beast.”

            Then I guess anyone who prays to Jesus and worships him as God are in trouble. The Catholics are really in trouble because they make carved images of Jesus and pray to Mary as well. I guess you’re another one who thinks he and his closest 5000 buddies are the only ones not damned, and the other 3.3 million are “not real Christians”. Bible819 thinks anyone who does not “speak in tongues” is not a real Christian and does not have the spirit. Again, maybe Christianity should get its act together before they try to convert Jews and others.

            “Faith without works are dead faith, the NT teaches.”

            I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, most Christians don’t; at least not really. Martin Luther took James out of the NT and stuck it in the appendix. So the NT does not really teach that, James did. Most Evangelicals avoid the book of James like the plague. Paul taught the opposite and “justification by faith alone” was a repeating theme in most of his epistles. As for Jesus, it depended on the author and the mood Jesus happened to be in.

            Again, your thoughts and views, like most who come here to debate, are not orthodoxy within the mainstream of Christianity.

            “mark of the beast”

            There are a hundred different views within the Christian spectrum on what that means. The “spirit” seems unable to guide Christians to a common truth on plain words and sentences, even though thousands of “prophets” all claim to know who disagree with each other.

          • Nice to meet you Eleazar! Can you please find any New Testament verses or teachings that say “Jesus is God,” or “Pray to Jesus”? The theological chaos of the Christianity is true. I know. Maybe because that is BRANCHES. When the branches meet at the root- Biblical Judaism, both will be whole and bear fruit so that the Jewish Messiah comes and finds the fruit.

          • Dina says:

            How about “I and the Father are one”? Or “I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the Father but through me?”

            How about that?

            I’m not as familiar with Christian Scripture as Eleazar is; I bet he could come up with more.

          • Sister, you came up with the verses of the Gospel of John. Please forgive me and other Christians if we influenced Jews with the theologies of the church, not with the good news from the teachings of the NT. The Gospel of John does not teach us to believe that Yeshua is God but the son of God. John 20:31, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

            I guess many Christians and Jews misunderstand the “oneness” in sayings of Yeshua in JOhn’s Gospel. In JOhn’s Gospel, as far as i understand, The oneness is spiritual union, the bondage of unfailing love, and direct communication of the Logos (the Word of God). It does not mean that two beings or entities merge into one being, thus one of the two beings has to disappear. John 17:21 says, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” If John wanted to teach us that the Son of man- Yeshua- IS God in oneness, then, I am you, and you are your husband, and John is Peter, Paul is Yeshua, the disciple is God, (oh Lord, have mercy on us) etc. It is not what John is talking about! You see how the NT deliberately avoids the sentence “Yeshua is God”? Rather it says ” Yeshua is the Son of God, the wisdom of God, the Logos of God, the power of God, the glory of God, the image of God, the holy one of God, the mediator, the high priest, the Messiah…etc”

            When Yeshua said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me,” I believe he was talking about the LOGOS, the Word of God. The so called “Logos Christology” in chapter 1 permeates throughout the chapters of JOhn’s gospel. The Word spoken by Yeshua was the Word spoken by God. For this reason, Out of the four Gospels, JOhn has more ‘red coloring’ of direct speech of Yeshua in the Christian bible. The oneness is possible because of the LOGOS! John 14:10, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”
            So, when Yeshua said he IS the way, the truth, and the life, Yeshua IS the Word of God incarnated into flesh because the Word of God is the way, the Word of God is the truth, and the Word of God is the life; and this is what Tanakh teaches!

            PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, who can come to the creator, the Adonai Eloheinu unless HE first spoke, gave words, and revealed himself to us? Adam and Even came to God because HE called them. Abraham came to God because HE called him. Israelites came to God because God has revealed and spoke at Sinai. Ninevites came to God and repented because God has spoken through Jonah. No one comes to the Father but through the Word of God (Yeshua, the incarnated Word).

          • Dina says:

            Hi Gean,

            You wrote: “Can you please find any New Testament verses or teachings that say “Jesus is God,” or “Pray to Jesus”?”

            You twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why the verses I cited don’t mean what they plainly say, but the fact is that vast numbers of Christians–if not the overwhelming majority–believe that Jesus is indeed God and they do indeed pray to Jesus. And they cite verses such as these to support their beliefs and actions.

      • Hi, Dina. Then do you mean that our action governs the salvation of God? When a godly person stumble at a certain moment, he has to believe like, “I made God determine not to save me? “

        • Dina says:

          Hi Gean,

          Your argument is not with me but with God. What does God mean in all those passages I cited to you?

          Did you read the chapters in Ezekiel I cited (18 and 33)? They answer your question about stumbling.

          By the way, in the Hebrew Bible, the word salvation is used to denote redemption from political oppression or similar physical hardships, not saving someone from their sins. The only one who can save you from your sins is yourself, since you have free will. You do believe that you have free will, don’t you?

          Gean, read the Bible, read the passages I cited which are not tampered with, misquoted, or quoted out of context. Like I said, your problem is with God, not with me.

          • Fred says:

            “You do believe that you have free will, don’t you?”

            The one thing that is clear in Gean’s posts is that he is Calvinistic- no free will where God and Jesus are concerned. God has either “drawn you” to Jesus or he hasn’t. And if he has, then that “irresistible grace” is just that. To think otherwise is to deny God’s sovereignty and his omnipotence. Am I right, Gean?

        • Dina says:

          Gean, just realize that in Deuteronomy 30 God tells us that He is giving us a choice between life and death, and He tells us to choose life. He is telling us to choose. Don’t you see?

          • Yes, Dina. I see it and I agree with you. We must choose to do it. My question is What makes us choose and do it? Deut.30:14 doesn’t say that hearing the Word of the Lord – faith in His word- makes us do it, as Paul exposited it in Romans 10:7-8? Actions come out of the genuine faith; Actions without faith is pretending. “Man looks at outer appearance but the Lord looks at the heart”, the Tanakh says so. Another question: Deut.30:20 says “HE is your life,” or “Your choosing or obedience is your life?”

          • Dina says:

            Gean, you do not actually accept that humans have free will, or you are confused on the matter. First you write that we must choose. Then you write that something (and you believe that is God) makes us choose. Do you not see the contradiction?

            If you are forced to choose it is not a choice, don’t you see?

            I cited a bunch of Scriptural passages that prove that God 100% gave us the free will to choose (Deuteronomy 30 was one among several). You are trying to refute that, but why on earth would you try to refute God’s words?

          • Shalom Dina. First, I have a question when you said, “Moses was the only one who transmitted God’s law to the people,” do you mean God’s LAW or God’s Word, or both? How should I understand it then when Moshe said in The Numbers 11:29- ” Moshe said to him, Are you jealous for my sake? would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” and when Deut.18:18 says, “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him”?

            Second, I accept that I have a free will like all other humans. At the same time, as you rightly said, I am confused on the relationship between God’s almighty or sovereignty and human free will (ex. 2 Chronicles 25:2). And I wanted to say not that God programs or forces us to choose, but that God gives HIS words- the Dabar, the Logos, the Voice- for us to choose so that we hear His calling and follow it. So I believe God CALLS or INVITES us to choose. I agree that God 100% gave us the free will to choose and confess that sometimes I just do not love to choose to obey even though I clearly hear His calling. Our free will is so powerful over the divine calling, maybe the meaning of the name- Israel?

            At the same time, however, I believe He does involve in our all psychological and willful activities. If God throws the commandments before us and sits and watches how we do it, then God is not our Father, not Almighty, not shepherd, not Bridegroom, not Friend, but dictator.

            Since the humanity fell in the “Gan Eden,” Hasn’t our God kept coming and searching for humanity with His voice and words so that men could hear and choose the way of life?

            Jeremiah 17:9 says, ” The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” I think God knows how weak human free will is. So God speaks, calls, and reveals His heart by visions and words to us so that we could choose to obey- “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But one who keeps the law is blessed.”(Prov.29:18)

            Lastly, in the Scriptures, I see how much God wants to take all the glory in the History of mankind, especially of the Jews even when they themselves did good job:
            Two examples. “Also on Yehudah came the hand of God to give them one heart, to do the mitzvah of the king and of the princes by the word of the LORD.”(2 Chron.30:12)
            James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow.”

            Conclusion: Our God is All mighty even in human free will.
            Our Father God is All mighty even in No will (Ezekiel 37) ^^
            Our Almighty God could send His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, to transform the hearts of people and even free will.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, what I said was clear: Moses was the only prophet authorized to transmit God’s Law to the people. I did not say God’s word, because many prophets following Moses transmitted God’s word. Therefore, what you wrote in your first paragraph is, forgive me, pointless and does not change the fact that since Jesus changed the Law, he is a false prophet.

            I don’t follow your reasoning regarding free will. God is very clear. He gives us a choice. In Deuteronomy 30 He tells us that He has given us the choice of life and death, and He tells us to choose life. Therefore, yes, our actions govern our spiritual fate. Of course God knows we are weak (Psalms 78) and He is abundantly merciful. Of course God will help us if we turn to Him. But we still make our own choices.

          • Shalom, sister. I also see how God had exalted Moses as an authority figure to transmit God’s Law. Then, how should i understand God’s Torah which has been given to Abraham? I don’t think Abraham has never transmitted the Torah to His children. Genesis 26:5, “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws (Torah).”

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I don’t understand your question. Or if you are trying to make a point, then I don’t understand your point. Can you please clarify?

          • Hi, Dina. I meant this. If God gave Torah to Abraham, wouldn’t he teach and transmit the Torah to his children and household? So to say that Moses is the only authorized one to transmit Torah seems to me improbable.

          • Dina says:

            Gean, I have to take responsibility for being unclear. Moses was the only one who had the authority to present God’s brand-new laws to the Jewish people. Every Jewish parent is obligated to teach God’s laws as taught by Moses to his children. This is the chain of transmission by which God expects us to preserve His truth (Deuteronomy 6:7, 11:19, 32:7; Psalms 78:3-7).

            Moses instructed us not to change the laws but he also instructed us to transmit them to our children.

            Anyone who changes the laws is automatically discounted as a falsifier by the Jewish people.

            I hope that clarifies.

  18. Concerned Reader says:

    Dina, maybe I can help explain the Christian understanding of how G-d must be the one to act first to move a person to act, and yet, how we must also choose to follow, and how its not contradictory. IE the relationship between G-d moving a person by himself alone, and a person’s free will.

    It is written in the Torah, “Noach found grace in the eyes of hashem.” Genesis 6:8. If you think about it, Noach received a horrible message of divine punishment directed towards all humankind from hashem, and yet, G-d says to him, “build an ark, you and your family will be spared.”

    Can you imagine receiving such a horrible yet slightly hopeful message much less being tasked with the responsibility to deliver it?

    Noach’s immediate family was spared from the flood true, but what of his extended family, ie cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, etc.

    The answer was, anyone not on that boat was going to die. A very scary message to receive let alone deliver. Noach had to choose to deliver a message, that there honestly would be no real incentive for him to deliver if he were totally compassionate. (see Abraham trying to plead for Sodom as one who is compassionate.)

    If you were told, “you can survive, but everyone else will die.” Can you imagine being given that pill?

    Consider that Yonah fled from G-D’s initial call, but that his message was a relatively easy message to deliver by contrast. Yonah chose not to deliver his message, yet hashem moved Yonah to do it. How much more would Noach want to flee his calling? How much more difficult to accept by free choice this hard message from hashem that everyone you have ever known is going to die outside your immediate family?

    Could any of us say, “I want to deliver this message of my own free will?”

    Yet, Noach did what he was called to do. But, the point is, G-d moved him to do it. But how?

    Divine mercy. How could the flood demonstrate mercy? All humanity had sinned in the flood, (even Noach later misses the mark almost immediately after leaving the ark, by getting intoxicated.) It says in Genesis 6:9 that Noah was blameless in his generation. Notice it doesn’t say “blameless outright,” but in his generation he was blameless.

    If a starving man finds a ripe but bruised piece of fruit in a barrel of otherwise rotten apples, it still isn’t “fresh,” by the technical definition, but one understands the value as precious all the more because he is hungry. Men like Noah and Job were akin to finding gold flakes in a pond, or edible apples in a rotten container.

    They aren’t whole gold nuggets, but they are more precious because they were found in a place and circumstances where none would expect to find them at all, not even the men themselves. IE they know their choices were not always right, but G-d used them anyhow.

    Many people who are in Job’s initial circumstances (of extreme wealth and success,) for example, do not exhibit his characteristics of humility, of being grateful, and of refusing to lash out at G-d when things get bad.

    In an environment of entitlement and high mindedness, (such as was true of Job’s friends,) G-d finds a person who is outside what one would expect to find.

    But notice, even at the end of the book of Job, even Job himself finally cracked. He basically demands that hashem explain himself. Job manifests the one negative characteristic that he had avoided throughout the entire book. In response, G-d says, “I owe you nothing, you were not there when I made the earth.” Job thereupon realizes, “who am I to expect anything of hashem? I am but dust and ashes”

    By having grace, it means you made the hard choices because that was the only choice, the only road to follow, but it wasn’t your power, your merit, your strength. It was the fact that G-d himself found a pearl among a field of bad oysters. In many cases, grace is found in being broken and then rebuilt. Its not a matter of Choice v G-d acting, G-d acts with and in spite of our choices.

    When you read in the Torah about grace from the lips of the righteous person, its always in the form of a question. “Hashem, if I have found grace in your sight, let me demonstrate my thankfulness by doing X or Y mitzvah.” So, G-d’s primary action does not nullify choice, it works with and even against our choices at times.

    • Dina says:


      The examples you cited are not clear teachings on free will. The Scriptural passages I cited (Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33) are clear teachings on free will. You cannot use a story from Tanach whose topic is not free will as proof to support an idea that contradicts the Torah’s clear teachings. For this discussion to be fair, you need to use the same clear, direct, and honest standard that I am using.

      This is not to say that God doesn’t provide any assistance at all. God is close to all who call on him and all that. But God doesn’t “choose” the person to “save” (and I put “save” in quotes because that’s also a Christian idea). The person chooses himself.

  19. Concerned Reader says:

    You didn’t read what I said at all. There is no contradiction of free will in what I wrote. You can make free choices and exercise free agency all while G-d is directing things the way he wants them to be.

  20. Concerned Reader says:

    I’m not disagreeing with you that G-d accepts the one who does rightly. He clearly says so.

    However, doing rightly does not justify a person before G-d, because everyone has different levels of right and wrong actions, different levels of teshuvah, etc.

    Even Job whom hashem clearly said was correct in his judgement was clearly not justified before G-d in his questioning/expecting certain things of G-d.

    A person cannot make a demand to G-d. The way it seems you are approaching the question is as though one can determine who was more holy by checklist. Is David more holy (who committed several indiscretions?) or is one person more holy who never committed those indiscretions?) Its a matter of free agency, but also G-d’s own choices.

    • Shalom, Concerned Reader. Thank you for enriching this discussion. Question. What does it mean “God justify?” Is it God’s calling? or considering? or imparting righteousness? or imputing righteousness? It seems to me that God justified Job before Satan. However, God did not justify Job before God Himself. Does this fact tell us something?

      • Eleazar says:

        God did not “justify” Job before HaSatan. God asked HaSatan to consider Job’s righteousness and then Job justified himself before HaSatan by living up to what God said about him.

        • Eleazar says:

          In fact, if you think about it, it was Job who justified God’s claim.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Eleazer Job proved G-d’s initial sentiment to be correct, (that Job would not desert him.) That was G-d’s initial pronouncement, ie what G-d judged the outcome to be, provided Job would choose to act rightly. However, just because Job chose rightly, it didn’t make G-d owe him anything due to his own righteousness. Job had merely done what G-d had already told humans they must do. Job fulfilled a responsibility, he did not justify anyone. G-d doesn’t need humans to justify anything, presumably.

          Notice that Job is questioned by G-d who says, “Who is this who gives dark counsel, with words, without knowledge?” whereupon rashi comments

          “Dark and foolish counsel. Another explanation: Who is this who gives dark counsel… without knowledge? Said the Holy One, blessed be He: Who is this who darkens counsel, frustrates words, i.e., with a multiplicity of words; for I wrote: “and that man was sincere and upright,” at the beginning of the Book, in order that My name should rest on Him, but HE came and darkened and frustrated what I counseled with his many words. Whereupon Job replies to Him (below 42:3): “Who is this Who hides counsel?” Had I known Your counsel, I would not have spoken so much. Then the Holy One blessed be He, answers him, “Neither did Abraham know; yet he passed ten” [tests]. So I found.”

          In other words, G-d has justified Job, not Job himself. Job tries to justify himself when presented by G-d’s questioning as Rashi shows, but Job fails to, because he ultimately realizes that he doesn’t have answers to hashem’s questions. The suffering of Job was a sovereign act of G-d, and part of the narrative’s genius in dealing with the question of theodicy, IE the problem of evil, is that sometimes suffering occurs that you can’t control or prevent, sometimes suffering happens that you did not willfully cause.

          • Eleazar says:

            “However, just because Job chose rightly, it didn’t make G-d owe him anything due to his own righteousness. Job had merely done what G-d had already told humans they must do. Job fulfilled a responsibility, he did not justify anyone.”

            Not at all what I was saying. NO, God did not “owe” Job anything. What I am doing is defining justification according to the common use of the word, and not the Christian definition. In the real world, the word justify means to illustrate the correctness of a decision by the means and result. In Christianity, the word means to be declared righteous even when you are doing wrong. Job “justified” God in the sense that he proved God right and His statement to be correct. End in the end, it was God who was justified, and HaSatan was proven wrong. Job was just being Job. Job stayed faithful under some of the worst circumstances one can imagine.

            You see, I simply do not ascribe to Christianity’s made-up and coined terms. Christianity takes nearly every biblical key word and completely turns it on its head: God does not mean God, it means “gods”. One does not mean one, it means “single plurality”. Son does not mean son, it means “non-created eternal being who took the position of a son, but really isn’t one at all.” “Justified” does not mean justified, but ,means “record shows perfect even if you’re evil but believe what we tell you”.

        • Eleazar, i agree with you that Job justified himself by living up to what God said about him. I see the book of Job begins with the description of Job’s righteous lifestyle first and then God’s justification. So, logically we could say that What Job has done made God justify Job. However, “Job justified himself before HaSatan by living up to what God said about him?” Then, do you mean that all the long-suffering and righteous acts of Job since Job1:13, Job did it before HaSatan? or before God? Did he do it with recognition of Satan’s presence?

          • Eleazar says:

            No, sir. He did it because that is how he made his decisions. He was loyal to YHVH and “did the right thing” when the choice was presented. He was righteous before HaSatan’s challenge was made. God spoke of Job’s righteousness in the past/present tense. Job was not just “declared” righteous. He WAS righteous. That is a huge difference between Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism, God cannot lie and declare someone righteous who is not in reality righteous. In Christianity, “righteousness” is “imputed” regardless of any change or actions whatsoever. But nevertheless, even the word “righteous” means something different between the two religions. That is why I say the two religions have nothing in common. Every key doctrinal word is defined differently.

            To me, the irony of the Christian notion of righteousness is that according to Christianity’s own black and white standard for humans, that of absolute justified perfection or sinner deserving of hell, Jesus was a sinner deserving of hell.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Gean, it seems to me that G-d justifying someone means that he has set the standard. A human cannot earn something with G-d because everything he has is what G-d has already given.

        G-d doesn;t simply impute righteousness where there is no reason to do so

        . Abraham believed G-d, and it was accounted as righteousness is a pretty poor translation of the Hebrew concept of Emunah. Emunah does not simply mean belief, but means something like faithful trust. Abraham faithfully trusted G-d and it was accounted as righteousness.”

        When Christians talk about “faith” they often view it as a synonym for belief. This is wrong.

        Faith as defined by the Bible is not simply belief, but is faithful trust. IE faithfulness and trust implies work, and it implies reciprocation. However, the work is human responsibility, not a matter of scoring points with G-d.

        • Eleazar says:

          I would go further, CR, and say it is not even “faithful trust”. It is faithfulness, period. Trustworthiness. Emunah is like fidelity in a marriage, or being able to be counted on when given a task at work. At least that is my understanding.

          • Eleazar says:

            That is why James stopped Paul’s teaching about Avraham dead in its tracks ( which upset Martin Luther). Emuna without corresponding deeds is a contradiction. Deeds are how emuna ( faithfulness) is expressed. Paul was projecting a false definition of emunah onto Torah! Remember, Paul admits in the NT that he has no problem deceiving people to meet his ends.

            Jean, I recommend the book “Their Hollow Inheritence”.

  21. Concerned Reader says:

    You seem to compartmentalize a lot of teachings in the Bible, as though they are not truly interrelated. You always say, “you must rely on the same clear teachings I am.” What I think is missed is that what is clear in one area of the narrative (with your explanations,) becomes unclear in another area of the same narrative. Is the text cohesive or is it not?

  22. Concerned Reader says:

    Paul was projecting a false definition of emunah onto Torah!

    But Eleazer, the man from Tarsus also said “the doer of the work shall be justified” (Romans 2:13.) The arguments between those two branches of the early Christian movement were largely over practical issues, like gentile conversion, proper social interactions, (such as meals,) etc. Even as late as Chrysostom’s time in the late 300s Pauline Christians were still interacting with Synagogues, and saw little issue with it. That’s why Chrysostom got so mad.

    Paul makes clear that his rule for his congregations was that Christians should bear with their brethren wherein they are called. IE if you are Jewish, you should remain Jewish, if a gentile you should keep the basic rules of godly behavior, 3 of which listed in Acts 15 dealt with what a non Jew should and should not eat. Also, even Paul circumcised a boy born to a Jewish mother. Also, look at the whole verse that people always misquote contrasting grace and works.

    “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus TO DO GOOD WORKS, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

    Martin Luther literally broke with centuries of Orthodox (and even Catholic) teaching when he called James’ epistle the epistle of straw. Faith (as a marriage involving faithfulness) is the metaphor used by all Christian literature, including Paul’s epistles.

    Its one reason among many why (even when I was a Christian,) I didn’t have any issues with Jews being observant of the Torah.

    • CR, isn’t it interesting that Yakov( James) is a brother of Yeshua? One family?! Can we מכבל a spiritual message from this fact?: James, a book in the NT represent Judaism which emphasizes on works and mentions never on Yeshua. But as Yakov is a brother of Yeshua, Judaism is a brother of Christianity.

Leave a Reply to Blasater Cancel 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.