New Arguments and Spiritual Blindness

Christian missionaries are constantly presenting new arguments to justify their devotion to Jesus. This exercise is self-defeating.

One of the salient features of Christianity is the belief that anyone who doesn’t see the “truth” of their claims must be stricken by a spiritual blindness (or worse). We then find a debate between Christians and their opponents which the Christians proceed to lose. The Christian then turns around and generates a new argument and says: “Aha! It is because of THIS argument that you are spiritually blind.” “Well Mr. Christian, if you are not affected by this spiritual blindness, why then did you not think of the argument until now?” (This is aside from the fact that Christianity changed its theology time and time again after centuries of critique from the “spiritually blind”.)

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 General. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to New Arguments and Spiritual Blindness

  1. Annelise says:

    Sometimes new arguments are actually old knowledge, presented in new ways in an attempt to express what has been known for a long time. And conversations always progress in that way.

    What’s the difference between that, and what you’ve described here?

    • Annelise
      Thanks for pointing out where I wasn’t clear and for giving me an opportunity to articulate. In this brief article I am referring to the following phenomena. The Christian argues that Isaiah 7:14 says “virgin” and that the only reason Jews don’t accept it is because they are spiritually blind. Then after many centuries of vilifying the Jews for not accepting the obvious truth – the Christian apologists admit that it doesn’t actually say “virgin” but the word “betula” wouldn’t mean virgin either. When these apologists are challenged with Deuteronomy 22:17 and Judges 11:37 we don’t get an answer – I guess we need to give them another 2000 years to come up with something. Meanwhile these same apologists present themselves as people who would love to put issues on the table and that it is the Jewish people who have something to hide.
      In any case – the original argument was actually false – so it wasn’t spiritual blindness preventing the Jews from accepting it – it was a love for God’s truth and a deep respect for His word. The new argument can’t be much better because even the Christians didn’t think of it until they realized that their first one doesn’t work

      • Annelise says:

        Right. That’s an important thought.

      • David says:

        You’re factually off regarding your citations. But I do agree many Christians come off too heavy handed on the believe question thinking they are doing the will of God. Some are as you say too extreme thinking they and only they understand each and every verse perfectly. A better way to understand spiritual blindness is the overall conclusion, not each and every verse. And many verses have multiple meanings for different times and circumstances, such as the “virgin” verse.

    • Annelise, my reply is very plain. If a dog bites a man, that is not “a new”, because that is ordinarily known, but if the story says that a man bites a dog, then everybody will read it. In other words, to get attention authors have to come up with something different, ie: something against G-d’s Torah, against G-d’s chosen Jewish people and against the G-d of Israel!

      • David says:

        If a dog bites a man” we come away with one understanding. But if we know that that man was the dog’s owner we come away with onother deeper understanding. Then if we find out that that dog was always faithfull and not prone to rebell we come away with yet another understanding.

  2. hyechiel says:

    Dear Friends;
    It is the same all over the world.
    I know what you are talking about. My favorite responce is still;
    “Well! It should not have been written that way!” after i responded
    with qotes from the Gospel to show why I could not accept his
    Thing is, he is right. After Marcion re-did the Septuagent, which
    Prophets and Writings were translated from the Hebrew to Greek by the Christians, the
    majority of the Tanach they use is a version of the older Greek, which
    is also mistranslated in places.
    But, our Christian Missionary friends trudge on, trying to show how
    blind we are, to not accept the re-done of the re-done. Oy, poor us!
    I had one on Facebook who would not accept my reading of the Tanach,
    nor, for that matter, even of the Gospel. Finally I unfriended him so I
    would not have his constant telling me how wrong I am. Funny thing is, I
    had back-up from a Muslim, or a man who was Muslim, but is now a
    Noahide. I copied and used much of his material on AOL “Best Religion”
    blog. Of cource, even with my using the Gospel, I was wrong. I guess it
    should not have been written that way!

    • David says:


      My bible, the New Revised Standard Version of 1989, (a mainstream Christian bible) which is based on the American Standard Version of 1901 (itself was also a mainstream Christian bible), which was in turn based in part on the KJV of 1611 (a mainstream Christian bible) all are based on the Masoretic Text for the OT. What? Yes, they all use the Masoretic Text for their translation into English, etc. Why?

      And here’s the rest of the story, or another opinion on the same story by V. S. Herrell at:

      The Masoretic Text, other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the only existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete texts come from the 10th and 11th centuries AD. However, the Hebrew text that it contains is clearly not the original Hebrew, nor even the Hebrew that was in use in the 1st century AD. The Hebrew of the 1st century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used, when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text. For example, although Philo and Josephus both used the Greek Septuagint, it is believed by most scholars that they frequently had access to a Hebrew Bible and even consulted it on a few occasions. It is through evidence like this that we see that the then current Hebrew disagreed with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of today. In the 1st century, the Christians and all other Greek speaking Israelites, including 1,000,000 of them who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, used the Greek Septuagint. Jesus and His Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted the Greek Septuagint. Of this there can be no doubt. This is a fact that can be confirmed in any encyclopedia or scholarly book on the subject. As we have already pointed out, we know this because the quotations of the Greek New Testament are exactly aligned with the Greek Septuagint, but in sharp opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There is, however, no reason to believe that they were in disagreement with the Hebrew that was current in the 1st century AD.

      What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. We have already noted how the early Catholics attacked the Vulgate translation of Jerome because it was the first to be based upon Hebrew, and they continued for a very long time to use the Old Latin because it was based upon the Greek Septuagint. One of the most famous examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which reads in the Greek Septuagint:
      “Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel.”
      In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah. This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians and that the Christians changed the word in the Septuagint to read virgin instead of young woman so that it would support the reading in Matthew. Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint. The Jews are the ones who changed the Hebrew, replacing the word virgin with young woman. The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew. They then began revising the Hebrew documents to support their Jewish contentions. By the time of Jerome, they began taking the soft approach and gave Jerome their new Hebrew for him to use in his translation. But, as we said before, the Christians at first rejected the Vulgate. So the Jews continued working on their text. From the 1st century to the middle of the 5th century, they called themselves Talmudists; from the 5th century to the completion of their text in the 10th-11th centuries, they called themselves Masoretes.

      At the end of this time, all other Hebrew manuscripts except for the Masoretic Text disappeared. The fact is that they were destroyed by the same people who had gathered them up – the Talmudic, Masoretic Jews. Then the Jews began presenting themselves as the diligent preservers of the Hebrew Bible and began deceiving Christians. They no longer blatantly attacked the Septuagint but rather touted themselves as being faithful servants of God. To this end, when the Masoretic Text was finished, they counted every letter and word and contrived mechanisms to insure that the manuscripts would be faithfully transmitted, but they did not bother to account for the editing and corruption that they themselves had been doing for the previous 600-700 years. The early English translations of the Bible were based upon the Latin Vulgate, but the Jews intended to deceive the Christians into translating their Bibles from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. So their new strategy was to win over the stupid Christians, but the old motives were always there. At this time, they had to do an about-face on the issue of virgin. They had learned that the Christians would not accept the Hebrew as long as such blatant blasphemies were contained in it. This deception on the part of the mongrel, Talmudic Jews can be seen in an early Spanish translation of the Masoretic Text. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, The Bible in the Making (pg. 279) writes:
      Translations of the Hebrew Bible into various languages, began to appear about that time. In 1422 Rabbi Moses Arragel translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew into Spanish, for the Christian Church and with the assistance of Franciscan scholars, and it is upon that version that the Ferrara Bible, printed in 1553, was based. This famous Spanish Bible was intended to serve the needs of both Jews and Christians. Certain deviations were made in the copies intended for Christian readers. For example, where the copies intended for Jews read ‘young woman,’ the copies set aside for Christian use put ‘virgin.’
      Through this means of deception, the atheistic Jews pulled off the grand deception when they convinced the translators of the KJV to use the Masoretic Text instead of the Latin or Greek. Today, the so-called “Christian” world believes in the lie of the Hebrew Bible, even though all Christians for the first four centuries of Christianity universally used the Greek Septuagint or a translation of it, including the Master Jesus the Anointed and His Ambassadors.

      When this so-called controversy is examined from a purely textual point-of-view, then we find that the undisputed facts are the following, and I say ‘undisputed’ because these facts are admitted even by the most staunch supporters of the Masoretic Text.

      In regards to the Masoretic Text, the manuscripts date from around AD1000. The manuscripts are admittedly altered from their original form, for vowel symbols have been added and the text has been revised in light of Talmudic tradition. The Masoretic Text is based upon the Hebrew which was rejected by the early Christians, who were the true Israel of God.

      In regards to the Septuagint, the oldest manuscripts date to around AD325-350 (though fragments are much older). It was never purposely changed or edited, but the oldest texts of the Septuagint represent the oldest surviving descendants of an ancient translation made of the Hebrew in the 3rd century BC which was considered divinely inspired by most Judeans at that time. It was universally accepted by the early Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity and was used and quoted from by Jesus and His Apostles, who quoted from it under divine inspiration.

      Again, the above facts are admitted even by the supporters of the Masoretic Text.

      • Norm says:

        Hey David – your supposed “expert”, Pastor V.S. Herrell – wrote “The White Holocaust” – he’s a raving anti-Semite who spews his hatred toward the Jews – and that is why he and his ilk hold to the Greek supremacy despite history, archeology, and common sense. Nice guy to quote!!!

  3. Paul summers says:

    Ah Hah! Thats easy.

    The Lord God of Israel is of course all seeing and al knowing. Thoughtout the dawn of humanity He has revealed His Name too His creation. Just a climpse of sripture will show that. The Lord shows Himself through; nature, history, the word and through conscience. However only God Himeslf can show these things. He chooses what and how much also. In the OT/ LAW, some things were hidden until the express image of the Father were reveled in His Son Jeshua. All the prophicies of old came true through His Son. So to answer your question/accusation, no one can see the truth of God until they believe in the Son and what He Did on the cross. Then and only then do. believers grow in the WORD. Spiritual growth comes from study, Devotion etc. Not trying to live by the LAW that doesnt exists anymore by a nation who doesnt actually believe in God Adonai.

    • hyechiel says:

      For Paul and others who need the truth

      Dear Paul;
      I am writing the following not out of disrespect for Christianity, but
      in rebuttal for the disrespect shhown to the terachings of Jesus, by
      you and many of your felow Christians,
      Gd did not reveal, as you say, everything. But what He did tell us is
      accepted by us, as He said; for “Eternity”!
      Jesus taught Torah, and the truth be known, if what we read in the
      Gospel is to be accepted, he did denied his divinity and being a
      He did this several times, as in Matthew 19:16-19. He stated that the
      Torah, as G-d said, shall stand forever; “until all these things shall
      He made several comments which uphelp G-d’s word, as Jews of all
      backgrounds understand it. Paul of Tarsus was the one who found reason
      to disagree, and between Paul and Jesus, there are several
      disagreements, as on Torah, Commandments, and contrary to what G-d told
      us, divinity of a person.
      Think, Paul; your faith teaches that there is a trinity-G-d, the Holy
      Spirit, and a physical person. Now explain how there can be G-d (the
      Father) and G-d (the Holy Spirit?) Where would you place each Spiritual
      person? If the two are One, then it is only names for the same Holy
      Spirit, thus, not two, but onlly One. So if One, how can you say
      Trinity, if saying Jesus is part of it, there can be only two; a Spirit
      in Heaven, and a person on earth? Would this not make it a Duality?
      OK, so we say you have a duality, not – the impossible – trinity. G-d
      said that He is one, and He does not share HGis Glory with another. He
      is recorded in Deutoonomy as saying; “Be sure to know and to take to
      heart, that I, the L-rd, am G-d in the Heavens above, and the Earth
      beniegth.”THERE EXIST NONE OTHER!”
      Now, Paul, one of you is a lier. Either there exist none other, thus
      G-d told the truth, or there is a mutiple of eternal beings you call
      G-d, thus you are calling G-d a lier. No way can you have it both ways.
      Why Jews remain loyal to G-d. Why most of you Christians, not all,
      effectively reject G-d for your trinity. Why many Christians read the
      whole volum of sacred text-Tanach and Gosple, and reject the Trinity as
      not possible.
      So the original question comes up; which of us is blind? G-d says you
      are, you say we are. If, as Jews say, G-d told the truth, you are
      blind. It is this blindness which kept us apart for two millinium, and
      dispite the good work of millions of Christians, shall continue to do
      The challenge is for you and your fellow Christians to open your eyes.
      Jews have; can you?

  4. Ilqar Mizrachi says:

    Among Christian scholars, it’s widely believed that Jesus inherited the legal claim to the David’s throne through his adoptive father Joseph, as explained in Matthew, and Jesus inherited the blood claim to the eternal throne through Mary, as explained in Luke. However, more interesting, though, is Jesus’ genealogy found in Matthew 1:1-17 TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being the Messiah because it demonstrates that he was Jeconiah’s descendant (Matt 1:11-12). This argument appeals to Jeremiah 22:24-30, which clearly teaches that NO descendant of Jeconiah will ever be king in Judah or sit on David’s throne .

    • David says:

      Here’s a look at another point of view of Jeremiah 22 which explains the Jeconiah curse more fully in regards to Jesus.

      Ra McLaughlin at

      Explains in part:

      “…Verse 30a says that Jeconiah will not
      prosper “in his days” . The (“for”) which introduces 30b
      appears to signal a clarification of the nature of the non-prosperity,
      while the remaining words extend the curse against Jeconiah to his seed.

      That is, the curse is laid upon Jeconiah for his whole life, and takes a form which affects his children, also for the duration of Jeconiah’s life. Thus, as long as Jeconiah lived, neither he nor his descendants would sit on David’s throne or rule in Judah.

      Further, the same curse that prohibited Jeconiah and his
      descendants from sitting on the throne also exiled them from the land (Jer. 22:27-28). However, Jeconiah’s descendant Zerubbabel eventually did return to the land. If the curse had been unconditional and permanent, Zerubbabel would not have been able to return. The fact that Zerubbabel did return proves that the curse did not permanently ban all Jeconiah’s posterity.
      The curse against Jeconiah has been interpreted as unconditional
      by most commentators, but this is probably unwarranted given both the general tenor of prophesy and the context of Jeremiah 22.

      It should not be forgotten that, only four chapters prior to this, God revealed to Jeremiah some basic prophetic presuppositions:
      “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning
      a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation
      against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent
      concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another
      moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a
      kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not
      obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I
      had promised to bless it” (Jer. 18:7-10 NASB).

      As God himself explained, the fundamental assumption is that prophecy is conditioned upon human behavior; negative prophecies can be averted by repentance, positive ones can be negated by disobedience.

      Likewise, even Jeremiah 22 begins with a prophecy to the king of
      Judah which is explicitly conditional and which covers the same ground as that made to Jeconiah later in the chapter:
      “‘For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will
      enter the gates of this house, sitting in David’s place on his throne,
      riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his
      servants and his people. But if you will not obey these words, I
      swear by Myself,’ declares the Lord, ‘that this house will become a
      desolation’” (Jer. 22:4-5 NASB).

      Of course, it should also be recognized that the curse in Jeremiah 22:24-30 begins with the phrase, indicating God’s heightened
      determination to carry out his threat (compare Num. 14:28; Isa. 49:18; Zeph. 2:9). In fact, this formula probably indicates that the thing prophesied certainly will take place. Still, it would run contrary to Jeremiah 18:7-10 to interpret this as an indication that the condition no longer existed. Rather, the phrase likely signifies that the condition certainly will be fulfilled.

      In keeping with this, history reveals that Jeconiah indeed failed to
      repent, and that the resultant curse continued throughout his life. As stated above, however, the curse did not inhibit Jeconiah’s descendant Zerubbabel, who did not follow in Jeconiah’s evil ways, from returning to the land or from being potentially offered the throne of the “Davidic monarchy” (Keil, vol. 10, p. 497): “‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord of hosts” (Hag. 2:23).

      This interpretation of Jeremiah 22:24-30 closely parallels the
      Davidic covenant itself, which was explicitly conditional: “You shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way, to walk in My law as you have walked before Me” (2 Chr. 6:16). Viewed in this way, Jeremiah’s prophecy against Jeconiah looks more like a prosecution of the Davidic covenant than it does a personal vendetta against a rogue king.

      In light of all these considerations, it makes perfect sense that
      Matthew would have appealed to Jeconiah as Jesus’ forefather. As long as the king and nation rebelled against God, no king would be restored to the throne. Even after Jeconiah died, this rebellious situation continued, and Israel and Judah had no king until the time of Christ when God himself began to gather the remnant of his flock (Jer. 23:3), raised up the Branch of David, Jesus Christ, and inaugurated the kingdom (Jer. 23:5). The promised Messiah kept covenant and therefore did not fall under the curse. Instead, he received all the promised blessings of the Davidic covenant. This understanding of Jeremiah 22:24-30 allows evangelicals to embrace Matthew’s genealogy of Christ as given, rather than compels them to make excuses for it.

      • To David,
        Many thanks for your explanation. I appreciate it very much. But unfortunately, in your brilliant article there are some points that are open to misinterpretation.
        Well, I’ll try to explain the issue in different way: The prophecy uttered by Jeremiah (22:30) should be studied very carefully. Jeconiah, also called “Jehoiachin” (1 Chronicles 3:16, NIV) and “Coniah” (Jeremiah 22:24), was a king of Judah who was deported as part of the Babylonian captivity (Esther 2:6; 1 Chronicles 3:17). This is exactly what happened, as Jeconiah was not successful as a king (he only reigned for three months before he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar’s forces), and none of his sons (he had seven of them, 1 Chronicles 3:17) reigned over Judah. Jeremiah also forecast Jehoiachin’s exile and predicted he would have no descendants succeeding him on the throne. In contrast, the false prophet Hananiah said Jehoiachin would be restored to the throne of Judah within two years (Jeremiah 28:3-4, 11; Jeremiah 28:12-17).He is also listed in the genealogy of “Jesus”, in Joseph’s family lineage (Matthew 1:11).
        But David, please, notice that the Matthew’s final tesseradecad contains only 13 generations (not 14). Simply put, the author of the Matthew gospel miscounted the number. A name may have been counted both at the end of one tesseradecad and the beginning of the next—either David or Jeconiah. Or if Josiah’s son was intended as Jehoiakim, then Jeconiah could be counted separately after the exile. Subsequent names in Matthew’s next name Abiud, cannot be identified in Chronicles on more than a speculative basis. A common explanation for the inconsistency of both is that at least one of them, or possibly both, are incorrect, and fabricated. The series of unknown names connecting Joseph’s grandfather to Zerubbabel is an outright fabrication, produced by collecting and then modifying various names from 1 Chronicles.
        Many Christians argue that this curse did not apply to Jesus because Jesus did not biologically descend from Jeconiah. As alluring as this defense may be, it ultimately fails by creating an equally bad problem. Specifically, according to Matthew, Jesus’ claim to the Davidic throne runs through Jeconiah. The curse of Jeconiah taints Joseph’s line, so that if we theorize adoption (which is without scriptural backing or precedent) we trace Joseph back to Jeconiah, cursed by G-d under another of G-d’s oaths. G-d used the same term with Zerubbabel, a descendant of Jeconiah, that He used with Jeconiah, a “signet ring.” Christians conclude from this that the curse was annulled. However, a closer examination will reveal that this is certainly not the case. The curse begins with an oath. “As I live, saith the LORD.” How does the Lord live? He lives eternally. The consequences of Jeremiah’s curse were immediate and devastating. For example, no descendant of Jeconiah would ever sit on the throne of David. The king who followed Jeconiah was therefore not his son Shealtiel, who ordinarily would have been the rightful heir to his father’s throne. Due to the prophet’s curse, however, Jeconiah’s son Shealtiel was ineligible to reign as king and the kingship was given instead to Zedekiah, Jeconiah’s uncle. Ironically, although Jeconiah was thoroughly wicked, his grandson Zerubavel was remarkably righteous, and as a result, he played a central role in the restoration of the second commonwealth. In fact, as a result of his faithfulness, Zerubavel was bestowed with great authority over the Jewish people. This authority was, however, limited. When the Jewish people returned from their Babylonian exile, although Zerubavel was given the signet ring of nobility and power (Haggai 2:23), he was unable to sit on the throne of David and rule as king. Instead, as a result of Jeremiah’s curse on his grandfather, Zerubavel could only act as governor over the Jewish people.
        In response to the problem of Jesus’ cursed ancestry, missionaries point to rabbinic literature which indicates that the curse placed upon Jeconiah was reversed. According to an opinion found in a number of rabbinic sources, which include Tractate Sanhedrin and Leviticus Rabbah, Jeremiah’s devastating curse was reversed as a result of Jeconiah’s heartfelt repentance while imprisoned in his tiny Babylonian dungeon. This opinion states that while Jeconiah was in his cell, his wife was lowered into the small confinement where Jeconiah was imprisoned. He had not seen her for a long time and Jeconiah desired greatly to be intimate with her. His wife warned him, however, that she was menstruating and it would be sinful for them to indulge in marital relations during that time. In spite of Jeconiah’s desire to be with her, he resisted committing this grave sin of having sexual relations with a menstruous woman. As a result of this extraordinary act of contrite repentance in exile, the curse of Jeremiah 22:30 was lifted. The Talmud therefore concludes that repentance in exile atones for all sins. With this moving statement in the Talmud in hand, the same missionaries who loudly reject and condemn the authority of the Talmud, joyfully use this rabbinic opinion regarding the reversal of the curse upon Jeconiah to resolve their stunning problem of Jesus’ cursed lineage. Have these Christians solved their vexing problem? Not at all. In their effort to use this profound rabbinic statement to address the curse on Jeconiah, missionaries generate two brand new problems for themselves that are far more severe than Jeremiah’s curse upon Jeconiah. The first problem that this missionary response creates is that this section of the Talmud that they are quoting from undermines the very foundations of the Christianity that they zealously seek to uphold. Tractate Sanhedrin (37b) introduces the events regarding Jeconiah’s repentance in a Babylon jail to demonstrate that a sinner’s penitence in exile atones for all sins. In fact, the section of the Talmud that missionaries use opens with that very point. The text begins by proclaiming that “Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘Exile atones for everything . . . ‘” To illustrate this teaching, the Talmud uses the illustration of the reversal of the curse on Jeconiah. When missionaries use this Talmudic text to ameliorate Jesus’ problematic genealogy, they therefore concede that man can enjoy a complete atonement without a blood sacrifice. From this rabbinic viewpoint, Jeconiah is the paradigm of the man whose own repentance alone atoned for all of his sins. This teaching completely contradicts the Christian doctrine that maintains that sin can only be expiated through the shedding of blood, not through his own merit. In essence, by relying on this statement in the Talmud missionaries are acknowledging that Jesus’ death on the cross was completely unnecessary for the atonement and salvation of mankind.

  5. Ilqar Mizrachi says:

    No one was better suited to appeal to gentiles than Paul because, to all intents and purposes, he was a gentile. Paul claimed that he was a Jew according to his false greek bible (Philippians 3:5, 2Corinth 11:22 ). But there is an evidence that Paul was a gentile, as stated by his own writings. It isn’t strong, but it’s there, as though he sometimes made a slip that revealed his gentile origin contrary to his bold assertions of being a Pharisee Jew.
    The first evidence that he lied about his origins grows out of Galatians 3:13,14 :
    ’’… might come upon the GENTILES , THAT WE might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ’’
    And another evidence includes the statement made to the Galatians 4:4,5 ’’ … to redeem THEM that WERE UNDER THE LAW (i.e. them, Jews), that WE MIGHT RECEIVE THE ADOPTION OF SONS (i.e we, Gentiles).’’
    It is clear that Paul, by use of the first person plural in the last lines of these quotations, is classifying himself with the gentiles. Was this simply a slip, and inadvertent error, or has he revealed his true nationality? In either case, inadvertent error or inadvertent truth, – he lied. In his very next breath, Paul says that the gentiles are a law unto themselves. (Romans 2:14-15 ’’For when the GENTILES, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, THEIR CONSCIENCE also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;’’
    Confused? Me too. To say the gentiles do the law by nature is a lie. Paul gives his gentile audience a new standard by which to measure righteousness: – THE CONSCIENCE.
    Now let’s read Acts 23:1
    ’’ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in ALL GOOD CONSCIENCE before G-d until this day.’’
    Does this make any logical sense? Paul does measure his righteousness through a gentile standard: CONSCIENCE.
    Next evidence we can find in Titus 1 : 10 -11:
    10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the CIRCUMCISION:
    11 WHOSE MOUTHS MUST BE STOPPED, who subvert whole houses, TEACHING THINGS WHICH THEY OUGHT NOT, for filthy lucre’s sake.
    What do you think? Can you imagine a Jew speaking out against his own people in such a manner?
    I am wondering, the very people who wrote of christian LOVE, also wrote of HATRED toward Jews.

    • paul says:

      This view of Paul being a gentile is a very strange a desperate angle. Its very obvious that you have taken the passages mentioned completly out of context and without any view of truth. To have the assumtion that Jesus and Pauls teachings are at cross swords are your basic failings which lead you to false accusations.
      For starters Paul met with Christ and then was led in truth by Him over the months and years which followed.
      Paul makes it very clear from the start that he was a jew. Born of the tribe of Benjamin. Im not sure why he would say otherwise? The early church were terrified of him and his reputation because he was from the pharisees etc. If you read the Ch 1 of Galatians this is very clear.

      When Paul used the word “We” and “us” he wasnt refering to us/we gentiles but as us/we as believers in Christ.

      Your statement about a Jew speaking out against his own people. Are you saying that Jeshua was also a gentile? Im sure you dont agree with His teachings either and He spoke out against the Pharisees etc. So by your thinking a jew cannot speak out against his own so that must make them a gentile. All the OT prophets spoke out also. Did they become gentiles also?

      Finally your last statement about Hatred against Jews is just a desperate last ditch attempt to refuse to accept the truth.


      • To Paul
        I suppose it’s all part of the human conditions; we are naturally defensive with regard to our privacy, identity and beliefs. How can we Jews believe in and accept such a jesus, if he, as you wrote, spoke out against the Pharisees (Jewish Rabbis) ? Of course his crude remarks and offensive comments based on Anti-Semitic stereotypes reflected the pagan Greek HATRED toward Jews and prove (among other important factors) that the gospels etc were inventions of Greek Hellenistic authors who were in the business of creating a philosophized version of many different traditions and then syncretizing them with Greek Hellenistic ideas. To understand the anti-Semitism of christian Europe of the last century, one must look back two thousand years to the birth of christianity and its separation from its beginnings in Judaism. Only through a knowledge of this critical time of transition can we understand the roots of the prejudice which developed into christian anti-Semitism. To understand how a thoroughly Jewish religion became the anti-Jewish religion of the christian church, it is necessary to retrace the events of the early centuries starting with your jesus. The christian fathers turned out volumes of literature to prove that they were the true people of G-d, and that Judaism had only been a prelude to or in preparation for christianity. Even such a famous Justin Martyr along with Hippolytus (170-236 C.E.) was obsessed with the belief that the Jews were receiving and would continue to receive G-d’s punishment for having murdered jesus. Hippolytus writes:
        “Now then, incline thine ear to me and hear my words, and give heed, thou Jew. Many a time does thou boast thyself, in that thou didst condemn Jesus of Nazareth to death, and didst give him vinegar and gall to drink; and thou dost vaunt thyself because of this. Come, therefore, and let us consider together whether perchance thou dost boast unrighteously, O, Israel, and whether thou small portion of vinegar and gall has not brought down this fearful threatening upon thee and whether this is not the cause of thy present condition involved in these myriad of troubles.”
        Even the great Reformer and the Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, called for violence, dismemberment, arson, expulsion, and death of Jews. In a book entitled “On Jews and Their Lies”, Luther wrote:
        “My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.”
        You are a christian, so this is something you should have known about. Many knew that Luther had some skeletons in his closet. Many christians read his strong words about women, catholics, and those “fools” who proposed that the earth moved around the sun, but they chalked all that up to context and figured he was ahead of his time in every other way.
        But the kind of hate found Luther’s writings about the Jews is so visceral, so contrary to the teachings of G-d, it made me wonder. These attitudes were reinforced also in catholic church preaching, art and popular teaching over the centuries containing contempt for Jews. In many catholic countries, it led to civil and political discrimination against Jews, legal disabilities, and in some instances to physical attacks on Jews which occasionally ended in emigration, expulsion, and even death. Doesn’t that sum up the tragedy of christian humanity?

        • paul says:

          Ok well im trying to read your last comment here and im trying to see any logic that you present in your arguements. Without wanting to sound rude you seem to have some very odd views on written history which of course history is history based on facts and not fiction or other?
          For a starting point with any topic on earth if one has a view and its foundation from one side of the discusion is based purley on a conspiracy theory or just on plain un truths then the person is at at complete loss before one starts to look at the topic in discusion, and will by no means be able to see any truth on what is being shown.

          Im not sure if your last comment was in reply to my statement on Paul being a Jew and not a gentile? If it was?, you have done what most people do here on this blog and not answerd or replied directly to what has been previously stated. The statements are proved to be incorrect, then the best way to answer back is to go off and start another debate on other issues.
          If it wasnt then my apologies!
          Anyway lets look at the statements that you have made;

          Why couldnt Jesus speek out at the Pharisees? It has already been noted on this blog,, I think by the Author??? That the pharisees were in general corrupt! The book of Malachi will show you this. To cut a long story short Jeshua tied the pharisees in knots.

          You say that Jeshua words and teachings were anti semetic. How can a Jew be so? Jeshua made it very clear from the start that His message was for the House of Israel only. It could be argued that He was to Pro Jewish if any!
          You talk about combining His teachings with Greek hellinistic views. When the apostles went out they were persecuted from Rome, greek and Israel!! You dont make historic sense! Who would write about persecution in there letters, only for it to be false. Hang on there the apostles were all killed for their faith so who were the ones being persecuted??

          However now here on your next point I see you arguement but at the same time you are completly contradicting yourself.

          You say that the early part of church history is a transition from Judaism to anti semetic doctrine taught through the early church fathers. Well yes it turn out wrong as you stated but you are right that it was a transition. Im sure if you mean transition then the starting point of Christianity was correct but went sour soon after. Which I agree with you. But you do say that this was the the teaching of Jesus. But of course it cannot be, as you say it was a transition of fact to false doctrine. Jesus was the most orthodox Law keeping Holy Jew that ever walked the face of this earth. This is not the hallmarks of a person who held or propigated anti semitic views.
          A point to remember here is that Jesus was rejected by Israel for being demon posessed not for being anti semetic. Also never forget that Israel were looking for Messiah to establish the Messianic Kingdom. Of course this was not a part of His programme here on His first advent. Another reason why His credentials did not match up.
          But you are right that anti semetic views did creep into the early church. But these events were all post Christ so they are not valid for Jesus being not the Messiah. Of course these events in history are no way justified on any ground.
          One of the most miss viewed points on Messiah death is based on the idea that the Jews killed Messiah Jesus, and so must be punished. All one has to do is read the scriptures and one will see that Jesus death was essential on Gods behalf for all humanity. The whole point of Jesus life was to die. Even if Israel has accepted Him,He would still have needed to die on the cross.Many times in the NT you will see Jesus nearly being taken or stoned but He left before they could have Him. Why? The time and place was pre set before time had even begun. The 15th of Nisan at 0900hrs would be the time that Lamb of God would be killed. And no one was going to stop Gods plans for humanity. It is no coincidence that Jeshua was born in a burial cave wrapped in deaths clothes. Given gifts of Gold (Kingship) Frankensense(Diety) and Myrrh (DEATH)!!!!! Here you see your King Born to DIE! So from apart from the other 100s of prohicies about Jeshua you will see that He came to do His Father will and die. No one was going to stop Jeshua from going to the cross.
          So No the Jews are NOT CHRIST KILLERS. The NT does not teach it. Others might do but its not biblical fact, quite the oppersite actually.
          But it is a clever angle that satan uses to stop Gods beloved children Israel, from repenting from there rejection of Him( Unpardonabl sin,, Mathew ch 12v 22 (Not killingHim).
          The RC Church are guilty of the crimes that you mention. If you read the book of revelation you will see that Christ has someting to say to this church. For one they are not part of the Bride of Christ which is taught in the NT.

          To sum up here you finish with a statement about a Christian tragedy on humanity. Well thats not quite correct. Yes many have come in the name of Christ and done many bad things, granted. But the real question here is who are these people who do such things? Disciples of Christ, or disciples of satan. True believers in Jeshua love Jews and Israel. It through Israels rejection that we have a part in the inheritance which was given to Abraham. That promise still stands. The jews and Israel are still in Gods plans for the Kingdom to come. We gentiles are just partakers of the promise not over takers. Your day will come when God lifts the blindness that He has bestowed on you for your rejection of Him.
          Jeshua is King and God Of Israel. King of Kings and Lord of Lords

    • David says:


      I agree with paul’s comment that your claim that “Paul was not a Jew” lacks any credibility. Paul is generally criticized for just about everything and anything by Christianity detractors because he was a prolific writer and his writings had and continue to have great influence within the church.

      Regarding your reference to the “false Greek bible” I assume you are talking about the Septuagint? The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) predates the Masoretic Text (most English translations are based on the Masoretic Text). The Hebrew scriptures used by the Masoretes are lost to us. The Septuagint including the 5 books of Moses and prophets, psalms were completed prior to Christ, prior to the NT and, as I said earlier, prior to the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint as well as the Hebrew scriptures were widely used AND ACCEPTED by Jews everywhere at the time of Christ. Only later with the spread of Christianity did the Septuagint fall out of favor. The NT quotes both the Septuagint and the Hebrew scriptures, but mostly the Septuagint.

  6. Larry says:

    Paul summers
    Yes you have to believe in jesus before you’ll spend the rest of your life defending why. As has been said many times here. I agree with you. In the 10 commandments G-d tells everyone there is only one G-d and to have no others, later he tells everyone, he is not a man. The reason you cannot understand scripture properly, you know, there is only one g-d, and I am not a man, is because of your belief. Your belief in jesus blocks your understanding. Your stuck. If you do not believe he is g-d, It doesn’t matter either. You raise jesus to the level of g-d simply by believing what he taught, what his apostles taught, and what todays christians teach, rather than believing what g-d taught for 40 years.

    • Paul summers says:

      Hello. The only lesson really seen and taught in the 40 yrs wondering was the generation that left Eygpt would not enter the promised land was because of continual backsliding. Which is continual problem to this day. The Lord God of Israel had the Angel of Jehovha show you the WAY then but they never listened. He then showed you the SON. But again you never listened. However because of the grace of God He will open your eyes one day.

      • Larry says:

        You actually believe g-d or his son had to die himself to pay for sins because there is no other way for man to be forgiven. Talk of wishful thinking. I do not know the angel of g-d you speak of, I’m not sure what you are refering to. But, if it was the same one who told the pregnant teen girl that was about to lose her happy home that her son was going to be the savior of man kind, yea I never believed that one, even during all the 50 plus years of being a Christian. But I will tell you that it took me 20 plus years to admit I did not believe in the Christian story. Hang in there, your here and there is hope for you.

        • David says:

          Paul said: “… 40 yrs wondering was the generation that left Eygpt… The Lord God of Israel had the Angel of Jehovha show you the WAY then but…”

          Larry said: “I do not know the angel of g-d you speak of, I’m not sure what you are refering to.”

          To Larry, read Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 23; 33:2 and you will see the angel of God.

          Larry, I don’t necessarily share in Paul’s other views, I’m just pointing out the references to the angel of God which led Israel in the desert 40 years.

        • Paul summers says:

          Hello. Your first mistake is thinking that you were actually a born again believer in Jeshua. Once you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit you are safe and secure in the Kingdom of God for eternity.
          Your second mistake is the Angel of Jehovha is God Himself. The angel Gabriel is just a messenger sent FROM God.

          • Larry says:

            I have never believed in the fantasy of being born Again, the way Christians believe. Unless its in the OT I wouldn’t and neither should you.

          • David says:

            The doctrine of never losing ones salvation is not universally accepted among Christians

  7. Ilqar Mizrachi says:

    We had been concerned with the modern western christian missionaries who try to express their view as the universal truth while leaving out facts that support the Jewish side…all our attempts to redress their pro-gentile slant haven’t been welcome. Christians historically has often ignored the differences in what the Bible says to Jews and what the Bible says to Gentiles. Rather they have taken it all as applied to all christian gentiles with no distinction. The most popular and prevalent explanation is that G-d has ’’replaced’’ literal Israel with the church because of Israel’s failures as the covenant people of G-d. According to the christian thinking, gentile church today is the “New Israel”. Their arguments are mostly based on Paul’s writings in Romans 3:29 ’’ Is he the G-d of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also’’ , Romans 10:12-13 ’’For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same L-rd over all is rich unto all that call upon him.’’, Galatians 3:28 ’’ There is neither Jew nor Greek, …’’
    Actually, the Creator of the universe never called Himself “G-d of Gentiles/Heathen”. He revealed Himself as the G-D and HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. I often wonder why it is that christians so often ignore one of the most clear teachings G-d ever gave in Ezekiel 37 : 25-28:
    ’’And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
    Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
    My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I WILL BE THEIR G-D, and THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. And the HEATHEN SHALL KNOW that I THE L-D DO SANCTIFY ISRAEL, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.’’
    As far as the last point/destination of gentiles are concerned, it is clearly written in Pslams 10:16 ’’ The LORD is King for ever and ever: the HEATHEN ARE PERISHED OUT OF HIS LAND. ’’
    Many christians talk about the New Covenant, or testament. It is often used to refer to a collection of books written by the authors of the greek bible. A common belief among christians is that there is a new covenant that is active today that replaces the covenant G-d made with Moses on Mt. Sinai. They say that Jesus is this new covenant, or that the New Testament is this new covenant. While we all talk ‘about’ this new covenant, most christians do not know the terms that make up this new covenant. The New Covenant is not the collection of books commonly known as the new testament. If the New Covenant is to be made with the House of Israel and House of Judea only, as G-d promised in Jeremiah 31.31-36, why does the New Covenant seem to apply it to all christian gentiles? Similarly, in Ezekiel 36:26 we see the new heart and spirit, indicative of the New Covenant. Is it possible that G-d promised this “New Covenant” to another group of people for another time? There is a great deal of misinformation concerning what this Covenant really is that has been taught by christianity over the centuries. When Jeremiah said that the New Covenant would be made “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” it would have been quite obvious to his audience exactly who he meant by these titles. Gentiles are not included in this New Covenant. Therefore, the New Covenant spoken of here can’t refer to any christian idea of a New Covenant that includes gentiles. Jeremiah guarantees the New Covenant to the literal descendants of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob—the Jewish people, and verse 37 states that they will never be rejected by G-d in spite of all they have done. In this unconditional covenant there’s certainly no idea of G-d replacing or redefining Israel—then, or at any time in the future. The question of the two Houses of Israel poses a thought, new to some people, old to others. Among christians there have been many misconceptions concerning the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Much in the Hebrew Bible is misunderstood and incorrectly taught, because the Two Houses of Israel are often overlooked. These misconceptions have led to many false teachings, such as, the house of Judah are the Jews and the house of Israel are the Christian Gentiles. That argument does not hold water. Yet many christians assert that the New Covenant is now in effect. G-d will only make this covenant with the Houses of Israel and Judah, the ‘church’ cannot steal it for themselves and it still in the future. Here this covenant is contrasted to the written Torah — this new covenant will be identified by the heart having Torah. Torah will be renewed among the Houses of Israel and Judah, and will be written in their hearts. We should notice also, the verses above state that when the new covenant occurs, “all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed me” and that “no longer will they need to teach one another.” In essence, no one will need to teach the Torah because everyone will be keeping it. Are christians keeping Torah? No. Assuming that Torah “is out”, do all christians love their brothers and follow the words of their man-god, jesus? No. No matter how it is interpreted, christians don’t meet the criteria listed here. Nobody does. The New Covenant spoken of here has yet to come.
    Psalm 105:7 states, “He is the Lord our God; His judgments are throughout the earth. He is ever mindful of His covenant, the promise He gave for a thousand generations, that He made with Abraham, swore to Isaac, and confirmed in a decree for Jacob, for Israel, as an eternal covenant.”

    • Paul summers says:

      The NT only teaches this;

      The Church is made up of Jews and gentiles who believe in Jeshua as Messiah.

      Jews who beieve in Jeshua remain Jewish. They keep their national idendity.

      Believers live by the Messianic Law not Mosaic Law.

      When Messiah returns He will deliver His people Israel and save them from destruction. The land the city and the children of Israel will benifit from all the promises God made for them from the Abrahamic, Davidic, Land, and New covenant. All the nations will praise God through the rebuilt temple.
      Israel will always remain for Gods glory.

  8. hyechiel says:

    Dear Friends;
    Maybe I should be quiet on some of the issues. But I try to give a responce by what G-d says, in the Tanach, and His word is ignored, as if it does not exist, by the Gentile messionary.
    If Christians all together would be “Christian” in their relatioinships; that is, by the teachings of Jesus, I think there would be less confrontation and negativity in the world. For example, just within their faith-do you Christians who read these blogs accept each other, Catholic and Protestant, as equally Christian? If so, then you are closer to what Jesus taught, and the Tanach, than those who still have “Pointfingerites” as a problem.

    • David says:

      I agree that too many Christians are too extreme in their positions “forcing” their opinions down the throughts of others. This behavior does not exemplify Jesus. I believe that such attitudes forcing one to believe this or that are none biblical, non Christian and not in keeping with Jesus. I’m not saying people who hold such extreme views and rudely “push” it on others are not Christians, I’m say they are wrong and shouldn’t do it.

    • Paul summers says:

      well to answer a point you made, no christians and the RC Church do not hold the same view. RC are not christians. They hold far to many doctrines that totally contradict the scriptures. These doctrines are usually the ones that non believers use to argue against Messiah Jeshua. Jeshua warned the
      disciples about wheat and tares growing up side by side.
      As far as your comment goes ref “all christians living in harmony etc” When Israel saw for themselfs God and His might in Egypt and the desert. It makes you wonder how sinful and rebellious the human condition is. So I wonder how the world would look today if Israel had listened to her prophets and God Himself. I wonder how many 613 comandmants the average Jew keeps? I would hazard a guess and say just the ones that feel good and do the ones that people see you doing.
      I would take the plank of wood out of your own eye before picking the splinter out of someone elses.


  9. Birthe Jensen says:

    Q1 : Was/is Yeshua a man, who walked the earth? And what does Torah tells us about talking or praying to a dead man?

    If he is still alive:
    Q2: Is he now sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven? And what does Torah tells us in the 10 Commandments about making graven images of some one/something which is in Heaven?

    Q3: Who is “the unknown god” Paul claims to worship? Wikipedia tells us.

    There is one God and one God only. We need no intermediator to talk to Him.


    • Paul summers says:


      Yes Jeshua was fully man in His humanity. Yes He died. No one ever was recorded to praying or talking with Him while dead. Infact the NT shows the opposite to your claim. Yes alive and fully ressurected now in a new glorified body. No he doesnt walk the earth, but yes seated at the right hand of God.

      Yes you are right not to pray to images. But God Jeshua is Anonai so praise is due.

      Paul wasnt praying to the unknown God. He was talking about the statue that had been arrected thats all.

      • To Paul Summers. If you think it is blasphemous or unthinkable to question Paul/Shaul of Tarsus, I ask that you examine the writings of Paul and seriously think about the argument against him. This might strike you as rather insignificant but without the doctrines and ‘revealed mysteries’ of Paul, otherwise known as Saul of Tarsus, I really don’t believe there would be such a religion as Christianity. You may be shocked to find that the truth about Paul is far different that what you may have been led to believe. Paul’s own writings show him to be a FALSE PROPHET. I am well aware that questioning such an individual – Paul is well beyond the comfort level of most christians. Also challenging is that we have all been conditioned to think in terms of black and white, believing that everything a false prophet says must be wrong. And yet that is not how deceivers deceive. Wrong is made to appear right by blending that which is not true with that which is true. Credible lies are woven side by side and intertwined with strands of truth, which makes them vastly more beguiling. And that is precisely what we find throughout Paul’s letters. To any christians who may be upset with what I say, may I remind you of Paul’s words to the Galatians (4-16) : “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?”
        Now I want to prove that Paul/Shaul was REALLY a false prophet. I am going to use only the new testament writings.
        1. Let’s read Matthew 24:11: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” And how can we recognize them?
        In Luke 21:8 (ESV)we can read FALSE PROPHET’S SIGN : “And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘THE TIME IS AT HAND!’ Do not go after them.”
        So Luke is warning specifically against those who would preach that “THE TIME IS AT HAND”. These are the evil false prophets that we are to watch for and we are to; “NOT GO AFTER THEM”.
        Now let’s read Romans 13:12:
        “The night is far spent, THE DAY IS AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.”
        I understand that Paul’s self – statements do not constitute proof that he was lying. The claim of apostleship itself might be considered a lie, but in my thinking , the label “liar” implies a person who uses conscious intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds alone, I would call him conceited and self-deceived.
        Interestingly enough, just by the way John states it, he appears to make the same distinction.
        “And you have tested those who say they are APOSTLES and ARE NOT, AND have found them LIARS.” Revelation 2:2
        Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So if Paul was the one John was referring to, I would expect him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here again I would draw a distinction and not include the many errors he had in his doctrines because I’m sure he thought he was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies.
        If Paul’s letters are the inspired and infallible word of Almighty G-d, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as Christian doctrine asserts, would it have been possible for Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think not. So if he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning the notion that his words are G-d’s words?
        Christians know that the apostles were 12 in number and all were witnesses to their rabbi’s life, teachings and resurrection, from the beginning to the end. (Acts 1:21-22). Paul meets none of these qualifications or prerequisites for being an apostle. Matthew verified the number 12 in Matthew 19:28 and Revelation 21:14. There are no scriptural references for 13 apostles. Matthias replaced Judas (Acts 1:26). The idea of adding a 13th apostle is unacceptable because of Revelation 21:14.
        Interestingly, what did ‘Paul’ say to Timothy about the congregations in Asia (of which Ephesus was one)?
        “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” .
        And again “And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars.” Revelation 2:2
        Christians have record that of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians: “ Paul, an apostle of …” (Ephesians 1:1). John was on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote down the book of revelation. The first congregation addressed there was Ephesus, where the passsage above speaks about those calling themselves apostles but are not and are liars. The city of Ephesus is located in Asia (Revelation 1;10,11) and a port city on the Aegean Sea, of which the Isle of Patmos is off the coast and south. I do not feel that it would be a huge stretch to presume that John himself could have actually visited Ephesus, due to the close proximity, but also because it is obvious that that congregation was influenced against ‘Paul’ by someone with a different “gospel message”. You can read about Paul also in Matthew 13:25,26,27.

        • David says:

          In Acts 17, Paul tells them that the God who made heaven and earth does not live in shines made by humans:

          22And Paul stood in the
          middle of the Areopagus, and said,
          “You men of Athens, I perceive that
          you are very religious in every way.
          23For as I passed along and observed
          the objects of your devotion, I even
          found an altar with this inscription,
          TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
          Therefore, to what you show
          reverence without knowledge, this I
          proclaim to you. 24The God who
          made the world and all things in it,
          being Lord of heaven and earth, does
          not live in shrines made with hands,
          25neither is he served by men’s
          hands, as though he needed
          anything, seeing he himself gives to
          all people life, and breath, and all
          things. 26And from one man he made
          every nation of mankind to live on
          all the face of the earth, having
          determined their appointed seasons,
          and the bounds of their habitation,
          27that they should seek God, if
          perhaps they might feel around for
          him and find him, though he is not
          far from each one of us. 28For it is in
          connection with him we live, and
          move, and have our being, as even
          some of your own poets have said,
          “For we are also his offspring.”
          29Since we are the offspring of God,
          we have an obligation not to assume
          that the Divine One is like gold, or
          silver, or stone, an image formed by
          art and thought of man.

        • paul says:

          Yet again we have someone quoting a NT text completely out of context and without any knowledge of the subject being spoken about. This conversation is commonly known as the olivet discourse. When Jeshua is explaining ” Many will come in my name, false prophets etc” If you look at the subject which is being spoken about they are talking about the end times. What are the signs and when will these things take place? are the questions being asked. So Jeshua is warning Israel that in the future that when He comes back for the second time all will see the gloryof the Son. All on earth will see it. There will be no need to go looking. He says even the elect will be swayed. So this conversation is a warning and word of comfort for the future of Israel in end times not for His Church.

          Mathew 24 v26
          Therfore if they say to you, look He is in in the desert do not go out, or look He is in the inner rooms do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For where the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

          This period of time is towards the end of the 7 yr tribulation. The eagles/vultures are the nations against Israel.

          All this can be seen in the OT scriptures especially Isaiah.

          • To Paul and David:
            Did you know that Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his conversion experience on the road to Damascus? The story of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus is recorded three times in the book of Acts. On the road to Damascus, Saul claims to see a vision. Luke documents this account, first in Acts. Paul’s own words contradict the first account of what happened on the road to Damascus. Here is the account by Luke:
            Acts 9:3-9 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he Fell To The Ground and Heard A Voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Rabbi?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.”
            Paul was blinded and sent to Ananias who is to tell what his mission is and to heal his blindness. By the above account, which is apparently Paul’s account, no witnesses are actually named leaving us wondering if there even were any. Apparently these witnesses Heard The Voice and yet, where are the names and how do we know if they really did hear anything? Here, in Paul’s account, there are no credible witnesses.
            In Acts 22:9-13, Paul, apparently speaking through Luke, gives account of the vision again but this time says, “Those who were with me SAW THE LIGHT but DID NOT HEAR the voice of the one who was speaking with me.” There is no significant problem or conflict in these two accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points remain basically the same. The fact is, they are consistent and corroborate each other. The first time, they SAW NO LIGHT but HEARD A VOICE and this time, they SAW A LIGHT but DID NOT HEAR A VOICE. How is it, that Paul was apparently blinded by the brightness of this light but the witnesses to the light were not?
            Later in Acts, Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The people he quotes may have been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing he says is reliable anymore. In Acts 26:13-14, Paul’s tune changes yet again as he speaks with King Agrippa. The vision is suddenly even more dramatic, including that the people with him ALSO FELL TO THE GROUND.
            First Saul SEES A GREAT LIGHT FROM HEAVEN, surrounding him and THE “OTHERS WITH HIM” AND HEARS THE VOICE. By this account, he believes that he has been given a calling to minister to the Gentiles. Luke says, in Acts 19:20, that Paul immediately began to preach Christ to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles. According to Luke, all of this happened right after his vision but in the other versions of how Saul began his so called mission to the Gentiles, he doesn’t begin until years after his vision (Galatians 1).
            Paul very sneakily mentions his vision again, but tries to connect his ‘conversion experience’ to the actual resurrection as witnessed by the twelve and 120 disciples, as though he were indeed part of that group who faithfully followed Jesus AND was an actual witness to His resurrection when he wasn’t . Look!
            1 Corinthians 15:3-8 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the Apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
            VERY IMPORTANT: How does a witness to the resurrection get the facts all wrong about who Jesus first appeared to and to HOW MANY (there were 120 witnesses according to Acts 1, not 500)? According to the Gospels, Jesus FIRST APPEARS ALIVE TO THE WOMEN. Didn’t he know? AND keep in mind, that those who saw Jesus, after He resurrected, saw Him ALIVE, in the FLESH! In all of Paul’s previous accounts of his vision, he saw a light and heard a voice, except of course, when he is confronted with Agrippa and tells him he actually saw Jesus! Why does he keep adding to his first account? When giving this account to the Corinthians, he is trying to convince them he is an actual authority by trying to connect his so called vision to that of being a witness to the resurrection, which he was NOT! He is trying to persuade them that he has just as much first hand CLOUT as the twelve apostles. What is wrong with this man called Saul/Paul? This is not just a simple case of information having been left out of the first two accounts. It should be apparent that Paul wanted to paint a picture for King Agrippa that he believed was his unavoidable destiny, so he embellished the account of his vision with a lie. The main purpose for Jesus confronting Paul is obvious and found in his first words: “Why are you persecuting me?” Jesus’s purpose was to stop the persecution! The fact that Paul didn’t reject Jesus but submitted to him with the words, “What would you have me do?” is a secondary outgrowth from the event. Had Paul stubbornly tried to continue on his way to Damascus to arrest the Christians, it would have been the end of him on the spot. From Paul’s fabricated story, it is evident that he designed it to impress upon King Agrippa the picture that it was Jesus’s plan that he be delivered from the Gentiles by him. Christianity has generally thought of Paul’s appeal to Caesar as a brilliant tactical maneuver. But something King Agrippa said to Festus seems to go unnoticed.
            “This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” Acts 26:32
            Before moving forward, let’s look at what happened in Jerusalem, when Paul met with the apostles. Paul is telling Peter, James and John that “the whole of the law/burden” cannot be dumped on the gentiles, as all of Israel failed the Law and God’s Covenant. So, the apostles, along with Paul, agree to
            FOUR CRITERIA of the Law that MUST BE maintained, even by the gentiles.
            1) NO MEATS/OFFERINGS sacrificed to IDOLS
            2) NO drinking of blood
            3) NO eating meats strangled to death (imagine the adrenaline pumped into the flesh by the animal being strangled)
            4) NO fornication
            These FOUR REQUIREMENTS are listed three times in ACTS, to which Paul agrees upon teaching. (read ACTS 15:20, ACTS 15:29, ACTS 21:24-25)
            Although Paul lied in agreement with the apostles in Jerusalem, Paul DID NOT TEACH what they AGREED UPON at ALL. He taught the EXACT opposite, as documented above in 1 TIM 4:4-5, 1 Corinth 8: 8-10, Colos 2:16, etc. And if you want to catch Paul DIRECTLY LYING, read his account of when he met up with the apostles in Jerusalem: Now, keeping Paul’s anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at Paul’s recollection to the Galatians.
            “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something ADDED NOTHING TO ME. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the UNCIRCOMCISED had been committed to me, as the gospel for the CIRCUMCISED was to Peter… and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired ONLY that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do.” Galatians 2:1,2,6-7,9-10
            This is Paul’s version of what happened. In this passage, Paul is referencing his meeting in Jerusalem, meeting the Apostles, and WHAT THEY DISCUSSED with him. Paul nakedly states that the only thing they agreed upon in Jerusalem, was to give ALMS TO THE POOR. Which, profoundly, was NEVER MENTIONED in the book of ACTS.
            Paul does not tell the Galatians:
            1) NO meats sacrificed to IDOLS
            2) NO drinking blood
            3) NO strangled meats
            4) NO fornication
            Nope. Paul doesn’t even mention it.
            When he said that the church in Jerusalem desired “only” that he remember the poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie? Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What’s more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had Jerusalem’s full support… in spite of the fact that he didn’t think he needed it from those who only “seemed” to be something and “added nothing” to him. In fact, Paul pridefully boasts that the apostles “added nothing to him” (GALATIANS 2:6). After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of the Gentiles, he says these words.
            “Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before G-d, I do not lie.” Galatians 1:20
            Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying!
            Consistent through Paul’s writings, for one instance, is the eating of unclean meats.
            Romans 14:14 ’’I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.’’
            and 1 Timothy 4 ’’For every creature of G-d is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
            For it is sanctified by the word of G-d and prayer.’’
            Paul is clearly lying here, as proven by Ezekiel who states that you cannot make the unclean thing to be a clean thing….but more of that in a moment. Are there other passages that point to Paul stating that you can eat not only UNCLEAN MEATS, but MEATS sacrificed unto IDOLS?
            1 CorinthR 8:8-10
            But meat commendeth us not to G-d: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
            So according to Paul, if you pray over your unclean meat offered to idols, it suddenly becomes clean. According to Paul, only the “weak” fail to understand the his doctrine, which is exactly OPPOSITE of the doctrine as taught by the prophets. Paul goes as far as to say that we should not let people judge us as to eating these unclean meats in Colos 2:16. And it should be noted (above 1 Corinth 8:10), the idea of it being a STUMBLINGBLOCK to the “weak”. Paul says throughout this chapter that you shouldn’t eat these unclean meats in front of “weak” believers because it could be a “stumblingblock”….
            Let’s see what Ezekiel says:
            Ezekiel 22:26
            Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean
            We cannot make unclean meats, or meats sacrificed to idols CLEAN by praying over them.
            Did G-d change their mind on “the unclean/profane/meat sacrificed to idols”, and ONLY PAUL is privy to this “new” information?
            Let’s read another example. In Romans 4:4-5 we can read: ’’Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY , his faith is counted for righteousness.’’
            Here we see Paul on the other side of the wheel, justifying the wicked. But according to G-d both are an abomination to Him: in Proverbs 17:15 ’’He that JUSTIFIETH THE WICKED, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are ABOMINATION TO THE L-D. ’’
            Furthermore, Paul makes a very telling statement. He says that whoever doesn’t work (meaning keep the commandments of G-d) but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. G-d said he that justifies the wicked, is an abomination to Him. We can read also Ezekiel 13:22-23 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the L-D.
            Paul himself had reservations about his teaching. In I Corinthians, Ch. 7:24–27, he wrote:
            ” In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with G-d. Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the L-d, but I give my own opinion, as one who by the L-d’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.”
            If your parents were Christians, aren’t you glad they didn’t follow Paul’s teaching on this score? you wouldn’t be here, if they had. Doesn’t it make you wonder how much else of Paul’s teaching didn’t come from the L-d? It does not appear that G-d inspired these words. They are Paul’s.
            When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem, he had to be rescued from the Jews by the Romans. On the following day, the Roman commander allowed Paul to be taken before Ananias the high priest and the Sanhedrin to defend himself from the charges against him. During this trial of sorts, Paul makes an interesting claim.
            But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; CONCERNING THE HOPE AND RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM BEING JUDGED !” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:6,7
            This was a divide-and-conquer ploy in which there was not one shred of truth. For Paul to say he was being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead was an outright lie. It had nothing to do with his arrest. The truth concerning WHY he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts.
            …the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man WHO TEACHES ALL MEN EVERWHERE AGAINST THE PEOPLE, THE LAW, AND THIS PLACE…” Acts 21:27,28 NKJV
            The truth is that Paul was being judged on the matter of bringing to nothing the importance of Israel, the Law of Moses, and the Temple. For Paul to suggest otherwise was a lie. He had said earlier that he was willing to die in Jerusalem for what he believed. The question is, when it finally came down to it, why didn’t he have the courage to stand by what he had been teaching the Gentiles?
            We still have a great deal to learn.
            Letter to the Romans 13:1-7
            “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
            For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them–taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. “
            Anybody who really believes that this passage is inspired and inerrant would have to defend “the divine right” of tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Milosovich, Saddam Hussein and all the other monsters to stay in power for as long as G-d allows. Far from allowing anyone to try to remove such rulers, this “Word of G-d” compels “Christians” to respect and obey such rulers : “there is no authority except from G-d, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by G-d. . . Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what G-d has appointed.” Paul doesn’t allow for the slightest bit of “interpretation”. He drives home his point over and over again, that we should treat any and all rulers as God’s very own appointees to whatever office they hold, be it governor, king, emperor, president, prime minister, secretary general, or Führer. No “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s” ! In World War II, the Christian churches of Germany had no problem applying this teaching of Paul’s to the Nazi dictators – who were clearly evil, but pretended at least to be on the side of christianity.

          • Larry says:

            Thanks for taking the time to write this. Great timing!

          • Larry says:

            “When Jeshua is explaining ” Many will come in my name, false prophets etc” If you look at the subject which is being spoken about they are talking about the end times.” Or, maybe they think Jesus is the false prophet, they certainly may not think he is the messiah. Personally I don’t consider or read anything in the NT. I have in the past but not anymore.

        PLEASE, IF YOU WRITE OR PRINT IT OUT THE NAME OF G-D, PLEASE TREAT IT WITH APPROPRIATE RESPECT (take a look at the word you’ve written in the 3rd line of your comment).
        Christian sources refer to the G-d of Israel as “the nameless god” to contrast our G-d with the ancient pagan gods. We always found this odd, because Judaism clearly recognizes the existence of a Name for G-d. Jews do not casually write any Name of G-d. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the L-rd’s Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by G-d’s Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as “in vain” literally means “for falsehood”).
        Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of G-d per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of G-d. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of G-d casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
        The commandment not to erase or deface the name of G-d comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our G-d. From this, the Rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of G-d.

        PLEASE, IF YOU WRITE OR PRINT OUT THE NAME OF G-D, PLEASE TREAT IT WITH APPROPRIATE RESPECT (take a look at the word you’ve written in the 3rd line of your comment).
        Christian sources refer to the G-d of Israel as “the nameless god” to contrast our G-d with the ancient pagan gods. We always found this odd, because Judaism clearly recognizes the existence of a Name for G-d. Jews do not casually write any Name of G-d. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the L-rd’s Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by G-d’s Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as “in vain” literally means “for falsehood”).
        Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of G-d per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of G-d. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of G-d casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
        The commandment not to erase or deface the name of G-d comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our G-d. From this, the Rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of G-d.

  10. Sophiee says:

    David, It helps to remember that the KJV translators were living in England in the 17th century — so there were no real “Hebrew scholars” there. Along with keeping in mind that English words have changed in meaning since King James’ time, you have to remember that the world itself was a different place. No internet. No mass access to publications. Only the very rich had books or could even read!

    The KJV translator(s) had limited access to Jewish manuscripts. Since we’d been murdered so often for “denying” Jsus we tried to avoid the Xians. Many countries had killed us or thrown us out (remember all the Jews were deported from England in 1290. So now circa 17th century where are the English going to find Jews let alone a Jewish copy of the “bible”?

    Christians, naturally. Who else?

    The KJV translators depended on a book called Second Rabbinic Bible which had been put together from multiple Hebrew sources (more on this in a minute). It was NOT put together by rabbis BTW — the title is a misnomer.

    Along with that remember that since they werent Jews just how well did they know Hebrew? And there were no Jews around (remember — they were thrown out in 1290). So who taught them Hebrew? At what age did they learn it? Did they have a chance to actually SPEAK it?

    The KJV was published in 1611 and the Jews were not formally readmitted to England until 1656 when Cromwell (who won the civil war and beheaded King Charles I) issued a decree. So there were no educated Jews around to help the KJV translators. (Oh, there were a few Jews here and there but most were converts to Xianity like Elizabeth Is doctor who was tried and hanged for crimes against the state. He was a convert BTW).

    There is a huge difference from someone who takes Spanish 101 as a freshman in college compared to a person born in Spain who grows up speaking the language. So the Xian translators were at a disadvantage because of their lack of native Hebrew knowledge.

    Back to an earlier point. The KJV was NOT based on the masoretic text and as most Xians think. Most as modern translations (both Jewish and Xian) are based on the MT

    The Second Rabbinic Bible was the creation of Yacov ben Chaim Ibn Adonijah who was a Jew who converted to Xianity. He did not merely publish an MT in Hebrew, he actually compiled his work from pieces of the Tanach he didnt have one complete MT. So he used many sources, none of which he documented. As mentioned this was the Second version by Bomberg.

    • David says:

      They had the masoretic text. And as today they had scholars to translate into English. Today we don’t use the same English. Today as before we use scholars who are proficient in translation for the English of our time.

      • Sophiee says:

        David — they did NOT have the masoretic text, (Did you actually read my post?). They had the Second Rabbinic Bible which was a hodgepodge and not a true Masoretic text. In 1516, a wealthy Venetian, Daniel Bomberg who had been born in Antwerp, was granted the privilege of publishing Hebrew books in that city. Among the first he published was a folio edition of the entire Bible with the leading commentaries, Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible), which came off the press in 1516-17. Pope Leo’s imprimatur was sought and granted, and Felix Pratensis, a monk born a Jew, was its editor. . . editorship by an apostate and the blessing of the Pope made Jews avoid the edition. . .

        He even dedicated it to Pope Leo! Bomberg’s second edition was edited by another apostate Jew who became a Xian – Ben Chaim. It was this second work that became the basis of the KJV.

        Needless to say, this “Second Rabbinic Bible” was no such thing. It was not a Jewish work and it was not accepted by Jews. Neither Jew nor gentile has any idea what sources he used since he hobbled together his version from multiple sources. He gave no footnotes or references as to which sources he used!

        We can go verse and verbatim into the various Masoretic iterations after Shabbat — not to mention the BHS and other versions the Christians use that have errors – of course learned Jews just read the Hebrew without the MT notations — but then you probably knew that — right?

        • David says:

          Sorry you’re wrong regarding the MT as used in English translations.

          This is what the KJV (which used to be the most popular English translation and is still probably most prevalent) claims about itself:

          “The KJV is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim, exhibited in Daniel Bomberg’s Rabbinical Bible of 1525. Many recent versions of the Bible are based on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the third edition of the Masoretic text edited by Rudolph Kittel. There are eight places where differences between the two texts affect translation – they are: 1 Kings 20:38, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12.”

          This is what the NIV (which now is claimed to be the best selling English translation) claims about itself:

          “For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew Text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variant within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions – the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.”

          The inside cover of the bible I’m using, the NRSV of 1989 which is based on the American Standard Version of 1901, says it is also based on the Masoretic Text.

  11. Sophiee says:

    David, your comment about the Septuagint is also a bit inaccurate (sorry). The original Septuagint (LXX) was a translation into Greek of the Jewish bible — only the Torah (Five Books of Moses). Isaiah, Psalms, etc. were never part of the Septuagint. Over time Prophets and Writings were translated into Greek by persons unknown and of dubious quality. They were not part of the Septuagint — but over time the entire Greek Jewish bible took that name. Because of the poor quality the Jews who used these translations gave them up, and the Christians continued to use them for a longer period of time — but eventually even the Christians realized they were corrupt and not usable. What exists today is a Christian not Jewish Greek translation called the Septuagint — I say this because it was the Christian who maintained it and we have no idea how well (or poorly) they did that job. Poorly is a good guess!

    The early church fathers often complained that their copies were forged or otherwise tampered with. Origen, an early church father (died 232 CE), tried to piece together a decent translation of the Hebrew Bible by putting 6 different versions side by side (called the Hexapla). He certainly thought the Jews had a non-corrupted version. I quote: “we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.

    It seems as if the early followers of Christianity were not well educated (and this includes Paul) — in Jewish teachings and in Hebrew. Christian translators to this very day pick and choose their sources (a little bit of BHS, a little bit of Septuagint and a little bit of DSS. . .).

    Jews have a Mesorah — a tradition of transmission that has enabled us to keep a very high level of accuracy. Educated Jews always used the Hebrew / Aramaic, not Greek. Just read a little Josephus (2000 years ago Jewish historian) for proof this fact.

    • David says:

      It still predates anything you have, and closer to the original before corruption by the masoretes.

      • Sophie Saguy says:

        Actually, you’re wrong. What is called today the “Septuagint” does not pre-date what we have in the Hebrew and Aramaic — and even the early Christians realized this. St. Jerome (early 5th century) decided to re-translate from the Hebrew rather than rely on the Septuagint saying: “I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended (the Septuagint) with the old edition Theodotion’s translation” Even the KJV translators realized that the Septuagint was corrupt. The preface to the original KJV.

        (The Septuagint) “It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? . . . the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. ”

        Adding additional support to the Masoretic readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls we must also consider the findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951 caves at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea, were discovered which contained Biblical manuscripts. The difference here is that these Biblical texts reflect the Masoretic Text and exclude other textual types. Dr. Menahem Mansoor wrote, “The biblical manuscripts found at Wadi Murabbaat are important in that, unlike the Qumran manuscripts, they uniformly exhibit a text coinciding with the Masoretic text.” (The Dead Sea Scrolls, Eerdmans, 1964. p.28).

        Got that David? The Wadi Murabbaat are 2000 years old and agree with the “modern” Masoretic text — whereas we know the Greek translations were not maintained with accuracy and even the early Christians realized they were corrupt and forged.

        Between 1963 and 1965 additional manuscripts were discovered while excavating Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances of the Roman army in 73 or 74 CE. Fourteen scrolls containing Biblical texts were found which, “agree extensively with the traditional (i.e. Masoretic) Biblical texts.

        The Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts from Masada and the Wadi Murabbaat all support the accuracy of the Jewish Mesorah. The inaccuracy of the Septuagint is also historical — including the KJV translators themselves.

      • Sophie Saguy says:

        The so-called “Septuagint” of today does not pre-date anything “we have” (e.g. the Hebrew) and the Hebrew has never been corrupted (unlike the Greek translations of which you speak). Why would Jews be relying on a translation versus the original? Josephus 2000 years ago certainly didn’t!

        Also you may be confusing the Masoretic Text (MT) with Hebrew itself. The Septuagint is NOT 1000 years older than the Hebrew (which is, of course, the ORIGINAL). Consider the the Great Isaiah Scroll, 1Qlsa which has been carbon dated to around 300 BCE. Ergo it is 2300 years or so old and is a nearly complete copy of the book of Isaiah. There are no “original” copies of the whole Jewish bible in Greek but it is thought that the oldest ones are from around 400 CE (700 years younger than the Great Isaiah Scroll). There are two silver scrolls with the priestly blessing from the Torah which dates to around 600 BCE — 2600 years old! and 300 years older than the Great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran.

        The Masoretic text is simply the Hebrew with vowel markings added to help less educated people read it with the proper pronunciation. Bottom line: Hebrew is the original language and Jews have an exacting methodology to ensure that the accuracy of the text is maintained. Translations by their nature are not going to be 100% accurate (words have different meanings in different languages), and in the case of the Greek translations that came to be called “Septuagint” there was no quality control — the whole chain of transmission is unknown as well.

        Would you consider a translation of Shakespeare to be comparable to the original in English? Then why consider a Greek translation that is known to have insertions and forgeries as well as copious other errors to be a viable alternative?

        It is also a lie that Jews 2000 years ago read the bible in Greek and not in Hebrew. Josephus (a first century Jew alive 2000 years ago) had to learn Greek after his capture. From “The Antiquities of the Jews) — Josephus’ history of the Jews, 20:11:2:

        “….I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue (Hebrew), that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.” Josephus Flavius: Antiquitates Judaicæ, Book XX, chap. 11, sect. 2—translation by William Whiston (1667-1752).

        Since you mentioned the MT (Masoretic Text) you may be confusing the Masoretic Text (MT) with Hebrew itself. There was no Masoretic Text 2000 years ago — the Masoretes had not yet created the notation method in use today. Prior to the MT written Hebrew did not contain notation marks for vocalization. Think of the MT as training wheels similar to those used to teach someone to ride a bicycle. Once you feel comfortable on the bike you no longer need the training wheels. Once a person really knows Hebrew they no longer need the MT notations. Take a look at a modern Israeli newspaper — there are no Masoretic notations. Look ma! No vowels!

  12. paul says:

    Hello Larry
    Ref ” Being Born again” Thats ok I respect your view there. But what I was saying proves my statement. You said that you used to be a Christian, then you stated,, just, that you dont believe in that born again stuff.
    What Im trying to say is you cannot go around saying you USED to be a Christian. You cannot become uncome of someting that you actually werent in the first place.

    PS The term born again wasnt a new wording that Nicodemus heard. The actual part of his confusion was that he said “How at my old age”?
    Jewish traditions state that a Jewish man can use the term Born again in his life. 6 times could be probable, but only 4 times possible for him.
    1. Bar mItzvahed
    2. Wedding day.
    3. Becoming a Rabbi
    4. Teacher of Israel.

    The other 2 are when a gentile converts or when one is crowned a king. These of course were not possible.

    Nicodemus was confused because he thought he would have to be born again from his mothers womb and start the whole process again. (He thought he had ran out of “Born agains”)
    Jesus was making the point that not just physical birth was enough to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Thats the foundation problem with Israel then and today. Being born a son of Abraham does not qualify one entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven just because of his blood line.


  13. For Paul and David,
    Nice that you’ve learned a bit about “Bar mItzvah”. Do you think Jews are stupid? Bar Mitzvah means “liable to the commandments” or literally, “son of the commandments” and has nothing to do with “christian born again” stuff. That is so absurd even though you may not realize it at this time. That is like saying a poorly educated, back country used car salesman speaks with authority for Ford or General Motors. You have to learn so ….much!. Now try and skip back to the commandment about not having any other gods. We, Jews worship and believe in G-d Who intervenes in many ways to save Jews from you, pagans and your pagan gods. Yours believe in a man. That is the difference between our two religions. Torah does not teach or support the Christian / Messianic doctrine of the trinity. Torah teaches G-d is One. Not three in one.
    The Torah does not teach or support the Christian / Messianic doctrine of a virgin birth. Since G-d is One He cannot reproduce Himself.
    The Torah does not support or teach the Christian / Messianic doctrine that G-d impregnated Mary. This would be a Torah violation of the sovereignty of an individual, of the sanctity of marriage and of G-d’s command to not mix seed (which angels were punished for and the world was destroyed over). This act would constitute forcible rape and adultery, both violations of the Torah. And it would constitute many, many more violations of the Torah.
    Paul and David, instead of trying and tricking our Jewish brothers/sisters into converting, take the time to actually learn the issue then you will come to realize that all the greek new testament (from the very beginning to the last page) is carefully orchestrated lie and fake! Lastly, as for the non-Jewish christians interested in the Jewish lifestyle and worship…these are probably people who would be thrilled to learn about the Noachide Laws and the truth about G-d, who is non-corporeal. The rest of your pathetic attempts at an argument aren’t even worth answering.

    • David says:

      I got as far as, “For Paul and David,
      Nice that you’ve learned a bit about “Bar mItzvah”. Do you think Jews are stupid?” then stopped reading.

    • paul says:

      One of the biggest mistakes I see from listening and reading OT scripture from a non believing Jew is this,
      Because God chose Israel as His nation and His first born etc etc. Jews tend to put themselves and elivate themselves over other nations and cultures. They put themselves in a position of “We are the best, the chosen ones” And this done because of a self deluded arrogant blindness. Israel in part think that this edification of holiness is all done on there own works and merit. But nothing could be more from the truth.
      Jews on the whole are just like any nation or created individual. They are created by God Himself in His image. Sin came into the world by means of rebellion of Adam. God had to rescue, as it were, His creation. Through His redemptive plan He chose Israel to reveal His Name, Grace, mercy, love etc.
      But God didnt choose Israel because they were loyal and obiediant. NO! Quite the oppersite is true. Israel are a geno type of the human condition. FALLEN!

      Yes God chose you, why??? To reveal His never ending mercy and love on humans who would call upon His Name in Faith. Through Israel we have Messiah Jeshua. Isarel are a stiff necked, evil, rebellious nation. (Gods words) You are no better than the rest of the world. Thats why God chose you. Not because you are holy. He made you holy (seperate) for His NAME SAKE so all His covenants could be seen by all humanity. Yes He called Israel out of Egypt and made the Law. Yes the law had to be kept. Yes stay away from pagans etc. But you never did and you even forsaked Him there in the wilderness. It astonishes me that Isarel today see,s themselfs as still right before the Lord. You are as stiff necked and rebellious today as you were then. Infact, historically, and theologically you are in a greater mess than before. But this does not come as a shock to the Lord. Mose was quite right in his address shortly before he died.
      I will not mix my words here on this. 60-70 yrs ago Israel suffered a murderous act upon her by the hands of evil evil men. In the years to come there will be another. The book of Rev says so. Satan has one agenda and one only. To wipe Israel of the face of the earth. If there is no Israel there can be no seconding coming of Jeshua to save His people the Jews. It is Israel who will call upon His Name to return. ” Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord”
      The book of Hebrews in the NT is a warning to the then believing Jews of Jeshua not to go back to Judaism. They were under persecution from Israel and finding life difficult. The warning is this. The temple and all its city will fall. All the inhabitants will be killed by the sword. Jeshua warned them about this after He was finally rejected as Messiah in Mathew ch 12. ch 27 The fulfilment came in ad 68-70.
      Today Israel you are paying the price for your rebellion. Not the death of Jeshua, but for rejecting Him as Messiah.
      Believe in the Lord your God with all your heart that Jeshua the living Son of the Living God died to pay the penalty for your sins. He was ressurected from the grave and sits as High priest at His Fathers right hand. Jeshua is Israels crowning Glory. x

  14. Nothing makes me sad and brakes my heart more than learning that a Jewish Soul loses his identity and forgets who he is and idle worshiper and believes other gods gets lost completely! We Jews rebelled, sinned, and for a time, have turned our back on G-d, yet in His ETERNAL love for Jewish people, G-d did not make a complete end of them and G-d’s love for Israel is ETERNAL and WILL NOT FAIL.
    Jeremiah 31:3-4 ’’The L-RD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have LOVED THEE WITH an EVERLASTING LOVE: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O VIRGIN of ISRAEL: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry”.

  15. paul says:

    Yes I completly agree with you , but until you as an individual and as a nation repent of your fathers sin and seek the Lord God with a repentive heart that Jeshua of Nazereth died a substitutary death for your sins, rose again from the dead to destroy death and sits at the right hand of His Fathers throne in heaven. You can only be saved through Faith in Him by Grace. Plus nothing.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.