A New Set of Feelings
The heart of the Jew who worships God is filled with emotion. Gratitude, awe, love and reverence for the One who brought everything into existence. Love for the One who knows all and sustains all with a degree of knowledge, precision and perfection that humanity could never fathom. Awe of the One who is the source of all truth and justice. Love of the One who is the source of all goodness and blessing. Gratitude toward the One who is presently sustaining every form of existence that we can encompass with our finite minds, including all of the people I see in front of me, the animals, the trees, the grass the sky and the sea. Reverence for the One who knows every thought of every man, woman and child that ever lived. And yearning toward the One who knows the yearnings of our hearts before we do.
The hearts of those early worshipers of Jesus were filled with adoration toward a man. We cannot see into their hearts but their spiritual descendants encourage the worshipers of God to join them in the adoration.
Joining in this adoration would mean adopting a set of feelings that is not yet present in one’s heart. Why do they seek to fill our hearts with a new set of feelings? What is missing in the heart of David? What was lacking in the heart of Abraham? Which set of feelings does the worshiper of God lack that he will find in Jesus?
The fact that they seek the hearts of those who worship God tells me that the heart of the God-worshiper is not the heart of the Jesus worshiper.
Need I say more?
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Do you think that after a great blessing, or new clarity of understanding, we are filled with new feelings? I know you’re not meaning it like that… how would you put the difference?
Maybe you’re saying that this set of feelings runs deeper than the gratitude or wonder regarding anything else we are shown and given. It is the deepest experience we have of Him, as our Creator, in the singularity of our hearts. He deserves that because every gift comes from Him. To add feelings about the finite qualities of someone’s personality in to THAT level of worship is to mix things around the wrong way?
It’s hard for me to put in words what I hear from you wrote…
…it mixes things the wrong way because we owe gratitude for the blessings in creation, but the kind of gratitude that identifies the worship of God alone is the thankfulness that all things come from Him and point to Him, beyond our comprehension… no thing should get in the way of going PAST it to its giver (not ‘to it to its giver’). In the words of a Turkish theologian, that would be like thanking the traybearer for bringing us a gift from the king.
(as if he *gave* it, not just brought it)
Hi Annelise.
What I understand Rabbi B. to be saying is that Christians adopted a new set of the same feelings for another entity. They took the feelings of love, awe, gratitude, and so on that we have for Hashem and applied them to a man. Is that more clear? (Of course, I may be completely misunderstanding what he wrote, but that’s what it looks like to me.)
Dina you’re right… he meant what you said, and one more step. Since it is toward a different entity, it would have to be a different set of feelings, a different type of awe, a different type of love and a different type of reverence
I have another question about this blog article. Maybe Dina you could help. You can have new feelings for the same entity, and you cannot limit God to personhood in the way of a relationship with a human. Think about the new set of feelings added to the hearts and vocabulary of Israel’s children after the exodus, crossing of the sea, and giving of Torah.
(This question doesn’t add weight to the Christian claim, I’m just trying to appreciate Rabbi Yisroel’s meaning here.)
I don’t see a problem with increasing feelings of love, awe, gratitude, reverence and so on for Hashem after having a deeper experience of Him. This happens naturally as we grow in our relationship with Him. Not sure if I understand your question.
Of course there is no problem with it. But Christians would say that with J it was quite the same: the same God, new set of feelings due to a ‘new *type of experience* of Him’.
We disagree with that because we believe that J was a different entity to God! But how does this particular point in this article stand… new feelings don’t always prove that it is a new entity…
This article doesn’t say that new feelings prove it’s a new entity. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think the point is to question why Christians would want to turn the hearts of those that are already filled with the right feelings toward God toward another entity. To sum it up, in Rabbi B.’s words: “The fact that they seek the hearts of those who worship God tells me that the heart of the God-worshiper is not the heart of the Jesus worshiper.”
Hm. How would Moshe have responded to someone who said, I am going to keep worshiping the Creator, the God of my ancestors, but I am not worshiping the entity who spoke to us on Sinai…? What are the differences with this situation of Christianity?
PS I thought he meant that based on my reading of other things he has said, but I may have misunderstood. Thankfully in this situation the author is around to clarify 🙂
PPS- my question is not how the Sinai claim was acceptable while the Christian claim isn’t. It is just a question about how the concept in this post applies uniquely to Christianity when they claim it is new feelings for the ‘same God’.
Also, see how the topic is new feelings, not just giving the same feelings to one who doesn’t deserve and is not God.
I’m so sorry for the numerousness of my posting…
Here is where I think the answer could lie, but it needs to be expanded upon. Rabbi Yisroel wrote me a quick reply to something before Shabbos, where he said the love, awe, and reverence towards a finite being is different than that towards the infinite one. It is from his message then as well that I got that he was talking about a new set of feelings because it is a different entity.
So basically… the love, awe, and reverence one has for a human personality is always finite… we know that the goodness each person around us exhibits is just a glimmer of the entirety of God’s revelation of Himself through humanity… each personality shows different strengths in different ways. We always thank God for endowing a human being with the glory of His ways that their lives portray.
Some Christians have said that J was the perfect balance of personality and that what he exhibited during his life was done in perfect wisdom. They would say that this is the only human personality whose consciousness has been eternal and whose portrayal of God’s ways was perfect. I feel that idea simply doesn’t work, as you don’t look at any human in shul or on the street and say that their personality is not finite… Christians think that people who first accepted J had a spark of recognition towards the ‘person’ of their God in the person of J… explaining why the idea doesn’t work would answer my whole question.
Jesus was a man like anyone else. Why should anyone accept their claims that he is God? They have no rational basis for this claim, which is anti-Tanach, as you know. So who cares what justification they offer?
Really, whatever they say is irrelevant and beside the point.
I totally agree. But I really want to know what the argument is that Rabbi Yisroel is offering here in this article, and why it matters in addition to all the other reasons.
I can’t presume to talk for Rabbi Blumenthal, but it seems to me that the point is, if I’m worshiping God, why is the Christian coming to me and telling me to worship something else? In other words, if the Christian thinks something is lacking in my worship, that proves that the Christian is worshiping an additional entity. I don’t know if I’m articulating this clearly.
He has definitely written on that topic before…
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/another-mathematical-problem/
Also here- https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/knock-knock/
and here- https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/fusion-and-confusion/
and in at least one other post I can’t find where he says that if anyone doesn’t feel included in our worship towards our Creator, then he will have to deal with being excluded.
So then that clarifies things for you, yes?
I think this post was saying something more…about a new kind of feelings… Anyway, don’t know exactly.
I.e. It IS definitely irrelevant and beside the point, when Christians insist that they aren’t raising a finite soul to the level of worship. They say that their messianic claimant had an eternal consciousness and that his personality was the perfect balance, perfectly wise in exhibition of the ways of God in the places he went on earth. Says who?
But I also wonder… there seems to be something inherently wrong with the claim itself…
The posts are out of order. My post “I.e…” is meant to be after what I wrote a few posts up 🙂
Dina
” In other words, if the Christian thinks something is lacking in my worship, that proves that the Christian is worshiping an additional entity. I don’t know if I’m articulating this clearly.”
That is such a great point.
Yes, she put it really clearly!
There are different Christian approaches to this. Some people will say that Jews have a relationship with God but it is missing something because there is no relationship with J. Others will say that if people try to worship God “but not J”, then they are missing God altogether, or at least having a big impediment in prayer. Perhaps their idea is similar to how a Jew would feel if another Jew claimed to worship the creator “but not the one who gave the Torah to us.”
The second group does treat J as a distinct entity, but not to the extent that you can know God while rejecting him. Perhaps it is more to the first group that this mathematical-type argument is directed.
Nonetheless, the idea of saying to a claimant for worship that you’ll step into the other room and pray to God, and if he feels he is missing out then so be it… that is helpful for every Christian…
As far as the meaning of worship itself- it is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration. that is followed by submission to the person that is considered an authority.
The question is can we do both; express our reverence and adoration toward God and a man?
The answer is yes, even more when the man is a king and he is appointed by God. That is how the first century Jewish believers acted, expressing the reverence and adoration for Jesus as they believed he was appointed by God the King and the Messiah.
” This is my beloved Son, listen to Him.” NT , Mark 9;7
It didn’t mean that God is put aside. God’s will and acting was being done through Jesus;
John 5;19 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things soever he does, these also does the Son likewise.”
20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.”
As far as David, he worshiped God and had a reverence toward the king who was ruling on the throne before David himself was appointed . There was a normal thing to do both to worship God and to have a reverence toward the king, toward the appointed authority. Jewish people had always worshiped God yet, they still wanted a king to rule and having a king always required to honor him.
Eric
Reverence toward a human, recognizing that he is but a human and a subject of the Creator like we all are has nothing to do with reverence toward the One who holds our breath in His hand every second. One is a relationship between equals (both subjects of God) and the other is a true dependent toward benevolent Giver relationship
Exactly. There’s nothing wrong with honouring a king on a human level, as long as you realise that inherently the king owes as much to God as a slave does. In that sense we are equal, and our honour to God is something on a really different level, something only dimly expressed in the metaphor of kingship.
Nonetheless there are times when the Hebrew scriptures show a kind of equality in the relationship between us and God… not a real equality, but one that has been created as a gift to us. It only shows even more how dependent we are on Him. Our existence is one of these things; He allows us to exist and relate to Him. So is the ability to become holy because He is holy, the fact that He desires us, and allows us to to be partly responsible for pursuing Him in the relationship, None of these things are inherent to us and we must realise thankfulness, but they are real opportunities of relating on His level in some way. (Correct me if I’m wrong…)
Christians might say, then what is the difference between those things, and the idea of relating to God on our level through an incarnation that God Himself decided to do? If they relate to God-as-a-man in a human type of affection and communication while also realising that they owe their existence to God, then what is wrong with that. Of course rabbinic Jews would reply that there is no good reason at all to consider any man an incarnation of God, but there is another problem: a few things are inherently wrong with the idea itself.
One of those things is that the incarnation claim does not offer any new intimacy with God. (To keep the post from getting too long, I won’t discuss that in depth.) This being the case, why is the idea of a ‘human to human’ relationship with God so attractive? If it can offer nothing to the closeness of our relationship with Him, why do people pour their emotions into the idea that “God came close?” We must be very suspicious of these new feelings, and the fact that the feelings we can have for a human are now being offered to God. Its allure is not as pure as many sincere Christians have felt, but there is something lower in the mix: the comfort of relating to God as one of us, on our own terms. This is no way to come into the presence of our King
Hi Eric.
The problem with Christian adoration of Jesus isn’t that his first-century followers revered him as their leader but that Christians today worship him as a god. Besides, Jesus was never appointed king. He never ruled as king.
For most people worship has only religious meaning, so when they hear somebody is worshiped , they think he is a deity.
Second , Jesus himself said that God is a Spirit, and Jesus was referring to himself as a son of man.
In the NT he is described as a reflection of the invisible God, as he was reflecting God’s character. We can’t see God because He is a Spirit, but we can get impression of what God is like if someone is reflecting His character and does His will. Based on that I would call him Son of God.
( We can always pray to God for the proper understanding instead of relying what others say, whether Christians or non-Christians)
Jesus himself said that he only does what the father does, ( Mark 5;19) he didn’t come to change the rules of God.
As far as being ‘never appointed as a king’. From my knowledge based on the scriptures he was rejected by his own people and killed so of course he couldn’t rule as a king at that time. His story is similar to Joseph’s story. Rejection by his own, suffering and then through his special position given, forgiveness and redeeming his own people. From Isaiah 53
I understand he came first as the promised suffering servant to do the redemption from our sin and even before his death he foretold his resurrection and that the second time he would come as a judge and the savior and the king. Judge for those who are rejecting God’s words and the savior for those who are holding to God’s words.
Hebrew 9;27-28 “(…) but now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Hi Eric,
“Israel is My firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22).
Eric, please show me where in Hebrew scripture we are promised that the messiah will be recognized in his first appearance by suffering and dying and then he will come back another time to finish the job.
The facts are these:
Not once in Hebrew scripture does it say that faith in an individual is necessary for salvation.
Not once in Hebrew scripture does it say that repentance is impossible without blood sacrifice.
Not once in Hebrew scripture does it say that the Jews will come to the gentiles for the truth.
Not once in Hebrew Scripture does it say that we need a mediator to get to God.
Instead, Hebrew scripture tells us not to place our faith in the son of man (Psalms 146:3), that prayer and repentance and turning away from evil are all that is needed to obtain God’s forgiveness (Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33), that at the end of days the gentiles will come to the Jews to learn the truth (Zechariah 8:23), that God is close to all who call to him (Psalms 145:18) and that He shares His glory with no one and that He alone is our Savior (Isaiah 42:8, 43:11).
Can you refute this?
Peace,
Dina
Yes, God is our Savior as He provides atonement for us, not we for him. God was guiding Israel using Moses to tell him what to do, He can use His angels to protect us.
We believe God saved us from everlasting death by giving Jesus for us.
Hi Eric. What do you mean by “God is a spirit”? It sounds like you mean that He is one spirit out of many spirits… one entity out of many entities in the spiritual sphere… rather than the Creator of them all, and it all.
If you think Jesus was a representation of God’s will and His righteousness, then he wouldn’t have been the only one. Many people and things in creation have embodied aspects of goodness and fulfilled parts of His will. If you think that Jesus did it perfectly, then that doesn’t mean we would be able to honour God in Jesus’ direction, it just means that he would’ve been a particularly righteous man. Such a man deserves honour, but not a part in the relationship that we directly have with God alone, just like the righteous man or any leader also has. In short, whatever Jesus reflected of God’s ways, he wasn’t inherently different from us because creation holds many reflections of His likeness.
When I said he wasn’t crowned king yet, I meant two things. First, there is no warning in the Jewish scriptures that one needs to accept a king before he’s even crowned. Secondly, it is the Torah observant Jews who, as a community, have a responsibility to know who a true prophet is, and such a prophet (along with the circumstances) will make it clear who the king is. As it is, the observant community has not recognised a prophet who pointed out a descendent of David to reign righteously. Until that happens, the promise of the messiah is a prophetic comfort, not a prophetic warning or guessing game.
I feel you’re reading into Isaiah’s prophecy, there.
From looking at the Torah and prophets, how do you think the nations could come to the deepest possible knowledge and obedience of God? And how was the source of such insight meant to be preserved in the world? Do you think that the words of human beings play any part in making sure that clear awareness of truth can be learnt, in each generation?
Blessings.
Eric, King David did not worship Saul. Honor is one thing — worship is quite another! We are warned not to worship human beings. Mark 9:7 is contradicting the Torah itself. Jesus is called the “son of man” 83 times in the Christian gospels. Matthew uses the term 32 times, Luke uses the term 25 times. John uses it 12 times. Yet the Jewish bible tells us: “Do not trust in princes, or in the son of men, who has no salvation.” (Psalm / T’hillim 146:3). Mark and the other authors of the Christian bible misled people into idolatry by ignoring what the bible itself has to say. . .
The Jewish bible tells us that we are not to pray to any “god” our fathers did not know (at Sinai). This is the absolute death knell to the missionary claim that Jesus IS G-d. If we did not “know” Jesus at Sinai he is a false god. Read Devarim 11 and Devarim 13 (Deuteronomy):
11: 28. . . .the curse, if you. . .turn away from the way I command you this day, to follow other gods, WHICH YOU DID NOT KNOW.
Read Deuteronomy 13:7 “[This is what you must do] if your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, ‘Let us go worship a new god. LET US HAVE A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN BY YOU OR YOUR FATHER.’ 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you, far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9 Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him.”
The key phrase here is “LET US HAVE A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN BY YOU OR YOUR FATHERS.”
or gods “YOU DID NOT KNOW.”
When did “our fathers”, present at Sinai, have a spiritual experience with Jesus? Was Jesus “known” to them? Did they pray to Jesus or through Jesus? Of course not! Jesus was unknown to them.
Ergo G-d warned us against both Christianity and Islam — any spiritual experience not known to us at Mount Sinai is false.
Even the NT Matthew 7:21 ‘It is not anyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will (torah) of my Father in heaven.
1 John 2:3 In this way we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments (torah).
Good point, Larry. I wonder why Christians ignore these verses.
That reminds me of what Jim put so clearly. I forget the exact words, but something like this. We’re supposed to use the the scripture that is real clear and easy to understand to help guide us with some of the less clear scripture and harder to understand. This leads me to believe that If we find ourselves ignoring the easy to understand, it must not fit our beliefs. Or, maybe what we want. And that want can be anything.
also, how about, “I am not a man, nor the son of man”. talk about prophetic. Clear and easy to understand, yet, if it does not fit your belief, then it is of no good to you. We all need to look to those who were charged with teaching, and carrying his message for our understanding. Otherwise we are truly on our own.
Too true!
I would say that the most confusion comes from the wrong perception of the commonly used word ‘ worship’ .
In our modern culture worship is an action directed toward God and God alone. But this is not the case in the Hebrew Bible. The word shehhah is a common Hebrew word meaning to prostrate oneself before another in respect. We see Moses doing this to his father in law in Exodus 18:7. When the modern translators translate the word shehhah they will use the word “worship” when the bowing down is directed toward God BUT as “obeisance” or other equivalent word when directed toward another man. From an Hebraic perspective worship, or shehhah is simply the act of getting down on ones knees and placing the face down on the ground before another worthy of respect.
So when it comes to David, of course he didn’t ‘worship ‘Saul’ as God, David simply keeled down in respect toward the king to show his submission and obedience and willingness to serve him. The same were doing all people showing up in the presence of their kings- and that didn’t have to mean that by doing this the king was God God is a creator and a king is a human.
The confusion is about the word ‘worshiping’ Jesus, when the modern translators use the word ‘worship; so it looks like it is referring to deity. But what it should be understood here is that Jesus is honored and respected when the word’ worship’ is used. It does not mean he is referred to as God.
An example is Joseph’s life. One day Joseph had a dream in which his brothers’ sheaves gathered around his and bowed down to it. ( modern translators use the word ‘worshiped’)” Genesis 37-7-8 The fact happened years later when his brothers came to Egypt for food and bowed down before Joseph ( as their authority). ( modern translators would say they worshiped him). But Joseph was not a deity. He was ‘worshiped’ which means bowed down as he was worthy to be respected. THE WORD ‘WORSHIP’ DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ALWAYS REFERRED AS RELIGIOUS ACTION.
Jesus’ life was similar to Joseph’s; rejection, suffering, and placed by God in a special position to redeem his people. That is what the first Jewish believers understood and bowed down and respected Jesus as Joseph’s brothers bowed down and respected the authority of Joseph in Egypt. There was nothing religious in it, but expressing the honor of the person.
All the king’s lives and Joseph’s life shows that the word ‘bowing down’ to someone and showing your obedience and respect does not ‘hinder’ your special worship toward God alone. If God places someone as an authority like a king, showing respect and obedience to that person means also obeying God. When we come to a king we show him a reverence as to the king, and when we come before God we ‘worship’ him as God as the one who is the creator of all and we can praise him and acknowledge all the good things we know about him in our praise.
So when it comes to Jesus, the first Jewish followers of him, were people who simply acknowledged him as a Messiah and the Jewish King appointed by God. They didn’t ‘worship’ him as God, they were showing their respect to him as to the king and the messiah, whom they understood from the scriptures
( Isaiah 53) was the awaited messiah who came to serve and die for our sins , and they understood that all the promised good things are still to come.
They understood that he was the promised servant in Isaiah 53 who was to “raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved ones of Israel, punished for the transgressions of ‘my people’- as Isaiah said.
They witnessed his death and resurrection and GOD WOULD NOT RAISE BACK TO LIFE A LIAR Jesus also foretold his resurrection which happened after
3 days.
God would not support a false prophet and grant him life back. God would not resurrect Jesus if he wasn’t a Man of God as the wages of sin is death and Jesus would die for a false testimony.
In Deuteronomy 18;15-22 God gave instructions about the prophet whom to trust;
” I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
God also said that “the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak” – he shall die.
What would then justify Jesus’ resurrection?
Believed that he is the Messiah and respected as the king doesn’t mean he takes God’s place, as God is worshiped as God and He is the One who sent the Messiah.
Eric… we agree about how wrong it is to honour any human being in the modern sense of the word ‘worship’, and how it is fine to honour a human in the older sense of the word.
I would say that even so, the Christian scriptures accord far greater devotion to him than any king, any human leader, should receive.
Israel has not been shown with any clarity that Jesus was resurrected. Instead, we are left looking at a few texts by unknown authors which are unclear and perhaps even contradictory regarding the details, and also a predominantly gentile historical movement that practises idolatry towards him. Torah observant Israel has barely noticed him at all, and hasn’t broken a commandment in response to him.
Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah do not need to be taken seriously unless and until he proves himself to be the coming king in the proper sense. Since according to the Christian scriptures he is not a son of David through his fathers (considering virgin birth), and since he hasn’t been anointed as king by a prophet accepted in Israel and crowned by the observant nation, why should we see him as David’s heir? Torah doesn’t even warn that we should do that with anyone or else be cut off from God (a serious idea). In fact, it prescribes a different response to the issue of sin, repentance, and atonement, even in a time of exile.
Sometimes miracles happen to test Israel. Sometimes miracle stories get made up out of nothing. But your question might be less “Is Jesus the Messiah?”, and more “Where (according to Torah and prophets) can I hear the righteous testimony of the nation of Israel about God, in this generation?”
Annelise, this is so well put. I would also add that making Jesus the focus and center of your religion even as you claim that he is a mere human is idolatry. That’s because, as you said so well, that would be giving more reverence to a human than a human deserves.
Eric, does that make sense to you?
Doesn’t the Isaiah 53 explain anything about the Messiah? No matter whom we see as the suffering servant ( Jewish people- their nation, Christians- Jesus) Isaiah 53, justifies the fact that there is a NEED FOR REDEMPTION and, ATONEMENT FOR SIN! A great testimony that the law can’t justify anybody and that we need the redeemer!
I know that most Jewish people are taught that suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is talking about their whole nation, because Isaiah 52 mentioned Israel to be God’s servant.
I am not denying that Israel is God’s servant , he is mentioned in the book of Isaiah but there is one thing overlooked that Isaiah is ALSO clearly POINTS OUT a specific servant- the one who is PART OF A NATION. ( one of their own people)
Starting with Isaiah 49;5-6 which says ;
5)And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, TO BRING JACOB BACK TO HIM,SO THAT ISRAEL MIGHT BE GATHERED TO HIM (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength ), 6 He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be MY SERVANT TO RAISE UP THE TRIBES OF JACOB and TO RESTORE THE PRESERVED ONES OF ISRAEL; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
( that tells us that the servant here can’t be a nation as he is going to restore the nation)
The list of messianic prophecy would be really long to keep it in this post, it would continue over Isaiah 53 where Isaiah says that his people are the ones for whom ‘the servant’ was punished:,
v. 8” (…)for the transgression of MY PEOPLE he was punished “
And very important fact is- the servant in Isaiah 53 is completely innocent and righteous who is punished for others, the servant who is NOT suffering for his own sin because he is innocent.
53v.9 “and they made his grave with the wicked…(…) ALTHOUGH HE HAD DONE NO VIOLENCE AND THERE WAS NO DECEIT IN HIS MOUTH .
MORE EXAMPLES;[Isa 42 ;1-9; Isa 50; 4-10, Isa 52 v.13 till Isaiah 53]
Many other scriptures show the nation as guilty of their sin. ( examples; Isaiah 50;1, Ezekiel 39;23, Isaiah 51;17-22)
When it comes to that ‘special adoration to Jesus by Christians, it comes from understanding the price he paid for us. If you can’t relate to him as the one who paid your debt, he will be very unknown and distant. He is also not adding anything to worshiping God or taking away. He is making the relationship with the creator deeper by understanding that it is God who sent him to pay for my sin. He is the gift from God , atonement gift, it makes you thankful to God how much He carries. That might answer the question to some people who wondered why we honor Jesus, instead of just focusing on God alone. We just simply also enjoy God’s gift.
Hi Eric.
You wrote that the Jewish people are taught the identity of the suffering servant. Actually, the Jewish people read Isaiah 53 in context, and the context reveals the servant’s identity clearly. Furthermore, we read it in the original Hebrew, so the nuances that get lost in translation do not confuse us as they confuse you. For example, you wrote the following translation: “for the transgression of MY PEOPLE he was punished.” In fact, a more accurate translation would have been “from the transgression” or “because of,” a small but very significant difference. Also you thing that “my people” refers to us Jews, but if you had read it in context you would have seen that the speaker is the nations of the world talking about Israel. Another common mistranslation is “his death” instead of “his deaths.” Since “deaths” is in the plural in Hebrew, you have to figure out how that applies to Jesus. “Mipesha ami nega lamo” translates as “from the transgression of my people THEY were afflicted,” but your translation has it in the singular.
Hebrew scripture tells us how to atone for our sins. And Isaiah 53 tells us that if we repent then God will physically redeem us from our enemies: “If his soul would acknowledge guilt [wasn’t Jesus supposed to be sinless?] he would see offspring [Jesus had offspring?] and live long days and the desire of Hashem would succeed in his hand.”
God’s faithful servant Israel has not yet been vindicated. We await the coming of the true Messiah and the vindication of our people.
In the meantime, if you read the links I posted in my other comments to you, you will see how those answer the other questions you posed in your latest comment.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
My answer to the issue ; Jesus right to the David’s throne.
In the matter of the legal inheritance, Joseph of Nazareth was the proper, legal heir of David’s throne through the royal line of Solomon. He adopted Yeshua as his firstborn, making Yeshua the legal heir of the throne. There are three other arguments one can use to prove that an adopted son inherits just as a natural one does:
Had Abraham not had a child “of his own loins,” Eliezar of Damascus would have inherited his “kingdom” (mobile kingdom that it was)–and he had no genetic link.
Jacob adopted two of Joseph’s sons as his own heirs, giving them and their posterity the same inheritance as Joseph’s brothers, including specific domains in Israel.
The laws of levirate marriage required a dead man’s brother to “give him a son” if he had no children of his own by marrying his widow. The son would carry the dead man’s name and inherit his property and thus continue his line even though he would not be the man’s genetic son (Deu. 25:5;)
It was the refusal to perform this duty that brought about the death of Onan in Gen. 38:8ff).
I don’t know if there is an answer to these points about royal adoption, we’ll see if anyone knows 🙂
Regarding Isaiah 53, Dina has answered a lot of what you said. Remember also that when the Jewish prophets used the symbol of a man or woman to illustrate a group of people, a city, etc., it could be a slightly loose metaphor. I personally think that the servant is the whole nation at times, the righteous and Torah observant remnant at times, and perhaps sometimes an individual on behalf of the rest. I have met many individuals who fit into the category of the servant, both in his testimony and in his suffering, and who tell me about their friends and ancestors who fit as well. The Messiah may also be part of that image, maybe.
Another thought. If you want to find the ‘actual’ revelation from God at Sinai, the written Torah is only one part of what was left to the world by that event. The legacy is not just printed in a scroll or in books, and the written Torah itself points to that: it is also imprinted on the living, testimonial entity of ‘bnei Yisrael’.
Foreign as it is to many Christians, this idea is totally core in the Torah: that through the passing of of a message from parents to children, the testimonial observances like Shabbos and holidays, other laws, and an active preservation of the nation’s testimony by God in each generation, the message of Sinai will be heard by all later generations and by other nations. Without Israel there isn’t even such a thing as Torah… the book is the record of communication within their relationship with God, and the law that binds them to Him in a deep way.
This is what I was alluding to by saying your starting-question might be less “Is Jesus the Messiah?”, and more “Where (according to Torah and prophets) can I hear the righteous testimony of the nation of Israel about God, in this generation?”
Annelise, I will try to give my answer about Jaconiah curse and non matching genealogy later. Since I got so many emails this morning and there is no time to answer all the points people are talking about I would like to focus on a few.
I like your statement that a servant sometimes might be an individual on behalf of the rest. Talking about the servant, I believe Israel is called the first born son, and Israel can refer to both a nation and to an individual. Jacob was the first one called Israel – by God. He was one-person Israel ‘nation’ at that time. So looking closely in the book of Isaiah from chapt 49-53 it is clear to me, the suffering servant can be an individual. ( one of your righteous people )
It doesn’t mean the nation of Israel didn’t suffer. By the way Israel is not the only one, Mao killed more people then the whole Holocaust number of killed Jewish people.. People are being killed and tortured all over the world every day . North Korea now , Polish people during the world war 2 ( by the way I am Polish). So it wouldn’t make sense to me that one nation ( Israel) was supposed to justify others by their own sufferings.
The question would be who is the subject to be justified? What about all the bad people who keep killing others every day? What about those who used to persecute Jewish people? Would they be justified by you because they make you suffer? That would make no sense. Would I be justified by harming you, if you claim you are suffering for my transgressions ( anybody’s transgressions? That would make no sense.
When I said that Isaiah 49 -5-6 clearly talks about an individual to raise the tribes of Jacob and restore preserved ones of Israel somebody mentioned it was about Isaiah the prophet. So here is clear it might be an individual, but the thing is Isaiah is not matching, he is dead and didn’t do a job to restore the nation.
You believe the nation is the suffering servant, Christians see that one of your people to be that servant Yeshua ( Jesus).
You guys refer to the only revelation on Mt Sinai, and are taught to not believe any NT scriptures .So you think God has not communicated with people since that time? I believe God could communicate with Jewish people 2000 years ago giving them a revelation about the things to come. All the things we can read now accounted in NT books. They heard from God about Jesus , when the voice from heaven said; this is my beloved son, listen to him.” Is there a right to say it is all made up story? Most of the people witnessed Jesus resurrection and you would think they would let themselves to die for a lie when the Romans were torturing them and killing them so that they would deny their hope in Jesus? NT books have an account about the angel talking to Mary that her son was to save their people from their sin.
So the list of things in NT would be long to go through all, but what I am pointing to, that not only Isaiah books are completing the picture about the suffering servant.
Another thing I would say; there is no evidence that these the nations speaking in Is 53. in saying ‘ for transgressions of ‘my people’ . That would be really odd as the nations didn’t get any revelation from God at that time only Jewish prophets of God to speak to their people. Next ‘ cut off from the land of living’ clearly indicates somebody’s’ deaf.. also’ He poured out his soul to deaf’ v.12 , “No deceit on his mouth’- shows his innocence, sinless nature. v.10 ‘ Jehovah pleased to crush him(…) so that if he should put his soul as guilt offering, he shall see his seed”.-it does not mean Jesus had to offer any sacrifice for himself , he offered himself as guilt offering, and his seed refers to the people he paid for ( not his children).
When it comes to the movie about Jesus, I would ignore the producers’ idea of a handsome looking Jesus . Move is for making money.
But about his suffering that it wasn’t as bad as others is kind of not-propriet statement. There were days off beating before the crucifixion and the level of applied suffering doesn’t make someone less or more hero.
The point was he didn’t have to go to deaf, he did it of his own will. Second – he was righteous and willingly took that deaf as a punishment for our transgressions. Usually nobody wants to die for other people crimes. Mostly he suffered by being rejected by his own people whom he loved.
Another thought why so many Christians think Jesus was God? I would leave it up to them individually. Mostly we say he was son of God, by obeying God completely and reflecting the image of an invisible God. So, since it is hard to imagine an invisible God and Jesus was reflecting God’s character- Christians would say that God was in Jesus.
But since we all know little who God actually is, until we will be able to see Him one day, we can’t all have a complete understanding and complete picture of Him. Even Moses didn’t see his face . And knowing God it is not about knowing how He looks like but what His personality and character is like. Whether He consists of any parts or not, I don’t think it is a main think for us to know. God won’t judge us based on how much we knew what He consists of, but whether we obeyed Him or not.
Ok, more points to discuss late, go back to work. But I like to talk to you guys.
Hi Eric,
The thread on Isaiah 53 is getting rather tangled. I’d like to write a comprehensive explanation of the subject, if I have time. In the meantime, I’d like to address other points you mentioned.
First of all, I was joking about the handsome actor (I should have typed a smiley). I do find it amusing that you wrote that we are taught not to believe Christian scripture. As if our teachers walk into class and say, “Students, don’t believe the NT!” The truth is this: we don’t pay any attention to the sacred texts of any religion, such as the NT and the Koran. We know the Torah is true, so all other religious texts are irrelevant. Christians are simply unaware of the massive indifference of Jews to their religion.
You wrote concerning Isaiah 53 that “somebody [that was me, Dina] mentioned it was about Isaiah the prophet. So here is clear it might be an individual, but the thing is Isaiah is not matching, he is dead and didn’t do a job to restore the nation.” How ironic that you should say that! Perhaps he will come back and finish the job in his second coming, eh? 🙂
I hope to have more coming soon. Pleasure talking to you!
Peace and blessings,
Dina
PS I’m still figuring out some of this for myself, but just sharing some things that make sense from the Jewish perspective!
Eric, all three examples refer to inheritance and/or property rights, NOT tribal lineage, which is passed through the father (see Numbers, Chapter 1). If a Kohain or Levite adopted a child from another tribe, that child would not be allowed to serve in the Temple.
Christians have to answer a huge question concerning the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Not only do the genealogies not match up with each other (no small problem), they also don’t match the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 (an even bigger problem).
Yet another problem: Matthew’s genealogy goes through Jeconiah, who was cursed never to have offspring sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:30). Joseph is not Jesus’s father. Luke’s genealogy goes through Nathan, although God promised that the throne would pass through Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10). Again, Joseph is not Jesus’s father.
And that’s just a tiny detail. Suppose Jesus was David’s descendant through Solomon on his father’s side (he wasn’t, but let’s say for argument’s sake), then he is no different than thousands of other descendants who can lay claim to the throne. And he still has the problem that he didn’t fulfill the rest of the requirements. I refer you again to my challenge to Charles (sorry to keep sending you links, but it saves a lot of space here and a lot of time for me): http://www.scribd.com/doc/206777589/A-Challenge-for-Charles
Best,
Dina
Eric
So your Polish. that explains alot.. just kidding I’m polish to. “You believe the nation is the suffering servant, Christians see that one of your people to be that servant Yeshua ( Jesus).” As a fellow pollock, I would not reccomend going to a rabbi to learn the NT anymore than I would recommend going to a christian to learn the OT. If you don’t believe what the torah teaches, that includes believing what the nation charged with passing it down un corrupted would teach you, thats fine and I understand that. But if you say you do believe in the torah, then you cannot be taught Torah by christians. God taught a nation, mary was the only one who heard god speaking about her soon to be born son. Who heard God say this is my son with who I am pleased? Big difference.
What you are calling “leverate” is actually a yabham marriage. Note that it ONLY pertains to a widow who has no children. If she has children she may marry whomever she chooses in whatever tribe she chooses. Mary (per the Christian bible) was not a widow and Joseph was not her former husband (who had died) brother. It is totally immaterial.
Adoption is also a moot argument as it simply does NOT EXIST in Jewish law. Although the institution of adoption, through its widespread use in Roman law Jewish law denied the concept of “adoption.” Judaism has the concept of “A person Who Raises Another’s Child.” Unlike either Roman law or current adoption law, this institution does not change the legal parents of the person whose custody has changed. One who raises another’s child is an agent of the natural parent; and like any agency rule in Jewish law, If Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s natural (biological son) then he had no tribal rights PERIOD.
In Ketuvim (Writings) we are told that Esther is adopted by her cousin Mordechai (Book of Esther 2:7). This example re-enforces what I just told you, because Esther’s full name is used twice in the story — and both times it is tied to her birth father (Esther daughter of Avihayil). (Book of Esther 2:15 and 9:29) — in other words, she is called by the name of her biological father, not her adoptive father.
A child born as a priest (a kohein) is ALWAYS a kohein even if adopted by someone from the tribe of Judah. Adoption does NOT change tribal status — it is only biological from a Jewish father to his Jewish child.
In Mary’s case if the father of her child was anyone other than Joseph the child was a mamzer and had no tribal status at all. When a woman marries she takes on the tribe of her husband (as if her birth tribe simply disappeared). Mary’s lineage is totally immaterial — excepting that she had to be Jewish.
Any child born to Mary whose father was not Joseph (her husband) would NOT be of the tribe of Judah. Mary could only pass on the tribal status of her husband’s sperm PERIOD.
If adoption into the royal line were possible, one would have to wonder why Athaliah took such drastic measures following the death of her sons at the hands of Jehu and his men:
2 Kings 11:1 “And Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mother, saw that her son was dead, and she rose and destroyed all those of royal descent.” Had adoption been a viable solution to the problem of an heir, Athaliah would have been able to pursue that route (see 2 Kings 9:27, 10:13-14).
Even in the case of one’s land being passed through a daughter if she marries into the same tribe (as with Zelophehad’s daughters) she does NOT keep even the land if she marries into another tribe. Again the mother’s tribe is IMMATERIAL (Numbers 36):
36:7 The hereditary property of the Israelites will thus not be transferred from one tribe to another, and each person among the Israelites will remain attached to the hereditary property of his father’s tribe.
As for Jacob “adopting” Ephraim and Menashe — they were his biological grandchildren and thus had the same “paternal inheritance” rights as would any grandchildren of a male (in this case Joseph) son. There were no tribes prior to those assigned by Jacob — and he passed his inheritance on to his BIOLOGICAL HEIRS THROUGH THE MALE LINE.
Eric, how then do you explain the overwhelming majority of Christians who worship Jesus as God? Also, if you believe he is the messiah, then can you answer the classic Jewish response showing he is not the Messiah? I’ve written a summary of the challenge for Charles, a frequent commenter on this blog. You can access it here:
As for who is the subject of Isaiah 53, you must be new to this blog, because Rabbi Blumenthal and others have clearly shown that it isn’t the messiah and is certainly not Jesus. You can read about that here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/isaiah-53/
I tried to post more links but couldn’t, so I’ll add them to another comment.
Would God resurrect a liar? You’re asking the wrong question, because we don’t accept the accounts in Christian scripture as true. Deuteronomy 13:2-6 can just as easily apply to Jesus.
May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
My question to LarryB; How many witnessed Moses talking with God?
How many witnessed Moses talking to God? THE WHOLE ENTIRE JEWISH NATION, MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD.
Eric
Would that be before he talked to the whole NATION or after?
I mean at the burning bush.
By the way Jesus was seen by thousands too after his resurrection.
Eric, can you identify any of their physical descendants today?
It is like going 2000 years back trying to trace down who knew whom?. That conversation does not go anywhere.
Eric, there was a point to my question. The only religion that has ever made a claim of national revelation is Judaism. And here I am, a direct descendant of the people who claimed to hear God speak at Sinai. That makes the claim pretty credible. A chain of tradition starting from the people who were there who told their children, who in turn told their children, and so on, down to me and all other Jews today.
The claim that a lot of people saw the resurrection doesn’t have that kind of credibility. If Jesus wanted the Jews to believe in him, he should have appeared to the entire nation. He should have at least appeared to the Pharisees! Now wouldn’t that have been something? But no, instead he appears only to those who already believed in him. How convenient!
Eric
“I mean at the burning bush.
By the way Jesus was seen by thousands too after his resurrection.”
The NT teaches that I know. Islam has their teachings, Mormans have theirs, etc.. Then along came Horaces tree.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/horaces-tree-by-jim/
You can believe anything you wish. God is what ever you want him to be. But if you wish to believe in the same god Judaism teaches, or if you claim there god is the same as yours, then you must learn what they teach, christianity cannot do that for you.
Eric
Sorry i must correct myself. Even J taught in Matt 5:17-19 that you must follow the torah. So as J taught people to “follow me” he taught (18: In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke,(mitzvot) is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved. Actually, I believe, when you look at it, every reference to scripture in the NT it actually points to the tanakh as being the scripture to use. Whether or not the christian org. you belong to teaches that I don’t know.
LarryB, Is Jesus teaching so against torah for you? I think Matthew explained a little bit about it what it means to listen to Jesus in an above comment. When Jesus was teaching no NT book were written yet, no gospel nothing. He was always pointing to listening to God. You keep saying ‘follow torah’ , ‘follow torah’ all the time. But what it means to follow torah? Is it about learning all the history facts for the sake of information? I am sure it is not,but you are learning from the history for your benefit how God was dealing with people, and for the most it is for you to learn to obey His word, you are getting to know Him, you and are learning to trust Him. Our trust is also believing in the testimony God gave about Jesus that his death is for our redemption.
As far as Jesus teachings, what was he teaching when it comes to the commandments in torah? To love your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. He ‘fitted ‘ all the commandments into two .Does it mean he excluded the rest of them because he said it so? No, because if you really love God and others you won’t steal, you won’t kill, you won’t cheat etc. It is all included. If you really love God, you will listen to His voice that is not only limited to the 10 commandments but your ear will be inclined to ‘hear ‘ His voice whether through the prayer, or through His written word. Jesus even ‘stretched ‘it even more saying; if you think you keep the commandments but you see your brother in need and won’t help him, you are deceiving yourself. Put it all in practice. Follow me. By the words ‘follow me’ he didn’t mean to ‘betray’ God but to follow his example. Be holy as I am holy, another words put your words into practice like
I am doing. Learn from me. So simple.
Right, Eric, it’s so simple, but not in the way you think. It’s so simple to just follow the Torah and listen to the prophets who pointed us to God rather than to themselves. Can you imagine Moses or Isaiah telling Israel to do things “for my sake” or to “believe in me” as Jesus so often says?
Dina,
We call Jesus our savior for what he has done because he offered his life willingly for us. He is an ‘agent’ God used to save the world, and there is nothing wrong to call him savior to address him in respect and gratitude ( for what he has done) when he chose to obey God to save your lives.
Farther more, he was given all the authority by God to accomplish things for which God called him, so that whoever comes to him His death was because of our sin.
His given authority was much more then Moses’ to lead the people out of Egypt.
In Jesus there is salvation offered to all people.
Another problem calling Jesus ‘Lord’.
How many kings were called Lord in the past? ( I don’t have time to list you all of them here). It didn’t mean they were the Lords of the universe but their title was expressing
the position they were holding, and by being called ‘lord’ their their authority was respected. Why did Joseph’s brothers called him Lord? Why was he even bowed down to??? Aren’t you guys shocked by that??
If Jesus by his authority and respect can’t be called Lord, all the kings and Joseph shouldn’t have been called so either.
You asked if we are allowed now to sin because we believe we are forgiven.
No, because even Jesus said, don’t call me Lord unless you are doing the will of my Father who is in heaven. That means you listen to God’s commandments and if they tell don’t steal, you don’t steal. If you love God you obey Him.
By the way I will mention we are not saved by law because we keep it, by law is the knowledge what is wrong what is right, and people fail no matter what. That ‘once’ is enough what brought the consequence of death. Adam and Eve had their ‘once’ too.
They heard that they would die after their first disobedience. Even the animal- sacrifices were reminder of the fact, that sin brought death. God didn’t need the slaughter for himself as a weird amusement. ( He said He doesn’t need it!) Sorry I am repeating myself. I already talked about it before but I can’t help.
Levit 17 explained WHY blood was used, but I know it is ONLY about not eating blood.
I agree verses 1-10 . But in v.11 no purpose mentioned for what so ever.
“I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul “
That really makes me astonished. Reject verse 11 and you have just instructions what food not to eat. It is like trying to believe that Gen 3;3 only talks about not eating a certain fruit from a certain tree.
You said something about forgiveness like as if it should also not carry on any consequences of sin ( death). That is what we received in Jesus. God set us free completely from a bondage of sin from the everlasting death. ( I don’t believe in functioning as a spirit after my life. OT tells you in the prophets that our future is to function as people not spirits. )
By saying ( samuel to saul) “tomorrow you will be with me” , could mean ; you will be with me in the grave, you will be dead. Second ;nobody knows what exactly is a spirit , if there is any consciousness of us in it ( just because a psalm says ; the spirit comes back to God’ doesn’t mean you are alive.
Eric, some points.
1. God says there is no savior besides him, so you have no right to call a human your savior no matter how much gratitude you feel.
2. In order to establish Moses’s credibility as a prophet, God sent him to perform great wonders. The Ten Plagues. The splitting of the sea. And so on. But that wasn’t enough. God actually spoke to Moses in front of the entire people to establish his credibility. If Jesus was given more authority than Moses, at least he should have been given the same credibility, instead of performing small-time miracles like Elijah and Elisha (which I don’t accept as true that he did it, just saying for argument’s sake). At least God should have spoken to him in front of all of Israel, to at least put him on par with Moses. Jesus was not greater than Moses (he wasn’t even a prophet). Deuteronomy 34:10 tells us that since the time of Moses there has never again arisen a prophet like him.
3. Humans are called lord (adoni) while God is called Lord (Ado-nai). Big difference. No human king is ever, ever called Lord in Tanach. Bowing down to Joseph and calling him king is not the same as worshiping him as a deity. No, I am not shocked by ordinary reverence of a king. I’m surprised you don’t see the difference between that and worship of God.
4. You wrote: “You asked if we are allowed now to sin because we believe we are forgiven.” Actually, that is not what I asked. Since you kept talking about consequences for sin (like Cain being sent away), I asked you if you thought that by accepting Jesus you could sin without consequence.
For example, let’s say a man–we’ll call him Adam–walks into a school in Newtown, Connecticut, and shoots and kills 20 children and 6 adults. Let’s say that instead of killing himself, he goes home. The next day, filled with remorse, he accepts Jesus as his lord and savior. Should he get off scot-free? Why or why not?
5. About Leviticus. We aren’t saying what you’re attributing to us. The passage is a prohibition to eat blood. The reason given is that the blood atones, that’s why we can’t eat it. (Incidentally, Christians “eat” the “blood” of Jesus in their pagan custom of the Eucharist). It doesn’t say that without blood it’s impossible to atone for sin.
6. Why didn’t Samuel just say “Tomorrow you will die”? Why the more comforting “you will be with me”? How could they be together if they were dead?
Best,
Dina
Dina,
I will respond with my quick thoughts as this week kids are out of school and I am not sitting at the computer.
Whether I have a right to call Jesus my savior and express my gratitude it is between me and God. If He has something against that, I am sure He will let me know. So far I have enjoyed my relationship with God and I am sure that He sent his son for a purpose.
You mentioned you don’t worry and care about the future but aren’t Jewish people not looking forward to the Messiah’s coming and the glorious peaceful times? That is still future, he may not happen to come in our lives but those who died are to be resurrected at his coming to be part of God’s kingdom. ( I am not saying here that Christians are focusing on the resurrection as there are things we are busy with in this life but I know there is hope for the future.)
My thought is why is such a big deal about who will be the Messiah?
Is somebody unknown of a sinful nature a better perspective than Jesus who proved to be God’s servant and rose back to life? I am sure if it is Jesus , he will still be able to do what the scriptures are promising. I know that before Messiah is coming, the earth will first face God’s judgment. So I am not asking myself a question why he didn’t fulfill all the scriptures at that time because I understand the need for our redemption first . ( But I know you don’t see the need for that.)
You asked why we would listen to Jesus although people years ago didn’t know him?
Even t e people in the jungle who never heard of God like we do- I am sure God has the way to judge them based on what He revealed to them about Himself through His creation. I can’t speak for God what about them, God knows their hearts. I would rather focus on me, how much I am listening to Him now .
People in OT listened to God and whatever God revealed to them at their time. For example before the prophets were given , nobody was asked to believe their message, because there was no message from any prophet. But when the prophets were given, God wanted people to listen to what He was saying through them ( Jeremiah 22). Lots of prophets were rejected or even killed. People not always listened to God’s word whether through prophets or Jesus now. We believe God gave Jesus as He promised in Deut 18;15-18
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, (…) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.” I know Moses miracles’ were more reliable than those that followed Jesus. That’s another story…
I asked you being God’s servant and I rather was sure you would say yes, rather than no. You want to obey God , you want to serve Him, that makes you his servant for sure. So it is not only a nation as a whole to serve God, but also an individual can be God’s servant. Let’s say I have never heard of Isaiah 53 and 49, so my opinion about Jesus would not be only based on interpretation of the scriptures, but I would look at his life. Would I recognize God’s servant in him? Definitely yes.
Now, what about the bad people you asked, some guy killing and then repenting and coming back to God. Would he be forgiven? I can’t speak for all, God knows their hearts. But I would look at the examples in the OT at Cain after he killed his brother, then David who took somebody’s wife and ‘arranged’ her husband to be killed. Didn’t God forgive them? To me it looked like He did although it was a nasty crime.
So can we keep sinning then, especially Christians because they think they are forgiven? I see in the scriptures that no sin wasn’t left without consequences also relating to your present life. We don’t read much about Cain, but we know that David’s kingdom was not free from the enemies any more and the peace was over. With all the blood’ on his hands’ he wasn’t allowed to build the temple. God took Moses disobedience seriously to the point that He had to die before he entered the promised land. Do I want to play with a sin then??? .
I am not saying we are all perfect as Christians. You obey God, you know He hates sin, but I am sure it happens that we fail many times and the consequences of different types follow us in our lives. You sinned , you repent. God is showing you grace and time to change. I am sure whoever is constantly ignoring God, constantly sinning, can’t be called servant of God ( even if he calls himself a Christian).
I come back to more of your challenges later. I am not keeping any grudges as far as your saying about ‘ good deal”
..
Hi Eric,
You wrote: “Whether I have a right to call Jesus my savior and express my gratitude it is between me and God.”
Calling Jesus you lord and savior is not a private matter between you and God. All Christians call him that, and they come to us and ask us to do the same. So it’s fair game for me to question you thoroughly regarding this point.
You further wrote: “If He has something against that, I am sure He will let me know.” Ah, but He did let you know, Eric. Did He not say that aside from Him there is no Savior (Isaiah 43:11)?
Calling Jesus your savior is a direct violation of God’s clear teaching.
Dina, still replying to your previous emails;
As far as these ‘small-time’ miracles of Jesus l would say, what was so ‘unusual’ like rising a dead to life , or calming the sea and wind, making the blind to see, the lame to walk, the death to hear,, being himself back to life- looks like there were almost unnoticeable, but I can tell that the power to raise dead to life ( in the body) were usually man of God ( Elijah and Elisha).
You said;’ why God should have spoken to him…” so I see- we can tell God what to do. You have to ask God about if why He have spoken like that, I can’t give you the answer about that.
Deut 34;10 when was that said?? I am sure not nowadays and surely before Jesus was born.
Because others chose to worship somebody as deity doesn’t mean you can’t chose to respect him for being a servant of God.
I know catholic Christians believe they are drinking’ blood ‘ in the Eucharistic. well, I can’t help what some people believe, blood is usually a blood and wino is wino. Just because somebody doesn’t understand that sharing the cup with wino was to symbolize we all share in Jesus atoning death, It shouldn’t be mine concern that I can’t sleep., It doesn’t mean I haven’t tried to explain it to them.
Hi Eric.
Thanks as always for taking the time.
You wrote: “Because others chose to worship somebody as deity doesn’t mean you can’t chose to respect him for being a servant of God.”
That is like saying that just because someone cheats on her husband doesn’t mean you can’t chose to respect her for being a faithful wife.
Idolatry is the greatest sin against God. It’s spiritual adultery. And worshiping someone as a deity is idolatry.
We’re having a lot of back and forth on a lot of different points, but the bottom line is, one of us is right and one of us is wrong (there is a third possibility, that both of us are wrong, but neither of us accepts that). Because the Christian accepts the Jewish scriptures as the word of God and has come along to change it, the burden of proof lies on him.
Therefore, it behooves you to prove from Hebrew scripture that one must place his faith in an individual in order to attain salvation, that that individual is the messiah, that the messiah will fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies (universal peace, universal knowledge of God, rebuilding of the Temple, etc.) and will need to return to complete the task, and so on.
By the way, if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, why will the Third Temple be rebuilt and the sacrificial system reinstated?
Also, I would like the answers to my questions about what happens to Jews when they die and what famous Christians you admire.
Thanks again for your serious and thoughtful replies. I am impressed that you can carry on a debate in a language that is not your native tongue.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
I see that is still not clear to you what we mean by our trust in Jesus. You keep mentioning “we put our faith in an individual in order to attain salvation,” ‘ we worship a human” let’s maybe re-write it how I would address it;
‘we put trust in God and believe in the testimony He gave about His son . We believe in the authority He have to His son and we respect that. Our listening to him is like your listening to Moses. ( I know we honor him more than Moses as he obtained something eternal for us )
People at Moses’ time might have some problems too. They might have no need for Moses because God himself should be sufficient. Why didn’t God lead the people in person by himself, why did he need Moses to speak? I am sure faro wouldn’t have a problem with letting the people out right away if God himself stood there. I guess, sometimes God has a reason to use a person.
Our putting faith in Jesus means we trust his words because we believe they are words of God. Our ‘material’ NT which is so immaterial to many of you says (in John 5;19 ) that Jesus is doing what God told him to do and saying what he told him to say. Our listening to him, means listening to God.
And back to definition of worship, – the word – that is related to completely differently than it should.
Our worship means to express our submission and obedience and authority Jesus has as given to Him by God, as a son of God.
Whatever people think about Jesus he is still who he is,. I would rather search myself to see who he is rather than base my opinion on others , how they ‘admire ‘ him .
Complaining about why he failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies (universal peace, universal knowledge of God, rebuilding of the Temple, etc.) and will need to return to complete the task, and so on comes from lack of understanding. It is like being sick and going to a doctor and rejecting all the medicine , vitamins, and minerals and then complaining why I am still sick. Aren’t you supposed to be a doctor?? You must be a fake doctor, probably still a student of a medicine. I don’t know how the history would continue if he wasn’t rejected and plotted to be killed. I am sure God knew he would be killed and used that , but that wasn’t because Jesus wanted to be killed, or God delights in a blood shed . If people are not ready to listen what God wants from them , there won’t be any peace. Even in OT God said, Isaiah 48;18
“If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea.”
What do I think ,” if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, why will the Third Temple be rebuilt and the sacrificial system reinstated” My answer is ; the sacrifices weren’t for the eternal redemption but a lesson and reminder of consequences of sin which is death. If the sacrifices had to be repeated and weren’t cleansing people from sin forever why should the ones do it the third temple.? Or maybe if it was just for a food- party, there is nothing wrong with continuing to have a good party with an underdone steak!
Come on, Eric, you know I don’t think the ritual of sacrifices was just a food party. I asked you a fair question. If Jesus is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, what is the point of the Third Temple and the reinstating of the system of sacrifice? Can you answer that?
Furthermore, Eric, Christians changed the job description for the Messiah. Whereas originally it had been to rule over all of Israel as king during a time of universal peace, universal knowledge of God, rebuilding of the Third Temple, ingathering of all the exiles, the exaltation of Israel to the eyes of all the nations, etc., Christianity changed it to spiritual salvation through accepting him (or however you want to express it).
Show me where in all of Tanach we told that this is what we should expect of the Messiah.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Sorry, the last sentence should have said “we are told.”
Eric, actually, it’s like going to a doctor and instead of giving you medicine and all of that, he tells you to believe in Hippocrates, the doctor to end all doctors, who will come back one day and cure you.
The doctor is supposed to give you medicine if you have Strep throat; otherwise he isn’t a doctor.
The Messiah has a job description; if he fails to fulfill it, he isn’t the Messiah.
(What about those genealogies, by the way?)
Eric, my last point for today (if I can resist the temptation, because I have work to do), is that Deuteronomy 34:10 was written before all the prophets (including Samuel), so it has to be telling us that Moses is unique among the prophets.
I may not get to the rest of your points till Monday. Till then, peace and blessings.
Dina
I must correct myself even J taught in Matt 5:17-19 In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke,(mitzvot) is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved. I believe the point J makes here, is that when the two books don’t agree, the tanak teachings rule. Whether or not your form of christianity teaches that……
Eric, here’s another link:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/isaiah-53-vindication/
To LarryB,exactly, a good verse, non of God’;s words will ever be cancelled or disappear whatever He said He will do, that is why we take His words seriously that a wages for sin is death. Not a death for a day or 2 it meant everlasting one. That why the idea of atonement needed for my sin makes sense to me.
Eric, you keep saying “the wages of sin is death.” Can you support this statement from Tanach?
You wrote that “atonement was never without blood shed.” Can you support this statement from Tanach?
In fact the Jewish scriptures teach us the opposite. I cited the following passages in a previous comment and am copying them below; I hope you have a chance to look them up, because I believe these verses will give you a lot of food for thought:
1 Kings 8:46-53; Hosea 14:1-2; Psalms 141:2; 2 Chronicles 7:14; 2 Chronicles 6:21; Proverbs 15:8; 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalms 32:5; Proverbs 28:13; Ezekiel 18:21-23; Ezekiel 33:14-16; Jeremiah 36:3; Isaiah 55:6-7; Jonah 3:6-10; Daniel 4:27; Job 22:22; Proverbs 16:6; Isaiah 1:18-19; Isaiah 27:9; Isaiah 1:11-16; Amos 5:22-24; Psalms 51:15-17; Jeremiah 7:1-7; Micah 6:6-8; Proverbs 21:3; Hosea 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:22,30-31; Psalms 78:35-39; Micah 7:18-20; Joel 2:12-13; Psalms 86:5-6; Isaiah 43:22-25; Nehemiah 9:16-17; Jonah 4:2
If Tanach contradicts Christian scripture, which one is true?
May we gain ever more clarity from this discussion!
Peace and blessings,
Dina
To Dina, about that only one reliable witness of God in Judaism. You keep forgetting that Jesus came to the Jewish people as he was one of them. Just because the nation at that time was spread in different towns and cities and didn’t gather all around him in one day to listen to him – doesn’t give less creditability to believe in his message or not. By the way we see that God was speaking by the Jewish prophets throughout all the history about the future king. ( why we believed he was that king I answered today in the other comment ) No message is hidden or disclaimed just for a few individuals Of course from the very beginning there were people who believed his message and those how didn’t . That is why I can’t say which one of my descendants believed which one not. God is passing the message about His salvation to all people around the world. Some will believe it is true some not. People tried adding lots of garbage to every truth in every religion , adding wooden statues even in Christian churches and changing to worship Mary , but the truth can be found if you are really looking for it and God is able to tell you what is flash and what is not.
Eric, these are all statements of faith, not evidence.You wrote, “the truth can be found if you are really looking for it.” I agree. God leads right those who seek the truth sincerely with an open mind. May He guide us always in the light of His truth.
Peace and blessings.
And, Eric, two more:
Click to access Isa53JP.pdf
Click to access Isa53CP.pdf
The Hebrew word for worship is : עֲבוֹדָה / avodah. — don’t confuse English with Hebrew! The Torah tells us clearly not to worship human beings. We don’t worship prophets in any case! We only pray to G-d. BTW, Jesus was not a prophet — if he ever lived at all his so-called prophecies as recorded in the Christian bible were all false ones. Take for example his “prophecy” in that Matthew 24:2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” FALSE PROPHECY. esus speaks of JERUSALEM “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city” — so Jesus was speaking of the entire city of Jerusalem, not just the Temple. Jesus also said “They will not leave one stone on another”. . .
FALSE PROPHECY (and this was written AFTER the Temple was destroyed — you would think that making a “prophecy” after something happened you could get it right!).
Yet Josephus (who was an was an eye witness to the Romans pillaging Jerusalem 2000 years ago) wrote: “Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison [in the Upper City], ”
There were stones left standing.
Aside from Josephus we have archaeological evidence — not to mention the western wall which Jews go to even today!
As for Jesus being “resurrected” — you can’t prove that he lived at all, let alone was resurrected from the dead. The stories in the Christian bible contradict one another (regarding the supposed resurrection) from who discovered him missing to who saw him “rise from the dead.” It is a fairy tale. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/cru-chart.html
Hi Sophiee.
In fairness, the Hebrew word “avodah” also means “work” or “service.” Most reputable historians who don’t have an axe to grind accept that Jesus was a real historical character, although nothing is known about him from any accounts other than Christian scripture.
It seems fair to say that this character existed, and at least we know that he committed a crime for which the Romans executed him. How much more can be said about him with any certainty? That depends on whom you ask :).
The bottom line is, you can’t prove it either way if you’re looking strictly at the historical record. Just because someone is not mentioned doesn’t prove he didn’t exist.
There are tons of historical documents about him, but anyways no point of talking about it as it is not reliable to you, look from another perspective from the need for atonement for every one and understanding seriousness of God’s words about that the wages for sin is death. Temporary death would be no death just a sleep.The idea that we die we just ALL get resurrected has completely no support in OT. Neither for being good we are justified but by faith which means by trusting and doing in what God says. That applied to all the people from the beginning, with Abraham and the rest of your fathers.
Sophiee, thanks for the crucifixion chart. That’s a useful little piece to file away. I have stored it already in my file!
I will try to give my answers to all the questions but it will take me a while because I have a family and my little kids need to much of my attention 😉
I would say that even with some mistranslations of the scriptures the truth can’t hide. My question is referring again to a servant that is believed to be a nation. (in Isaiah) If the servant is the whole nation of Israel how can we explain the Isaiah 49;5-6 that the servant is supposed
“To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is gathered to Him, (…) and to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel.?
That tells you the nation is restoring the nation… how would Israel fit here to ‘raise the tribes of Jacob? Raise his own tribes, he suffers to restore himself? The servant is clearly pointed to redeem ( restore) Israel. Is 49. How does it all make sense?
Second , presuming it that there are the nations speaking in Is 53 ” for transgressions of my people he was punished’ – that would mean Israel is suffering because of the other nations’ sin. But many scriptures tell us that Israel is suffering because of their own sin.
Ezekiel 39; 23 “ And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel WENT INTO CAPTIVITY BECAUSE OF THEIR INIQUITY : because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them,(…)
What about Is 53;11″my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.”
How can we justify others as we all are sinners? If the nation of Israel is to justify others, why one of her people ( Jesus) is rejected that he could to it?
More, the statement is clear;’the servant is RIGHTEOUS, while Israel is not called so. All other nations are not excluded as we all failed.
Anyways it clearly speaks to me that the whole Isaiah 53 points to the fact that the suffering of ‘that secret servant’ is needed to justify others. ( I said secret as Jewish people believe it is a nation , and Christians- Jesus). The first Jewish believers simply accepted Jesus as that suffering servant who was part of their nation. That would make sense why Isaiah 49;5-6 says that the servant would restore the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved ones of Israel.
More topics tomorrow, time to sleep;-)
Eric
Hi Eric.
It’s a pleasure to talk to you, by the way, and I’m really enjoying this conversation!
I also have a bunch of kids, the youngest of whom is three months old, so I am sympathetic to your time constraints. Take your time! The search for truth requires that we take it seriously and not rush through it.
Reading Isaiah 49 in Hebrew, it is clear that the prophet Isaiah in verses 1-6 is talking about himself. Going by the plain meaning of the text, why should I assume otherwise? Furthermore, Eric, how would you apply the rest of the chapter to Jesus? Starting from verse 7, it starts to become nonsensical (forgive me).
Regarding 53:11, here’s the translation from the Masoretic text by Artscroll, the Stone Edition: “With his knowledge, My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes [in other words, Israel will teach the nations about the righteousness of God]; it is their iniquities that he will carry.
No observant Jew will deny that we suffer in exile for our sins, but we also have suffered from the sins of the many nations who indulged in anti-Semitic tantrums and persecuted us in the worst ways. That is the regret the nations speaking in Isaiah are referring to.
“As one from whom we would hide our faces, he was despised and we had no regard for him. But in truth it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried–but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted.” The (Christian) nations inflicted great suffering upon the Jewish people and thought that the Jews brought it upon themselves for their rejection of Jesus (“we had regarded him…stricken by God). But at the end of days, they will see that “He was pained because of our rebellious sins…we have all strayed like sheep…”
Take heed of Zechariah 1:14-15: I have become zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion, a great zeal, and I am wrathful, a great wrath against the complacent nations, who, when I became slightly wrathful, augmented the evil. [The nations, instruments to punish Israel, way overdid it.]
The concept that “we are all sinners” and “can’t justify ourselves except through Jesus’s all-atoning sacrifice” has no basis in Hebrew scripture (see Genesis 4:7).
Respectfully,
Dina
Do you not see the inherent flaw in your line of thinking? Whether this is speaking of Isaiah, the messiah or the entire nation of Israel all of them are both righteous of Israel! Read Isaiah 49 in context and it is clear that Isaiah speaks of himself about ten times in the first four verses alone. Again — what was Isaiah? A son of Israel! and did you bother to read LINE 3 of Isaiah 49? “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.” (Isaiah 49:3).
Who is the servant identified by Isaiah prior to Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Israel. The Jews.
Isaiah 41 8. But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, “You are My servant”; I chose you and I did not despise you.
and
Isaiah 44 1. And now, hearken, Jacob (Jacob’s name was changed to Israel) My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. 2. So said HaShem your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen.
and
Isaiah 44:21 “Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you.
and
Isaiah 45 4. For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.
and
Isaiah 49 3. And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”
and
Isaiah 49:7 This is what HaShem says- the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel- to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: “Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of HaShem , who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”
and from Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 30:10 ” ‘So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,’ declares HaShem .
Also see Isaiah 42:19-20; 43:10 to see that Israel is the servant, nowhere is this term used for the messiah. Jeremiah 30:10 also names Israel as the servant and Jeremiah 30:17 says that the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by G-d, just like in Isaiah 53:4!
You mentioned Isaiah 49:3 and 5 saying:
49:3 as another proof that Israel is the servant. However, 49:5 states this ‘the servant’ will “bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself”. Shall the Israel (the servant) gather Israel (the remnant)? Shall she be her own salvation?
Interesting that you didn’t QUOTE Isaiah 49:3 which does lead into 49:5.
Isaiah 49:3 And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”
In Isaiah 49 Israel is clearly identified as the servant. Let’s read it in context from 49:1 to 7:
1 Listen to me, O Islands, and hearken, O distant regimes: HaShem summoned me from the belly; He mentioned my name from my mother’s womb. 2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword in the shadow of His hand He hid me; He made me like a smooth arrow, in His quiver. He concealed me. 3 He said to me: “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory. 4 But I said, “I have toiled in vain and used up my strength of nothingness and naught; however, my judgment is with HaShem and the reward for my accomplishment is with My G-d. 5 And now HaShem, who formed me from the belly to be a servant to Him said (I should) return Jacob to Him, so that Israel would be gathered to Him, so I was honored in G-d’s eyes and my G-d was my strength. 8 He said It is insufficient that you be a servant for Me (only) to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the ruins of Israel; I will make you a light for the nations, so that My salvation may extend to the ends of the earth (Artsroll Stone Edition).
Note that this is not only clear that Israel is the servant but also that we are a light unto the nations to bring everyone to G-d.
Believe me I read all the chapters. Understand that whether you are part of a group who is called a servant to his/her master ( here is God), you are still a servant of that master as an individual.
So trying to prove who is a servant is becoming pointless, we know it is Israel and that even one member of your nation will not be excluded to be called a servant.
So what about Is 42;19-25? Does it match the description in Isaiah 53;11 ? The servant God wasn’t to happy with in ch apt 42 ;19 and the the righteous one? How can you be paying for transgressions of others? Why do you have to pay at all if we can just repent on our own to be forgiven?
If you ( as a nation) had to suffer for us , why Jesus ( one of your people couldn’t?)
Nobody still answered me that except for ‘ we don’t believe in Jesus’. The NT is not reliable. well, you don’t have to believe in him, but why couldn’t one righteous suffer for others?
I know you are the light of the world. If not Jesus who was Jewish we would not have such a great savior and thanks to all the Jewish believers who spread the message about him. And I believe that in the Messianic Kingdom Israel will really prosper.
I know that might sound sarcastic but I am very thankful! I would rather enjoy the Messiah who paid for my guilt so that I can have forgiveness of God rather than enjoying a Messiah- political leader
Hi Eric.
In your last three comments you talked about who the servant is saving from their sins. You asked how Israel’s suffering atones for mankind’s sins. You want to know how mankind will be redeemed from their sins without a savior. This is a Christian idea that has no place in the Jewish scriptures.
In fact, I never suggested anything like what you are saying. When I said that Jews suffered from the nations sins, that would be like saying my husband suffers from my bad temper. His suffering from my bad temper doesn’t “justify” me. It’s simply an unfortunate fact of life for him. And it’s something to which God will hold me accountable for making his life miserable. (I’m just using this as an example; I’m nice to my husband in real life 🙂 ).
The Christian and Muslim nations who persecuted the Jewish people caused them to suffer BECAUSE OF their sin of persecution. They thought (and many still think) that this proves that their religion is the truth, that the Jews have suffered for rejecting Jesus or Mohammed. Our suffering because of their sin of persecution doesn’t “justify” them; in fact they will be punished for it and the Jews will be vindicated at the end of days (Deuteronomy 30:7; Isaiah 17:12-14; Isaiah 25:1-8; Isaiah 30:26; Isaiah 30:28; Isaiah 34:1-35:10; Isaiah 40:1-11; Isaiah 49:8-13; Isaiah 52:7-10; Isaiah 60:1-3; Zephaniah 3:8-20; Zechariah 8:23; Psalm 9).
Your vision of the Messiah is based on dubious passages wrenched out of context. Can you answer my challenge, based on clear teachings in Tanach? (See it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/206777589/A-Challenge-for-Charles). I’m so curious how you answer that challenge. (And what about my challenge about Jesus’s genealogy?)
Although Jews are indifferent to the sacred texts of other religions, I can give you good reason to throw the credibility of Christian scripture into question.
The first is that the very people who determined which prophets were from God and decided to include their works in the canon of Hebrew scripture are the very people who rejected Jesus and the Christian canon. If you trust these people on all the books of Hebrew scripture, then it’s inconsistent to distrust them on anything after the Hebrew canon was sealed. “You are My Witnesses, says the Lord” (Isaiah 43:10).
The second is the distortion in Christian scripture which is obvious to anyone familiar with Hebrew scripture. Mark, Matthew, and the others consistently quote out of context, mistranslate, or make up references from Hebrew scripture. For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslates the word “alma” as virgin (it really means “young woman”). He makes up the reference “and he shall be called a Nazarene” which is not found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. I could go on and on, but the discussion I really want to have is to see if you can prove your theology from Hebrew scripture.
As for Daniel, Rabbi Blumenthal has written about that on this blog. You can read his arguments here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/daniel-713/ and also here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/daniel-924-27/
I am very, very curious if you still believe your interpretation of the passages in Daniel is accurate after you read those articles. And if you still believe it, then why?
This conversation is so important, Eric, because nothing less than our precious souls hinges on the success of our discovery of the truth.
Peace and blessings,
Dina Bucholz
Hi Eric.
I’m going to call you out on something you said that is not fair. You wrote: “Nobody still answered me that except for ‘ we don’t believe in Jesus’. The NT is not reliable.”
This is unfair because I have spent a considerable amount of time citing sources and providing links that give evidence for WHY I don’t believe in Jesus and WHY the NT is not reliable. You may disagree with me, but to boil down everything I said into “we don’t believe in Jesus” is plainly insulting.
I hope you will look up the sources I cited and read the articles I linked to. If you will take the time to do that, you will see that I didn’t just say, “We don’t believe in Jesus; the NT is not reliable.”
Respectfully,
Dina
Just another quick point about Isaiah 53, Eric.
The chapter talks about the bad looks of the servant, and how he was generally despised. According to Christian scripture, Jesus was quite popular, drawing huge crowds. So a small group of Pharisees didn’t care for him? So what, was he holding out for universal popularity? Also, if he looks anything like Diogo Morgado (the actor playing Jesus in the soon-to-be-released film “Son of God”), then he was quite good looking!
And his suffering: this chapter talks about a man of pains, someone who suffers continually. A few hours on the cross doesn’t cut it. In fact, Jesus was one of the lucky ones. Some victims of crucifixion lingered on the cross for days, suffering unimaginably until they died. Up to 100,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans according to Josephus.
This is just a small point to show that the chapter can’t be talking about Jesus.
Eric — Joseph (Jesus’ un-father) might have been eligible to be the messiah as a descendant of Kings David or Solomon (one lineage says “yes” one says “no”) — but he wasn’t a messiah either. There have been hundreds of thousands of Davidic potential heirs. he T’nach tells us that Solomon: “had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines.” (1 Kings 11:3). How many children do you suppose he had?
Each male child was eligible to be the messiah (assuming a Jewish mother). Each of his grandsons. Each of his great-grandsons. . . Just HOW many Davidic heirs (through Solomon) have been alive through the ages — and are still alive today?
— but not one has been the messiah — fulfilling the messianic prophecies. The right parentage is only the starting point. . . And even if Joseph were eligible, Jesus (per the Christian bible) was NOT eligible. Joseph wasn’t his biological father ergo Jesus did not have the right parentage to fulfill the prophecies to be the messiah.
Lineage in Judaism passes paternally. Mary was married to Joseph. As his legal wife only he could legally father her children and pass on a tribal line. According to the Christian bible Joseph was NOT the biological father, and thus Jesus did not possess the correct lineage to be a messiah.
The two conflicting lineages for Joseph given in the Christian bible are immaterial since Joseph was not the biological father. Mary’s lineage does not matter (only males pass lineage).
IF Joseph were Jesus’ biological father (Joseph’s sperm impregnated Mary) then having the right lineage would give Jesus the birth right – but he would still have to fulfill all the messianic prophecies. To date no one has fulfilled them, so there is no messiah.
Back to the previous question; why all the Messianic prophecy hasn’t been all fulfilled yet?
Christians generally see Messiah accomplishing God’s purposes in 2 separate comings. Why we see 2 comings although you can’t find literally there would be 2 comings? The answer can be given based on described events in both OT and NT scriptures that are related to the Messiah.
( take it as the thing; we believe it, I am not trying to convince anybody to see things the same). We`agree that the Messiah was to be’ from among his brothers’ a man like any man living on earth. Then Daniel 7;13 also shows a unique vision;
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man([ bar enash meaning human being) coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” To me it all looks really special , a Messiah being honored, being given everlasting dominion. Any sinful character ( mortal one) would not fit in that description, he would not be able to rule forever.
So who is that secret human in Daniel 7;13?
These 2 pictures of the Messiah , the one from among his brothers, born in Bethlehem, coming humbly , then suffering for our transgressions ( Isaiah 53) and then the vision described in Daniel 7;13 of the one coming with clouds indicate time span.
Referring now to NT events , Christians know that Jesus said himself he would be coming again from heaven with clouds in glory and every eye will see him.He will come to set the Messianic kingdom and also come as a judge for those who are rejecting God. We would wonder why not setting the kingdom right away? Why all the promises couldn’t be fulfilled all at once?
The first Jewish believers found the answer after they understood the need for salvation and redemption so that we could have everlasting life.
God wants all people to have a chance to know that they can be forgiven and not be subject to his judgement because their guilt is paid off.
( If you really believe it is you- the nation suffering to pay for our transgressions, explain how you get justified? I guess you don’t need the salvation, as you are a savior yourselves.) You might say, we just repent, turn back from sin, well then Gentiles might do the same and Isaiah 53 wouldn’t be really needed. So why you still had to pay for us with your sufferings?
If you are that savior in Is 53, why Jesus can’t?????
I know you don’t take any accounts written in NT as true, asking a question , how many witnessed an event , how many heard the voice of God, how many really witnessed Jesus resurrection, it is all so unreliable to you- well I can’t help.
Eric — the messiah does not have to be “born in Bethlehem” — Micah says that the messiah will come from the line of King David who WAS from Bethlehem. As I’ve already shown — Jesus was NOT of the line of David (tribal status only passing from a Jewish biological father to his children or to a woman via marrying into a tribe). Daniel 7 has nothing to do with the messiah. Daniel 7 actually says כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ k’var enash, “[something] like a human being” Next, Verse 14 does not say anything about anyone “worshiping” anybody; the word it actually uses is יִפְלְחוּן yifl’ḥun, “they will serve [in the sense of work for] him”.
Lastly, you keep harping on Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 clearly does not fit Jesus. If you think Jesus is a god please explain how he could also be God’s servant? A servant by definition is always in an inferior position to his master.
If this were about Jesus:
1. where are his living, breathing descendants from his zera? Zera only refers to the living offspring from another being (plant, animal or human). Jesus had no children — and followers were not from his body now were they?
2. when did he die multiple deaths? Isaiah 53 speaks of MULTIPLE deaths.
3. when did Jesus die with the rich? The Christian bible says he died with thieves!
4. when was he buried with the poor? Jesus was supposedly buried in a rich man’s tomb!
5. How can one describe Jesus as non-violent? (Moneychangers ring a bell?)
It doesn’t matter if you believe that Isaiah 53 is speaking of the Jews or not — it clearly does NOT fit Jesus.
I didn’t say god, but called him son of God, God’s servant. I already explained that in the other comment.
1. where are God’s offsprings then? Whoever belongs to God is called God;’s child , God’s offspring, it is not just biological.
2. when did he die multiple deaths? He Messiah, the text predicts, will justify the many . He dies the deaths of others , for everybody’s sins.
3. when did Jesus die with the rich?
it is said he died with the thieves and ‘with the rich in his death’ refers to him being buried in a rich man’s tomb.
4. when was he buried with the poor? ( I have to find out , where you took it from)
5. How can one describe Jesus as non-violent? (Moneychangers ring a bell?)
Turning over the tables to say the temple is not a place for making money, but a house of prayer wasn’t to hurt anybody.
Your translation of Isaiah 53 is pretty bad — to help you I’ll post the translation from Artscroll’s Stone Edition.
[52:13] Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty.
[14] Just as multitudes were astonished over you, [saying,] ‘His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,’
[15] so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths [in amazement], for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard.
[53:1] Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of HASHEM been revealed!
[2]Formerly he grew like a sapling or like a root from arid ground; he had neither form nor grandeur; we saw him, but without such visage that we could desire.
[3] He was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him.
[4] But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried – but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by G-d, and afflicted!
[5] He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds, we were healed.
[6]We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and HaShem inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.
[7] He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.
[8] Now that he had been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.
[9] He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his executions, for committing no crime and with no deceit in his mouth.
[10] HaShem desired to oppress him and afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand.
[11] He would see [the purpose] and be satisfied with his soul’s distress. With his knowledge My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes; it is their iniquities that he will carry.
[12]Therefore, I will assign him a portion from the multitudes and he will divide the mighty as spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked for he bore the sin of the multitudes and prayed for the wicked.
Here are the footnotes from Artscroll I suggest you read UriYosef’s articles on the topic of Isaiah 53.
Here are the Artscroll footnotes:
52:13 i.e. G-d’s servant the people of Israel (Rashi)
52:15 Just as Israel had once been astonishgly degraded, so it will astonish the nations by its exaltedness when the time of redemption arrives.
53:1-3 this is the prophecy foretelling what the nations and their kings will exclaim when they witness Israel’s rejuvenation. The nations will contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews (vv. 1-3) with their new realization of Israel’s grandeur (vv 4-7).
53:5 we brought suffering upon Israel for our own selfish purposes; it was not, as we had claimed, that G-d was punishing Israel for its own evil behavior.
53:6 We sinned by inflicting punishment upon Israel. Such oppression is often described as “Hashem’s punishment” (see 10:5, Habakkuk 1:12), for He decreed that it should happen (Abarbanel).
53:8 When Israel’s exile is finally ended the nations will marvel that such a generation could have survived the expulsion from “the land of the living, i.e. Israel, that the nations had sinfully inflicted upon it.
53:9 Ordinary Jews chose to die like common criminals, rather than renounce their faith; and wealthy Jews were killed for no reason other than to enable their wicked conquerors to confiscate their riches (Radak).
53:10 That is, Israel. G-d replies to the nations that Israel’s suffering was a punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent, they will be redeemed and rewarded.
53:11 Israel will teach the nations of G-d’s righteousness.
Just shortly, no matter what the translation it still states ; ‘by his wound we are healed’ – that means we Gentiles are healed ? that indicates the purpose of the suffering rather just a fact’ it happened , “people were mean to us”
Next why “HaShem desired to oppress him and afflicted him”; why did He desired to afflict you? Any purpose?
Eric, Isaiah 53:5 doesn’t say by HIS sound we are healed (present tense) but rather “by their wounds we would be healed” PLURAL. Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “They were pained because of our rebellious sins and crushed because of our iniquities; [we thought that] punishing them would benefit ourselves, and through their wounds we would be healed.” This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others.
Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that G-d promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14).
The nation can repent and be redeemed, but the thing is we are still going to die one day . Based on what you think you would be resurrected? We see atonement for sin needed. The wages of sin is death. Or else we would be living forever. Somebody paying off your guilt- giving his life for me I don’t see a problem with accepting that.
Hi Eric.
I know you think it’s pretty cool not to worry about your sins because someone else died for them, but the Torah clearly states: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, and sons shall not be put to death because of fathers; A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH FOR HIS OWN SIN” (Deuteronomy 24:16). For a biblical understanding of atonement, please see the following:
1 Kings 8:46-53; Hosea 14:1-2; Psalms 141:2; 2 Chronicles 7:14; 2 Chronicles 6:21; Proverbs 15:8; 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalms 32:5; Proverbs 28:13; Ezekiel 18:21-23; Ezekiel 33:14-16; Jeremiah 36:3; Isaiah 55:6-7; Jonah 3:6-10; Daniel 4:27; Job 22:22; Proverbs 16:6; Isaiah 1:18-19; Isaiah 27:9; Isaiah 1:11-16; Amos 5:22-24; Psalms 51:15-17; Jeremiah 7:1-7; Micah 6:6-8; Proverbs 21:3; Hosea 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:22,30-31; Psalms 78:35-39; Micah 7:18-20; Joel 2:12-13; Psalms 86:5-6; Isaiah 43:22-25; Nehemiah 9:16-17; Jonah 4:2
For an interesting and informative discussion on the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53, I highly recommend Rabbi Michael Skobac’s video presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TeOtzTaAco&list=PLD3DF0E2817D81B0D&feature=c4-overview-vl.
It’s nearly two hours, so listen while you do your chores 🙂 If you listen carefully till the very end, you will see that the logic is good even if you disagree with it. I’m sorry I keep giving you stuff to read or listen to. I wanted to write up a comprehensive review of the subject, but in the end I really don’t have the time. Will you listen to it and tell me what you think? I’d love to get your opinion on it.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
I am completely not a Catholic Christian, and lots of people who used to claim to be Christians were just using the title of Christians but not reflecting a heart of Jesus. There were people who used to kill in the name of Jesus although he never told anybody to do that, and the list can go on how many things people can make up so I am not following any of their teachings.The true Jesus always was directing people to God, the teaching was to obey God’s word. So If I see anything that is not matching that , it means it is added by other people and it does not matter. what everybody is trying to add.
I will read all the other links later, it is just no time right now
Eric, you wrote, “Jesus always was directing people to God, the teaching was to obey God’s word.” I already worship God and try my best to obey His word. So what do I need Jesus for?
Take your time with the links, and thanks for considering taking the time to look at them.
Also, Eric, all your questions in these comments are discussed in the video I linked in my previous comment.
The resurrection of the dead is a basic principle of the Torah of Moses. Anyone who does not believe it has no connection with the Jewish Nation. “Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise, awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades” (Isaiah 26:19). Yet, as Dina showed you, no one can die for your sins. Each man must atone for his own transgressions. Man is not a soul bound in a transient body. If that were the case, resurrection would have little significance other than representing the soul’s return to its bodily prison. Man is a soul and a body together. As such, he needs to relate to a future that somehow involved both his soul and his body. Resurrection is the rejoining of the body to the soul in such a way that it can achieve this future.
Thanks Sophiee. I once heard it as the body that man creates dies and the body God creates (resurrected) lives forever.
So how are you going to atone for your own sin? You would not believe that God atoned already for you? God’s son was sinless, blameless ‘ lamb’ as he is called. That is the testimony we believe God gave about Him.
Eric, you asked “how are you going to atone for your own sin?” The Bible teaches us exactly how to do that (gentiles are included). I keep citing passages; why don’t they adequately answer your question?
Dina- this is the answer to your previous message- I saw the verses you put for me to read. They all say God will forgive us if we repent and turn away from sin, that He can deliver us from the enemies, bring back the blessing but the fact is we are still going to die one day. In 2 Sam 12;13 David was told he won’t die , God forgave him his sin, but right now David is already dead .I am sure he will be resurrected, but right now he is dead. Why??? Why doesn’t God’s forgiveness allow us to stay alive all the time?
In Ezek 18 whether God’s words ” he won’t die” mean that the individual would have everlasting life or just not die right away, it is not freeing us from death that we are going to experience one day.
Why? Because of God’s justice. But the resurrection is by grace. Everlasting life by grace.
We are pardoned , we repented , God forgave us but his justice required to also deal with the consequences of our sin.
So the atonement provided for our sin is not illogical. That is what Christians believe- in atonement provided.
Where do I find anything about relation sin-death in OT? Genesis 2;17, Gen 3;3 where Adam and Eve were told that if they did something God told them not to, they would die. They didn’t die right away. God forgave them they could still have a long life. ‘The words ‘ wages for sin is death’ are in the NT based on OT.
I don’t see anything contradicting Torah in NT
Leviticus 17:11 (NIV)
” For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
The term “atonement” is translated from the Hebrew term, kapar (kaw-far’), which essentially means “to cover.”
But why to cover anything if we can just say sorry?
Sins are covered, or hidden, from God’s sight – that they may not be held against the sinner. What’s wrong in believing that God forgives us when we repent but He wants the sins to be covered also ?
The Day of Atonement was a gracious day each year when all the Israelite s could experience a new beginning by being cleansed from their sins and restored to fellowship with their Maker.
“On this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord” (Lev 16:30)
God made for His people to experience an annual cleansing and a new beginning through His atonement! This was truly the Gospel in types which finds its anti typical fulfillment through Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
Of course, the Israelite s did not know of Jesus per se, or how He would die on their behalf and then rise again, but they did believe God would be sending them a Savior. All of the many, many blood sacrifices seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice to come so that the Israelites would never forget that, without the blood, there is no forgiveness.
Humans recognized their need for atonement long before the time of Moses. When Adam and Eve committed the first sin, they hid from God because they were ashamed (Gn 3:8).
How does atonement work? The first (indirect) OT reference to atonement occurs when God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness, an act necessitating the death of a sinless animal and hence the shedding of its blood on their behalf (Gn 3:21).
More examples;
Exodus 29:10-14
Sin offering included blood . Do you think there was just a ritual for no purpose??
A “sacrifice” is defined as the offering up of something precious for a cause or a reason. Making atonement is satisfying someone or something for an offense committed. In Leviticus 17 God said, “I have given it to you (the creature’s life, which is in its blood) to make atonement for yourselves (covering the offense you have committed against Me).” In other words, those who are covered by the blood sacrifice are set free from the consequences of sin.
v.10 “Bring the bull to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 11 Slaughter it in the Lord’s presence at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 12 Take some of the bull’s blood and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger, and pour out the rest of it at the base of the altar. them, and burn them on the altar. (…)
God’s prescription for a sin offering then, was the shedding of substitutionary blood. Blood sacrifices provided a cleansing; for both ceremonial purposes and for the atonement for sins.
The “regular” daily offering consisted of the slaughter of two male lambs; one each morning and one each evening.
Exodus 29:38-39
38 “This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old. 39 Offer one in the morning and the other at twilight.
In addition to the daily offerings were weekly Sabbath offerings. On each Sabbath two male lambs were slaughtered in addition to the regular offerings.
So much blood being shed .Why they could not have stopped being offered? The worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
So , if no more of these ceremonies nowdays, nobody is doing it now like it used to be , would that mean God changed his law, and the need for ‘covering’ the sin? No ,because the cover is now by atonement in Jesus
Hi Eric.
I appreciate your taking the time to express your beliefs so carefully and for looking up the sources I cited. Thank you for taking this discussion seriously and working hard to respond to mine and others’ comments.
I assumed that you believe in the immortal soul and the afterlife, but in this comment you seem to say that once we die, we’re dead forever, unless we’re resurrected. Do I have that right?
You realize, of course, that the Torah (and I use the word to refer to all of Hebrew scripture) says precious little about our souls and the afterlife. The Torah tells us how to live our lives in obedience to God and in harmony with our fellows, so we don’t obsess about eternity–God will take care of that. Still, there are hints. What do you think of Psalms 16:10, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Genesis 25:8, and 1 Samuel Chapter 28 (especially verse 19)?
About sacrifice, consider that during the Babylonian exile, after the First Temple was destroyed, there was no Temple and there were no sacrifices. How did people atone for sin then?
It’s clear to me that you approach Hebrew scripture with your theology firmly in place, so you start with a conclusion and then find support for it. All your explanations of the passages you brought in your latest comment are pure speculation and do not follow the plain meaning of the text.
So as not to take up more space, I refer you once again (forgive me!) to two articles on this blog that discuss the passage in Leviticus 17. I think they will make you really rethink your understanding of this passage.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/leviticus-1711-and-the-book-of-hebrews/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/tsvi-jacobson-on-hebrews-922/
See you later,
Dina
Eric — how many people saw Harry Potter defeat Voldemort?
Are you a wizard, Eric?
Just because some anonymous person says that something happened doesn’t mean that it DID happen. If any of what is claimed in the Christian bible were true why didn’t the Romans report of dead zombies walking around Jerusalem? Why didn’t they report of crowds of thousands listening to Jesus speak? Why don’t they mention him AT ALL?
Here is an interesting snipped from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
There is no historical reference to Jsus life, death or the crucifixionnothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Chrst: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence 1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:
Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus. . .
If he didn’t exist why would be Romans persecuting the first followers of Jesus, if he didn’t exist , there would be nobody to follow him, – then all these believers would not allow themselves to be killed for a lie , for faith based on nonsense. Yet, thousands of people were being killed for holding on to their witness about Jesus. Read NT- plenty of people talked to Jesus and witnessed him.
Eric — Thor, Zeus and Mithra had PLENTY of followers. So do Buddha and Mohammad. People believe lies all the time! Who told you about Romans persecuting Christians? Christians, that is who! But anonymous Christians! Who was Paul? Mark? Any of them? No one ever heard of ANY OF THEM. How many Syrians have died in the name of Islam? How many Hindus? Your arguments are defeated by history and facts. The Christian bible was written after the fact by anonymous authors. . . and it bears more than a passing similarity to the pagan religions that came before it including Mithraism. The early Christians accused the pagans of stealing ideas from them — even though the pagans pre-dated Christianity! The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as the early Church Fathers found the religion of Mithra very disturbing, because there are so many similarities between the two religions. Some examples are:
1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior―god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper” with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
3) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
4) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
5) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).
BTW — to your earlier argument that the Romans aren’t Edom — you do know that the Emperor Constantine named Christianity the state religion of Rome, right? You’ve heard of the Vatican in ROME? Your Christian bible is an invention of those Romans — all those councils which were held in places other than Rome but were of the Roman church!!
On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were those shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.
Where today the gathered faithful revere Jesus, the ancients worshiped another godman, who like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 (winter solstice) before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jsus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come back again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jsus, had declared: “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.”
Your religion isn’t based on Judaism — it is based on paganism.
Justin Martyr — early church father ( c. 100 – 165 CE) wrote about the Eucharist (eating Jesus’ body — not kosher!) — and in case you don’t read all of it — note the last sentence where he admits that the Mithraites did EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!!! He calls them “wicked devils” who “have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated (into Mithraism). Here, read it for yourself:
“no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body”; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood”; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”
Another early Christian, Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225 CE) wrote of the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity: “He (Mithra), too, baptizes somethat is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers.”
Maybe there was a real Jesus — maybe not. If there was a man at the heart of what became Christianity the following became so paganized as to be unrecognizable.
We call Christianity Judaism fulfilled. Paganism is putting trust in a god who is a work of your hands. ( making yourself a wooden, golden idol etc) We put trust in the Creator of this universe and believe Him that He provided perfect atonement for sin ( by his innocent son giving up his life for our sin)Christianity is not putting trust in a human. It is a belief in God and his way provided to set us free from sin. Trusting in Jesus means we trust in his payment, not putting God aside.
By the way Christianity comes from Judaism, the first believers were Jewish people,(Jesus was Jewish ). They trusted God about the perfect atonement provided. God provided the atonement so that not only Jews but the whole world would benefit. You had your atonement every year, what about the rest of the world if it was important to God?
What’s more or less atoning? A lamb ( animal) that was offered every year or a perfect lamb ( that Jesus is called) given once for all?Thousands of animals were slaughtered each year among the Jewish people in the past , each one of the prophecy of the Lamb to come. All your sacrifices whether the flour from the poor or animals – it all had a purpose! It was a reminder the sin always carried a price ! And atonement was never without blood shed. Jesus wasn’t a human sacrifice like some people look at it, nobody tied him up and laughed him, he willingly gave up his life that what it means ‘ he scarified himself. Sacrifice is here in a figurative language. You would ask so what about the words that ‘nobody can pay for other people’s sin’ how could Jesus be accepted then? He was the only sinless man that could carry the human burden of sin. If God says He is sending him for us, that means He is also accepting his life offered. No sinful person is paying for others as the sinful one would need a paymant first for himself.
Let’s see some other way to illustrate how we view God’s righteousness. My human is like that
( an example; I say to my son, stop doing something, he keeps doing, I say, you will be grounded, he continues, I say grounded for the whole day. he stops , he is sorry , my response; he is not grounded any more. My words’ grounded all day’ are cancelled. That is bad parenting example.
God’s righteousness is perfect; He says you will sin, you will die. Wages of sin is death . God of course forgives us after we repent and turn back from sin.
But the death sentence is there, one day we will die. That is why we believe what God said about His son, that Jesus is to atone for us.
Why we also believe he is that Messiah to come? Perfection and sinless life in him. The perfect Messianic God’s Kingdom that is described in all the scriptures ( daniel 2;44, daniel 7;12, , Ezekiel 37;24-25, Zach 9;9 , Is 65; 17-25, , Is 11;1-5, , Is 9, 5-6)
They all portray the perfect kingdom and a ruler, king, walking with God, whose kingdom will never fall apart and who is the everlasting king. No other king is to come after him. He is to rule forever from Jerusalem and at his coming all the resurrected people back to life. ( Ezek 37) The idea of a sinful messiah is not speaking to me as wherever the sin shows up, things start to fall apart. That is how it is now all over the world.
If something is to last forever it has to be planted on a solid ground.
I can accept daniel 7;12, let say it is talking about Israel . I would say ok, no problem, possible, as an everlasting kingdom, but I am sure there must a king there included too. And what you are guys all doing there in the clouds?
later will look to more of your questions.
Hi Eric,
You said: “Paganism is putting trust in a god who is a work of your hands. ( making yourself a wooden, golden idol etc) ”
How about worshiping frogs – which are not the work of my hands, but that of God? Is that paganism? Is it idolatry?
Frogs included too, sorry I forgot to mention it all, by the way I will be asked about cats ( all creatures), they ,too. Worshiping means serving to the one you submit yourself to.
Thanks Eric.
Can you point me to the verse in the Tanach the expressly includes living members of the animal kingdom in the prohibition against idolatry?
I don’t really get what are you aiming at with your question about animals… I don’t have time for that, just get the atlas with the animal world and then look at all what is there. I am sure God gave us enough understanding so we can tell what is an animal what not, so accidentally we won’t worship any.
Humor me Eric.
If I, for whatever reason, came to the conviction that the frog that lives in the pond near my house was God and deserving of my worship, to what verse would you point me to convince me that I was committing idolatry?
Eric — the definition of what constitutes idolatry is found in the bible. The actual Hebrew term is עבודה זרה / Avodah Zarah and it means “strange worship” — and worshiping Jesus is a violation of the agreement Jews made with G-d at Sinai: “[This is what you must do] if your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, ‘Let us go worship a new god. LET US HAVE A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN BY YOU OR YOUR FATHER.’ 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you, far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9 Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him.”
In Judaism any G-d we did not know at Sinai and any form of worshiping G-d that we did not know at Sinai is avodah zarah — “strange” or “foreign” worship — aka “idolatry.” Obviously praying in the name of Jesus, whom our ancestors never heard of, falls into the category of idolatry. A Jew should not even enter a church (while a Jew can enter a Mosque).
From Torah.org:
Practically speaking, however, the vast majority of the poskim agree that Christianity is considered avodah zarah (idolatry) and a Jew is forbidden to enter a church[8]. The following reasons are offered:
Most poskim consider Christianity to be avodah zarah[9].
Even if avodah zarah b’shituf is permitted, it is only permitted for a non-Jew. For a Jew, however, there is no difference between avodah zarah and avodah zarah b’shituf[10]. For him, therefore, a church is considered a house of avodah zarah.
The view of the Ran (Sanhedrin 61b) is that the belief in any religion except Judaism constitutes avodah zarah. He says the following: “…even the Christian saints, and even the…leader of the Ishmaelites, even though their followers do not consider them gods, nevertheless, since they bow to them to acknowledge that they are human incarnation of their divinities, they all have the halachic status of avodah zarah…”
Even if present-day gentiles do not worship idols, nevertheless their churches are considered houses of idol worship, since all the services conducted therein are performed in the name of avodah zarah[11].
9. Minchas Elazar 1:53-3; Yechaveh Da’as 4:45. See entire list in Yayin Malchus, pgs. 234-237
10. Binyan Tziyon 1:63.
11. Darchei Teshuvah 150:2; Tzitz Eliezer 14:91, quoting Rav C. Palagi.
In the Torah G-d promises that He will never send a prophet to add, subtract, or change any mitzvot in the Torah. He will also never grant a prophetic vision to interpret a mitzvah differently than set forth in tradition, or to render a decision in Jewish law as given in the Torah. Therefore, anyone claiming to be a prophet who claims to do any of these things must be judged as a false prophet.
לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֹת֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃
Devarim / Deuteronomy 4:2: “Do not add to the word that I am commanding you, and do not subtract from it. You must keep all the mitzvot (commandment)s of G-d your L-rd, which I am instructing you”
“The Torah explicitly states that its mitzvot will remain binding forever, with neither change, addition nor subtraction… Therefore, if any person will arise – whether Jew or non-Jew – and performs signs and wonders, saying that G-d sent him to either add or subtract a mitzvah from the Torah… then we immediately know he is a false prophet… For G-d Himself told Moses that these commandments are for us and for our children forever.” (Foundations of Torah 9:1-2, the Rambam).
Jesus (or someone in his name) came along and changed the words of God in direct violation of G-d’s commandments.
Does Jesus’ death show God is so cruel? But what about Moses? I was really sorry for him after all the trouble dealing with so many people. I would surely loose my temper,too.
Did God need his death as if He was delighted in it?
Of course no! “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” Ps 116;15
There used to be so many sacrifices every day in the past in which animals were involved with daily offering consisting of the slaughter of two male lambs; one each morning and one each evening. How bloody was that???
Why even the high priest had to use the blood to sprinkle the altar? I know sometimes flower was offered, too ( at other offerings) , but why not to replace all the animals with flower????
Imagining thousands bulls, goats, lambs ,killed for that purpose. Much more blood compared with Jesus killed. Believe me , if I didn’t know God and lived in the old times and witnessed the days with all these offerings I would say the God of the tanack is really blood -thirsty. But I understand the purpose of that , so I know it didn’t happen because He was thirsty of blood and delighting in the animal death.
God gave that sacrificial system to obey at that time for a reason! That is why you don’t have to do it even now or earlier in the history.
It was to SYMBOLIZE something not to live by it. Blood was symbolizing life offered. Not because God craved for all the dead animals, ( He says all is His ) the same Jesus death wasn’t because he needed a man’s blood for a change.!
Christians are not sacrificing animals. People didn’t kill Jesus and offered him to God as if He needed his death. Jesus offered his life willingly for us so that all peoples’ sin is covered.
Does it mean God is cruel ????
Moses died of old age at 120. He wasn’t murdered viciously and painfully — not to mention that no one prays to or through Moses! I already wrote a lengthy post on your distortion of sacrifices. Most were to thank G-d — only two types of individual sacrifices atoned for any kind of sin — the אָשָׁם asham was for three different types of violations. I just gave you these in my last post:
1. unintentionally taking and using something from the holy Temple. The person must return the items, add 1/5th in restitution and bring an asham;
2. asham taluy is for when you aren’t sure if you sinned or not, so just to be sure you bring an asham taluy. If later you discover that you did commit a cheit (accidental sin) you bring a chatat (sin offer);
3. asham g’zelot if you lied under oath defrauding someone of his things or money. In this case again you have to return the stolen things and add 1/5th to it as well as bring the asham g’zelot.
The point of sacrifice is for US to give G-d something of value — Christianity turns this upside down and has G-d supposedly sacrificing himself to himself??? It reverses the entire concept and distorts it. And WHERE is the sacrifice since Jesus “undies.” Just fooling!!
Speaking of reversing the idea of sacrifices,Torah teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.
Torah vehemently FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in a Christian Bible]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).
Human sacrifices are strictly forbidden in Torah (e.g., Leviticus 18:21, 24-25; Deuteronomy 18:10; Jeremiah 7:31, 19: 5; Ezekiel 23:37, 39).
Per G-d’s Torah, Eric, the death of Jesus could never atone for any sin, much less all sins of all people for all time? NOT AT ALL, NEVER! The story is pagan in its entirety and breaks all the laws of Jewish sacrifice.
All this Christian sacrificial atonement is contradicted by accounts in both the NT and Jewish bible.
1. Acts 21 shows the Jerusalem Church made Paul take a nazirite vow that required a sin-sacrifice. This, after Jesus’ death. Why this deed of all deeds to show Paul was still Torah observant to the masses who doubted this? Couldn’t Paul just going through the motions? This totally repudiated Paul’s view that Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin and would be a demonstration for the masses to prove so. The Jerusalem Church members were still offering sin-sacrifices after Jesus’ death. They believed these sin-sacrifices had atoning power. As did the priests who accepted these sacrifices at the Temple.
2. Ezekiel 45:22 shows the Messiah Prince making sin-sacrifices for himself in the future. The same Prince from Ezekiel 37:25. A Messiah who sins. And this is not some final sacrifice.
People die. We all die as our physical lives are finite. Let’s not muddy the waters of human death — either by humans murdering each other as in the case of Jesus’ supposed death at the hand of Romans — and the commandments by G-d to sacrifice (and generally EAT) kosher domestic animals. Let’s not further confuse sacrifices with the forgiveness of sin. Most sins cannot and never could be forgiven by sacrifices (blood, flour, money or jewelry). . . That has always taken true repentance and returning to G-d.
Look up the meanings of the words cheit, avon and pesha. Pesha is the worst type of sin possible — one in willful defiance of G-d. Guess what, Eric? Sacrifices don’t work! An avon (unless it falls under the asham talu or asham g’zelot) cannot be rectified with a qorban, and neither can a pesha. Repentance and turning to G-d to seek forgiveness for sins against G-d and seeking forgiveness to any person that might have been harmed from that person are the methods of atonement.
REPENTANCE
2 Samuel 12:13-14 is a cheit (David admits to sin before Nathan the prophet and repents)
Jonah 3:10 has to do with the sins of Nineveh (unspecified, just identified as “evil” in 1:2), the people repented and G-d forgave
Leviticus 26:40-42 speaks of avon and repentence atoning for it
Ezikiel 18:21-32 speaks of chatat (21), pesha (22), chatat (24), pesha (28), pesha and avon (30) are all atoned through repentance
KINDNESS
Proverbs 16:6 an avon is atoned for with kindness
Daniel 4:24 is chatat and avon by showing mercy and kindness
PRAYER (accompanied by repentance)
Hosea 14:2-3 teshuva (turning to G-d) and 1prayer atones for avon
1 Kings 8:46-50 include chatat, avon, rasha (wicked or evil) and pesha are atoned for by prayer
Daniel 9:5-19 include chatat, avon, and rasha are atoned by prayer
REMOVING IDOLATRY
Isaiah 27:9 both chatat and avon are atoned by removing idolatry
PUNISHMENT
Isaiah 40:1-2 avon is removed by punishment
Lamentations 4:22 avon is removed by punishment
DEATH
Isaiah 22:14 avon will surely not be atoned until you die.
FLOUR OFFERING
Leviticus 5:1-13 for specific ashams (guilts including not testifying honestly, touching something ritually unclean, if one makes an oath one doesn’t keep, he must confess, and he must bring a guilt offering which should be a female sheep or goat, but if he can’t afford it he may bring two turtle doves (one as a chatat and one as an olah). If he cannot afford the turtle doves he may bring flour as a chatat (sin offer)
MONEY
Exodus 30:15-16 to atone for the life-force (similar to blood in Leviticus 17:11)
JEWELRY
Numbers 31:50 to atone for the life-force (similar to blood in Leviticus 17:11)
INCENSE
Numbers 17:11-12 atonement for the Israelites “for there is wrath” Per Rashi This secret was given over to him by the angel of death when he went up to heaven, that incense holds back the plague… as is related in Tractate Shabbath (89a).
To Sophiee, As far as Ezekiel 45:22, there is no evidence for me the Prince mentioned is the Messiah. From Is 9;7 it looks like he is to rule forever.” Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” How do you understand Is 9;6??
Back to Ezekiel) I would mention that If the animal sacrifices in the OT weren’t to take away sin
( because forgiveness was by repentance), why would they be expected to work as sin removal in the Messiah’s time? They used to be as an object of lesson for the sinner, they might serve the same purpose.
About idolatry I already explained in my previous comments. Once again, Christianity is not putting trust in a men but in God who sent his son for us.
Eric,
I’m not sure if this last post of yours was addressed to me or not, but I’m not sure why you are so reluctant to respond with directness to my question: Can you or can you not point to the verse in the Torah that condemns, as rank idolatry, my devotion to the frog that I believe God sent for us?
Eric,
I’m guessing you consider my question to pointless and silly to be dignified with a response. Curiously, you are not the first christian I’ve seen react to it that way.
Nonetheless I remain puzzled by the reluctance. Since frog worship is so self-evidently idolatrous and since I’m sure we both agree that the Tanach is not stingy on verses pertaining to the prohibition of idolatry, I would think that pointing to verse(s) that make this plain should be an easy exercise.
Are you game?
Eric, please do respond to Yehuda on this because I’m dying to know where he’s going with it.
Eric, you said ” Christianity comes from Judaism, the first believers were Jewish people,(Jesus was Jewish ).” Karl Marx was Jewish. Does that mean communism is Jewish? Should you be a communist? Do you recall the Jewish followers of the false god Ba’al? The prophets speak against them in the bible. . . do you follow Ba’al because some Jews did?
Just because a Jew MAY have invented Christianity doesn’t make it right. We know it is false because it turns its followers away from the mitzvot, away from the eternal words of G-d. Don’t take it personally — we also know that Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism are false, too.
Read Leviticus 17:10 (the line directly ABOVE the one you quoted). “If any person, whether of the family of Israel or a proselyte who joins them, eats any blood, I will direct My anger against the person who eats blood and cut him off [spiritually] from among his people. This is because the life-force of the flesh is in the blood; and I therefore gave it to you to be [placed] on the altar to atone for your lives. 17:11 It is the blood that atones for a life” It is telling you not to EAT blood (hope you don’t like your steak rare!). This mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from a mis-reading of Leviticus 17 where Jews are forbidden from EATING blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt (Leviticus 17:13).
Moses didn’t bring sacrifices pre-Sinai. Yet G-d loved Moses. The Jews lived 400 years in Egypt and didn’t bring sacrifices — and yet G-d loved them too. You’ve been lied to by the Christian bible (Hebrews 7) about needing all that blood. The idea that you need blood to atone for your sins is part of Christianity’s pagan roots. It is NOT Judaism. It is NOT Torah for all that missionaries keeps trying to force fit the angry evil pagan god who delights in blood onto the Jewish G-d.
This mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from a mis-reading of Leviticus 17 where Jews are forbidden from EATING blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt. Read the entire chapter of Leviticus.
The biggest mistake in the Christian bible is thinking G-d is a pagan god that needs blood (e.g. is “blood thirsty”). G-d needs nothing and He is loving, not cruel. Qorban aka “sacrifice” (and prayer for that matter) is for US, not for Him. It gives us a way to connect closer to Him by turning our focus away from the mundane to the holy.
The false idea that only blood atones gives the excuse Christians need to explain how their all powerful man-god (Jesus) could be killed. Not only does it explain that he could be killed, but it explains that Jesus HAD to be killed to be the “perfect” sacrifice.
This is pagan nonsense, the opposite of what the Torah teaches us.
Quote: You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O G-d, you will not despise. [Psalm 51:16-17]
To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Eternal than sacrifice. [Proverbs 21:3]
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. [Psalm 40:6]
He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. [Proverbs 28:13]
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. [2 Chronicles 7:14]
But if from there you seek the Eternal your G-d, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. [Deuteronomy 4:29]
He prays to G-d and finds favor with him, he sees G-d’s face and shouts for joy; he is restored by G-d to his righteous state. [Job 33:26]
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. [Psalm 34:14]
Take words with you and return to the Eternal. Say to him: “Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the bulls of our lips. [Hosea 14:2]
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Eternal a man avoids evil. [Proverbs 16:6]
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of G-d rather than burnt offerings. [Hosea 6:6]
With what shall I come before the Eternal and bow down before the exalted G-d? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Eternal be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Eternal require of you? Only to do Justice, and to love Mercy and to walk humbly with your G-d. [Micah 6:6-8]
So the Christian bible says you need blood and there is no atonement without blood — but Torah and G-d disagrees.
The fact is that during Temple times, sacrifices were not required for all sins, only for a “missing of the mark” (mistake) or for very specific, generally minor sins which are all specified in the Torah.
There have always been many methods of atonement including prayer. Prayer is not a “replacement” or “substitution”.
For those sins that required sacrifices, the fact is that WITHOUT prayer, charity, fasting, etc.., there was no atonement – due to lack of obedience.
Even in bringing a sacrifice there were many things that added up in the atonement process. Sacrifice without obedience was useless. Obedience without sacrifice when sacrifice was required and possible, was useless. Obedience without sacrifice when sacrifice was never required or when sacrifice wasn’t possible – was and is sufficient in and of itself, since it’s all that G-d requires when sacrifices cannot be offered (see Hosea 14:2-3, Ezekiel 18/33). All of this is IN THE BIBLE. The REAL bible. Again: you’ve been lied to. Read the bible for yourself!
Without a Temple we are forbidden from bringing qorban. They are “suspended” during times when there is no Temple standing in Jerusalem [Hosea 3:4-5, 14:2-3]. However, these will be “reinstated” for all the occasions noted in the Torah when the promised Jewish messiah builds the Third Temple in Jerusalem [Ezekiel describes all this in the last nine chapters of his book].
There is atonement through repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42, Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16)
kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24)
prayer (Hos. 14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19)
removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9)
punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22),
death (Is. 22:14)
flour offerings (Lev. 5:11-13)
money (Ex. 30:15)
jewelry (Num. 31:50)
and incense (Num. 17:11-12).
The Jewish concept of qorban (translated as sacrifice) can be very confusing to a non-Jew. Non-Jews tend to think of qorban as some magical way of paying for sins (as in J-sus died for your sins). This is very far from what Torah teaches us.
Qorban (what you call sacrifice) was never the ONLY way to be close to HaShem, it was only A way. There has always been turning to G-d, prayer, being a good person. . . just read the Torah and this is apparent. Start with Adam and Eve and move right along to Cain and Abel.
Cain could have risen above sin — without a blood sacrifice and without any flour, either. Genesis chapter 4.
Qorban translates in concept to a “drawing near to HaShem. Most qorbans had nothing to do with sin at all they were used to thank HaShem and also to try and draw nearer to Him spiritually.
The offer could be grain and sometimes was money (shekels) disproving the fallacy that qorban required blood or that atonement was only through the blood.
Quote: MONEY: Exodus 30:12 When you take a census of the Israelites to determine their numbers, each one shall be counted by giving an atonement offering for his life. . .13 Everyone included in the census must give a half shekel.
FLOUR: Leviticus 5: 11 the sacrifice that he must bring for his sin shall consist of 1/10 ephah of wheat meal as a sin offering.
This mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from Hebrews in the Christian bible where they distort Leviticus 17:11 where Jews are forbidden from EATING blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt (Leviticus 17:13). One last thing: the blood sacrifices that were acceptable had to be from domestic and KOSHER animals. Jesus was not an acceptable blood sacrifice — even for accidental sins.
Sophie Saguy, Why was he not acceptable? Can you explain? How would you explain
Lev 16 relation; sin cleansing/atoning- blood sacrifice?
Also I would say that ‘atoning for sin’ (by any sacrifice, which was always temporary and had to be repeated ) and redemption from the sin’s final consequences ( death )
( that we see in Jesus) are 2 different things. His is called the biggest , the final ‘ sacrifice’ as it redeems you from bondage of everlasting .death.
Sophiee, It is not about that God doesn’t love those who weren’t or aren’t doing sacrifice. You just understood me wrong. It is not about believing in sacrifice or doing it. It is not even about knowing about Jesus. It is all about obedience. He said, you could even call him Lord Lord, but without doing God’s will it didn’t matter. ( Matthew 7;21, NT)
Our part is to obey God and it is Him who takes care about the coverage of our sin. The sacrifices ( I mean the ones for sin ) were teaching people that sin needed some coverage. Coverage by something what was valuable to you, (like you said )so that we would understand how much valuable was God’s offering for us ( to cover our sins) by giving his son. – that is -of course- what we believe. Also the fact that it involved animals killed so many times was teaching you about the value of life that was lost. ( value of God’s son’ life)
Maybe I will put it in this’ picture’ – the concept how we understand God giving Jesus:;
Imagine you are in the court of God . The judge ( God) says you are guilty of some crime ( your sin) for which His righteous law says you have to die. But the judge ( God) sees how much you are sorry, He seas your broken heart , so He has mercy on you because He loves you and wants you to live.
But according to His righteousness He has to fulfill the requirements of His law that say you are guilty. The only way out is to provide a coverage / substitute. He ‘sends’ his sinless son Jesus who willingly wants to take your crimes on himself. That is why he is let to be treated like a criminal and die in our place as if he was guilty. ( symbolizing the blameless lamb killed )- which God accepts. Our sin is covered by God’s mercy and we are cleansed by the blood. It doesn’t mean that before ‘the coverage of sin’ was accomplished in Jesus, that God would not pardon a person. His atonement was in His plan from the beginning. God’s only requires our obedience We do our part ( obedience, repentance, broken heart) , God does His part forgives us and covers our sin.
To answer some of your other points:
The statement ‘ human sacrifice’ ( I see it everywhere in the Jewish web teachings against Christianity) is wrongly understood. Like I said before Jesus wasn’t offered by people to God . Sacrifices were being offered BY PEOPLE to GOD. People didn’t kill Jesus in order to offer him to God. He offered himself which means he gave himself for us, died in our place. The word ‘sacrifice ‘ is used here figuratively!
You said ‘” The point of sacrifice is for US to give G-d something of value” —I fully agree. For Christians it also points to God’s love because in His offered son we see He offered for us something what had the highest value to Him. God wasn’t delighting in Jesus death! The picture of Abraham asked by God to offer his son gives you an impression how hard it is to do such thing. ( of course God didn’t intend Isaac to be killed, it was just a lesson of obedience and trust for Abraham).
Now some answer to Dina. You said before that you don’t need the savior because God is your savior so it is a Christian idea to have Jesus
Does it mean that by sending someone to help us God is not a savior anymore?
Would you say it wasn’t God who defended ( OT) Israelite s against Assyrians because it happened with the help of God’s angels? God didn’t show up there personally but sent His angels. All glory belongs to God. He was the savior. Wasn’t God the savior although He used Moses to save you from Egyptians? The same we see God by sending Jesus. .God is the one who is the Savior. Jesus didn’t send himself and didn’t do anything out of his own idea. He said he did what God told him to do.
( John 5;19, NT)
Maybe I didn’t answer all of your points yet – no time for all of it at once. I will try to be back later to the rest of them.
Eric, thanks again for taking the time. I know I gave you a lot to respond to, so I understand if it takes you a while.
Let me just ask you this: do you accept Jesus as your lord and savior? (That should be a quick and easy one for you.)
Thanks,
Dina
To Dina, Of course I do accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Why?
Another quick response to your question before about atonement in exile, good explanation you find in this link;
http://realmessiah.com/content/atonement-exile-0 so it is no point to do my long lecture here.
It talks about forgiveness by repentance, but still suffering the consequences of sin.
Anyways summarizing it all , whatever way the atonement was achieved, whether by prayer, repentance, sin sacrifice, broken heart, etc, we are not free from the consequences of sin till.
Cain was forgiven without any sacrifice, yet he suffered his consequences of being send away. David sinned and was forgiven and so many other people we could mention.
But they all died and all will do as the final consequence of sin. ( mentioned in Gen) If God says’ I will have eternal life , obtained by redemption in Jesus, I believe it.
My question is; is your Messiah to be mortal and die one day as he is supposed to be a sinful person? Second; you you going to live forever after the resurrection at the Messiah coming?
As far as the vision- Dina asked me- of the ‘dead’ Samuel talking to Saul – I say my opinion might be just a speculation, whether that was just a vision with the words of the prophecy for Saul regarding his future, or temporary bringing Samuel to life, I don’t know , there is no explanation anywhere to clearly state there is a part of us living somewhere while we are dead.
Also in the other verse ‘ joining your descendants’ spoken about Moses, don’t tell you whether the descendants were alive somewhere or not ( I mean their souls or spirits). Generally looking into the scriptures you see that our reward is a long life and lots of kings prayed to God about it. Nobody was happy at the thought of death and wasn’t looking to function as ‘ separated soul from the body’ also there is nothing mentioned about ‘ in between life’ after death and while “waiting” for resurrection somewhere as a spirit, and death wouldn’t be death is some part of you is ‘conscious/’ living somewhere.- Anyways that is my opinion.
Hi Eric,
You wrote that although God forgave Cain, he still had to pay the consequence of his sin by being sent away, and that throughout Scripture we see people paying the consequences for their sin despite God’s forgiveness. In your view, this is why mankind needs Jesus’s atoning death.
Interesting. Are you saying that by accepting Jesus you can sin without consequence?
Besides,what does God’s forgiveness mean to you when you say something like God forgives but there is still a consequence?
Accepting Jesus means I am accepting the way of life you are showing that is living without sin and following God’s commandments of loving God and others. Be holy as I am holy Jesus said. He is not saying ; do guys what ever, I paid for you. It looks like you see him that way.
Hi Eric,
Regarding your speculation about 1 Samuel Chapter 28 that it was just a vision, do you realize that runs counter to the plain meaning of the text? The text plainly tells us that the witch raised up Samuel. Also, what do you think Samuel meant when he told Saul in verse 19 “Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me”? Could the meaning be any plainer?
Also, what do you make of Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Thus the dust returns to the ground, as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” [The end of verse 5 puts this in context: “So man goes to his eternal home, while the mourners go about the streets.”]
You wrote that “nobody was happy at the thought of death.” Why, are Christians happy about it? Really?
To answer your question, yes, the Messiah will be mortal; there is no indication that he will be otherwise. I don’t worry about eternal life or resurrection; my job is to live my life as best as I can in obedience to God and His Torah and let Him sort it all out.
By the way, the reason we obey God and Torah is not for the reward of eternal life but out of love for our Father who created us. At the bare minimum we owe Him our obedience. And guess what? We would do it even if it made us miserable and sent us to hell because it is the right thing to do and we love Him. As God is merciful and gracious, He has promised to reward us for our obedience, but that is not our primary motivating factor.
Hi Eric,
I read the link you posted and I almost fell out of my chair in astonishment. Did you realize that the statement in the first quote was predicting exactly the sort of situation in the second, yet Dr. Brown (or his team) used it to disprove the first? Amazing, really.
But you are NOT obeying G-d. Part of obeying G-d is listening to what He tells you He wants (this includes BTW NOT bringing sacrifices anywhere other than the Temple Mount which he chose). Quoting to me from the Christian bible is totally immaterial — you must prove your points with the “OT” — the Original and ONLY true testament of G-d. How can you keep the Ten Commandments if you have thrown out all of the laws pertaining to those commandments? Does each individual Christian decide what the “Ten Commandments” mean? Is there no objective basis for determining what the Commandments actually command a person to do?
The covenant G-d made with us Jews is eternal. The Torah is eternal — and it is definitely as meaningful today as it was the day G-d gave it to us at Sinai. Psalm 119:160 “All your words are true; all your righteous Torah is eternal.” It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words:
“This is an eternal law for all generations” (Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28)
No one — not Jesus or Paul or anyone else (Joseph Smith, Mohammad, etc.) can change it. You focus on sacrifices and ignore that the Torah tells us where and when we can and cannot bring sacrifices. It is also extremely detailed about what specific sacrifices are for (and Jesus’ death is in no way a sacrifice — if it happened it was a murder and an abomination to G-d). . .
Hi Sophie,
You are right to question the common Evangelical perspective that The Bible is “One Book” which all “harmonizes” and is all equally authoritative and important and one unified “voice of God.”
What Biblical basis is there for this “traditional” view? Only one, really. Paul wrote once, buried in the middle of a personal letter, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” But no one else ever said that, and even Paul didn’t say that all Scripture was equal. (The Apostle Peter wrote of PROPHECY of Scripture, not “All Scripture.”)
Jesus clearly saw the Scriptures of his day, what we call the Old Testament, in 3 distinct categories, in order of priority.
Here is a relevant quote from John Paul Jackson, from the following video.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….” [John 1:1]
that just doesn’t mean the New Testament. Because guess what, when He came and John wrote it the New Testament didn’t exist. He was talking about the word of God, EXPRESSLY THE TORAH. In the beginning was the Torah. And you go whoa; now you’re getting heavy. That should not be heavy to us. That should not be heavy to us. That should be one of those: “of course.” But we take one step at a time.”
John Paul Jackson – 2/28/2009 Rend The Heavens Conference
Charlotte NC Mahesh Chavda Ministries
1. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=John+Paul+Jackson+YouTube&Form=VQFRVP#view=detail&mid=E4E465431ECB131A2CFAE4E465431ECB131A2CFA
How would Jesus prioritize “The Books” – the 66 books of what we call “The Bible?”
Even if you believe that “all Scripture is God-breathed”, Jesus clearly told us that all Scripture is NOT equally authoritative or important. When asked, Jesus summed things up in not 1 but rather 2 commandments, based on only 2 out of the 3 accepted sections of the Hebrew Scriptures- the Law and the Prophets. He didn’t mention the Writings at that time. Then in Luke 24:44 Jesus spoke of “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
I’m not Moses writing tablets of stone. But below is my rough idea of how I think Jesus would prioritize “The Books.” I’m not questioning the content of the texts. But one way or another, the choice of which order to arrange the content of the 66 books in is a matter of human tradition, and there are multiple traditions.
If you think what we call the “New Testament” has to be in the order of (1) Gospels, (2) Acts, then (3) Paul front and center, you should talk with the Russian Orthodox Church.
And if you think the order of the books in the King James Version of what we call the “Old Testament” is the only authorized order, you should talk with the Jews. (You also might want to change the name of your Bible to “King Jacob.”)
But you probably would also need to remind modern Jews that Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were all originally stand-alone scrolls, not part 1 & part 2.
I’m not saying, “Thus says the Lord” here. But based on what I know right now of the Jesus of the Bible, and the Bible text itself, here is my best guess at how Jesus would order the priority of “The Books.”
.1) The Word made flesh- 4 Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
.2) Torah – The Law of Moses – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
.3) The Prophecy – Acts, Revelation
.4) The Prophets – Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets
.5) Psalms
.6) General letters: of the Apostles I & 2 Peter, 1 John
.7) General letters: to the Hebrews, and from James (aka Jacob)
.8) Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Ruth, Esther and the other Writings
.9) Personal letters: of The Apostle John, Jude, and Paul
Obedience is doing what G-d tells us to do — and Christians (by praying to or through Jesus) are doing the opposite of what G-d tells us to do. To know that He is one–Deuteronomy 6:4 To learn Torah and teach it–Deuteronomy 6:7. Not to inquire into idolatry–Leviticus 19:4. Not to follow the whims of your heart or what your eyes see–Numbers 15:39. Not to worship idols in the manner they are worshiped–Exodus 20:5. Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes–Exodus 20:20. Not to missionize an individual to idol worship–Deuteronomy 13:12. Not to prophesize falsely in the name of God–Deuteronomy 18:20. Not to listen to a false prophet–Deuteronomy 13:4. Not to perform Ov (medium)–Leviticus 19:31 (this would fit Jesus supposedly driving demons out BTW). Not to perform Yidoni (magical seer)–Leviticus 19:31 (also fits Jesus’ supposed miracles). Not to perform acts of magic–Deuteronomy 18:10 (again fits Jesus). . .
Hi Eric.
In response to my challenge that God is alone and there is no savior beside him (Isaiah 43:11), you wrote, “God is the one who is the Savior. Jesus didn’t send himself and didn’t do anything out of his own idea.” But you also said that of course you accept Jesus as your lord and savior. That sounds like a contradiction to me.
You compared this to Moses, but we never regarded Moses as our savior. God is our Savior; Moses was simply His agent. Our title for Moses is Moshe Rabbeinu, which means “Moses our teacher.”
It sounds to me that your acceptance of a mere human as your savior violates the idea that that title belongs only to God.
Yes, the Most Important Commandment is to Love God with everything we’ve got.
And that involves obedience and being “filled with emotion. Gratitude, awe, love and reverence for the One who brought everything into existence.”
Jesus knew this and Jesus taught this.
But Paul the Pharisee didn’t know this, and Paul taught that loving people was the one Great Commandment. Paul was wrong. Jesus is right. But most “Bible believing Christians” ignore Jesus and follow Paul instead. Here is the comparison in their teachings.
JESUS
Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO commandments.” [Matthew 22:36-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18]
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than THESE.” [Mark 12:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
But, in contrast, Paul didn’t know the greatest, most important, first commandment according to Jesus. Paul made up his own rule. Paul wrote:
“The entire law is summed up in a SINGLE command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” [Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18]
And again, Paul wrote:
“He how loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this ONE RULE: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” [Romans 13:8-10, Leviticus 19:18]
Jesus said it’s TWO commandments, with the greatest, most important, first command to
.1) first, love God with everything you’ve got, and
. 2) second, love people.
Paul said no, it ONE commandment- to love people.
Paul, and the Beatles, were wrong.
Jesus is right. I’m following the Lord God Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, Son of Yahweh the Most High God..
Matt
Paul wrote half the new testment and you reject him? In 2 Peter 3:14-17, even Peter very much supports him, you reject that to? Since Acts supports Paul you have to reject that to. What part do you agree with?
Not that I am encouraging you to believe in the NT, I just think it strange you reject half of it.
Hi Matthew,
I think you are seeing a distinction where there is none between Paul and Jesus regarding their affirmation of the primacy of both the 1st and 2nd commandments.
Paul’s letters, in this case to the Galations, were to address certain issues to that particular group. In this case, the section in question was to address their conduct towards each other. But that doesn’t mean that the epistles don’t also have universal value if read in the context and purpose in which they were written.
On the other hand, the question put forth to Jesus was meant to entrap him and his response was more universal in a theological way.
Matthew 22: 34,35: When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
And as you noted Matthew, Jesus DID say: “On these TWO commandments (PLURAL) hang all the law and the prophets.”
Therefore, even Jesus is NOT saying you can be exclusive with the 1st commandment. In other words one cannot LOVE God yet NOT love his neighbor as himself. And Paul is not and does not negate the 1st commandment by telling the Gentile Galations that the law is summed up in a single command. He is merely combining the two as they must be always together as expressed by Jesus himself in the following verses.
MATTHEW 5:23,24 “So when you are offering you gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”
Matthew 25:45,46 “Then he will answer them, Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Luke 14:3 And Jesus asked the lawyer and Pharisees, “Is it lawful to cure people on the Sabbath, or not?” But they were silent. So Jesus took him and healed him…
John 15:12,13 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do as I command you.”
John is also consistent with Paul:
1 John 4:19- 21 “19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers, are liars; for those who do not love a brother whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. 21 The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
David,
The man asking the question in the Mark passage was not trying to entrap Jesus.
According to Jesus, which is the most important commandment?
This can be an “open Book” test, and here is the page: Mark 12:28-34
(No, the answer is not “Love” or Love your neighbor as yourself.” Sorry.)
The Mark passage begins…
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important ONE,” answered Jesus, “ is this: …”
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” [Mark 12:28-34, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
It is 2 Commandments not 1, according to Jesus.
#1 is #1
#2 is #2
Yes, they are related, but they are not synonymous, and not interchangeable according to JESUS. Paul was wrong.
True, it’s impossible to love God if we hate our brother. But lots of people, like the Beatles, “love people” in their own human sinful way, without the love of God. This false view happens to agree with Paul’s false teaching here.
The love of God is first, on top, and greater than the love of people. To love people is ONE way that we demonstrate our love for God, but not the only way. Loving God involves more than simply loving people. It involves obedience to God, following God, listening to God, worshipping God. No it isn’t “two sides of the same coin.” It’s two different coins. We should love God differently than we love people.
We can listen to the voice of Jesus for ourselves, and let Jesus speak for himself. We don’t need Paul the Pharisee to “redefine” or “refine” the teaching of Jesus. Especially about the Most Important Commandment.
Hi Matthew,
Matthew 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to “ENTRAP” him in what he said…
22:34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to “TEST” him.
So Matthew, maybe the Lawyer wasn’t personally trying to “entrap” him (maybe the lawyer was a more honorable man than the rest of the group of Pharisees) but the overall plot orchestrated by the Pharisees was to “entrap” him. So the event and context in which a response to the “test” question was requested was one of entrapment by a group, and the lawyer was part of that group.
And regarding the 1st and 2nd commandment. Jesus did NOT say all the law and prophets hang on the 1st commandment nor did he say it hung on the 2nd. He said it hangs on BOTH.
There is no argument that God comes 1st. Did we really need Jesus to tell us that? But the fact is we cannot love God in a right relationship if our relationship with our fellow man is not right. Jesus proclaimed this loud and clear.
What is the Lord’s prayer but confirmation of this fact that you must be right with God AND man? God is paramount and always comes first, but not in isolation to our relation with man.
Give us this day our daily bread (the primacy of our dependence on God is placed 1st).
Forgive our sins as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us. (our relationship with God is directly affected/determined by our relation with our fellow man). Jesus said, If we do not forgive, neither will we be forgiven. Jesus commented specifically on this (and ONLY this) section of the prayer.
And the prayer ends with
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (or the evil one). (So we end once again on our complete dependence upon God.)
Paul addressed the specific problem of the Galations with the most important command as it related to them. Paul begins ALL of his epistles with praise FIRST for God. So I think it is quite clear that Paul understood the first command in a universal sense.
Again, Jesus was responding to a question posed in the context of entrapment, not as a specific remedy to a specific problem as was the case for Paul.
David,
You dodged the issue, quoting the Matthew passage again. As I spelled out above,
The man asking the question in the MARK passage was NOT trying to entrap Jesus. You have avoided facing the text of Mark 12:28-34.
David,
Below are the full texts of the relevant passages.
Rather than reading things into them that simply are not there, why don’t we just read the texts and let Jesus speak for himself?
These are two different accounts, where two different men asked Jesus basically the same straighforward question. Jesus gave them both basically the same straightforward answer, direct from the same Torah passages.
Yes, in the “Matthew passage” it was an attempt to entrap Jesus. But in the “Mark passage” it very clearly was NOT an attempt ot entrap Jesus, so for you to stubbornly insist that it was, (without ever quoting the Mark passage itself,) is wrong.
Jesus is not a parrot, so he did not repeat the exact same words both times, or simply quote the exact words of the Torah like a machine. But his answers were the same. Yes, the man with a good attitude got a little more detail. But Jesus is not some politician who would give different answers to different people about his true “top priority” depending on who was asking. (When Jesus walked the earth, He didn’t try to “be all things to all men” like Paul the hypocritcal Pharisee did.)
Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?
[Matthew 22:34-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18]
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
[Mark 12:28-34, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
Your desperate attempt to twist the words of Jesus, refuse to listen to Jesus, and make Jesus fit into Paul’s false teaching, is sad. But, most Evagelicals today have been trained that way. We need to wake up. The priority is God’s commandments (Torah & Prophets) and the testimony of Jesus.
Matthew,
Really?
“Your desperate attempt to twist the words of Jesus, refuse to listen to Jesus, and make Jesus fit into Paul’s false teaching, is sad.”
Relax Matthew,
Read the passages and compare Matthew and Mark; then apply your preaching to yourself.
THE QUESTION OF TAXES:
Mark 12:13 “Then they sent him some Pharisees and some Herodians to TRAP him in what he said. And they came and said to him, Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth…
Matthew 22:15,16 “Then the Pharisees went and plotted to ENTRAP him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians saying, Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth…”
So far, so good?
THE QUESTION OF THE RESURRECTION:
Mark 12:18 Some Sadducces, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote for us…
Matthew 22:23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, Teacher, Moses said…
Still following?
THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT:
Mark 12:28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, which commandment is first of all…
Matthew 22:34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to TEST him. Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest…
But David
You are still dodging the issue and refusing to look at the the entire short passage in question. There were some individual Pharisees who were good – such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. You are unjustly condemning this man who asked the question in.
Mark 12:28-34
Matthew,
I reject your claim that the event in Mark 12:13 – 34 and that of Matthew 22:15 – 40 refers to two separate events. The passages refer to one and the same event as I will demonstrate.
There are three parts to each passage. All parts were orchestrated by the Pharisees in an attempt to entrap Jesus in his words. The three parts include: the trap about paying taxes, the trap about the resurrection, and the trap about the greatest command.
First off both Matthew and Mark agree on all the details. It was the Pharisees who planned the entrapment along with the Herodians. In each gospel the question of taxes was asked in exactly the same manner with the exact same manner of response. The same can be said of the resurrection question by the Sadducees and of course the same can be said of the greatest command question by the scribe. It can be said these were all “test” questions, meaning they knew the answer they were looking for before they asked the question. They were not the type of question one asks to learn something new. This can also be verified by the fact that the scribe in the gospel of Mark actually told Jesus his answer was correct.
Second, we learn from Matthew with 100% certainty that all 3 parts of the event in question took place on the same day and in the sequential order given in the gospels.
See Matthew 22:23 and 22:34,35. We learn from verse 23 that the Sadducees’ resurrection question was the same day as the tax question. And we learn from verses 34 and 35 that when the Pharisees heard that Jesus silenced the Sadducees they “gathered together” and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him. This also tells us that the events happened in successive chronological order as noted in the gospels: Tax, resurrection, and lastly greatest command.
We learn from Mark with 100% certainty that the question from the scribe of greatest command also followed in sequential order that of the Sadducees’ question of resurrection (thus agreeing with the gospel of Matthew) and that he was present for the Sadducees’ question. The scribe “heard them disputing” and recognized that Jesus answered them well.
See Mark 12:28
We also learn that Luke chapter 20 records the same event agreeing with Matthew and Mark in the same sequential order with the same manner of questions but absent of any mention of the greatest commandment question.
Conclusion:
The passages in Matthew and Mark describe the same event.
Now that that’s established, let’s move on.
As you have requested I’ll deal specifically with Mark chapter 12.
“28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; 33 and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.”
First off, Check out the scribe’s response in verse 32,33. He combines both commands into one! And then uses a singular demonstrative pronoun to follow: “THIS” is much more important… He doesn’t use a plural pronoun “these” are much more important. Does Jesus correct him and tell him you cannot combine the commands and speak of them as if they are one? No. Actually Jesus saw that he answered wisely and complimented him. The scribe asked him a “test” question, one in which he already knew the answer. He didn’t ask Jesus which were the TWO greatest. Yet Jesus responded with TWO EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ASKED FOR JUST ONE! And the scribe considered the two to be one AS WELL.
Secondly, I submit that the speaking of the second command combined with the first (as we see above) was not that uncommon. And, once again, Jesus agrees with the way the scribe puts it.
See Luke 10:27 which combines the two commands into one.
“25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.[j] “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
Thirdly, Jesus was operating in the old covenant and transitioning to the new. The dawning of the “new covenant” was much more revealed in the gospel of John. Therefor we see more references to the “new command from JESUS ”to love your neighbor” in John. And the new command is, surprise, surprise an old command (which is the second command again). And surprise, surprise, it just happens to be the same command given by Paul.
See John
13:
34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
15:
12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
See 1st John
2: 7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because[a] the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says, “I am in the light,” while hating a brother or sister,[b] is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves a brother or sister[c] lives in the light, and in such a person[d] there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates another believer[e] is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.
See 2nd John
1: 5 But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.
Lastly, this should make it clear that Paul was not negating the 1st command of the old covenant to love God but was passing on the new command of the new covenant given by our Lord Jesus to love each other AND as the most important command that was needed in the specific case of the Galatians and others.
David,
Thank you for your extensive scholarship. You have brought to light an important point, which I did not notice before. The three “Synoptic Gospels” are interrelated and have a lot of overlapping material, and Matthew 22 & Mark 12 are an example of what this looks like. They each describe a number of events – not “the same event.” Some of the events described are the same, as you have correctly pointed out, and the events are related in time.
Although I’m not 100% sure, I think by far the best way to reconcile the series of events described in these chapters is to simply insert the text of Mark 12:28-34 chronologically in between Matthew 22:33 and Matthew 22:34.
This makes it clear. First one teacher of the law came with a good attitude, asked Jesus a question, Jesus answered him, no one dared ask more questions, [Mark 12:28-34] then “hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together” and an expert in the law asked Jesus the same question with a bad attitude, and Jesus gave basically the same answer. [Matthew 22:34-40] It makes perfect sense. This was not the same man, it was two different men. So yes, most of the Pharisees were trying to entrap Jesus- but not all. You should not condemn the teacher of the law in [Mark 12:28-34] as guilty by association. There were a few Pharisees who were good.
The teachings of Jesus are supreme, above the words of all others. The words of Jesus are clear about 2 Commandments, the First and Greatest Most Important Commandment and the Second. Paul was wrong.
The words of the teacher of the law [Mark 12:32-33] and [Luke 10:27] are just that – their words. The words of men, not the words of God, even though they are recorded in the Gospels. These words are “not far” and “correct”, but they are not the words of Jesus. They were not wrong- they were right, so Jesus didn’t condemn them. They spoke of the First Commandment first, and the Second Commandment second. However, they were not quite as clear as Jesus was about there being 2 distinct commandments, not One Commandment.
The voice of Jesus is superior and more clear, so while their statements were good, Jesus is better. If we listen to the voices of other men and not the voice of Jesus Himself, we can become confused, especially by the false teachings of Paul the Pharisee. Paul ignored the Most Important Commandment, to Love God, and just focused on the Second.
It is wrong to ignore Jesus and “combine” these 2 Commandments into one, even though it was common in Jesus’ day, just as it is today. Being “common” does not mean that it’s right. Paul was wrong. Jesus is right.
Matthew,
You’re obviously wrong Matthew. It’s clearly one event. But never the less. For the sake of argument, let’s say it is two separate events. My point remains, Jesus was clearly responding in the context of ENTRAPMENT as I’ve previously stated. They were looking to catch him in his words. Luke in Chapter 20 as I noted goes so far as to say they sent SPIES. So the crowd around Jesus would have been a mixture of righteous truth seekers but also evil spies etc looking for a slip up to report his words to the authorities. It was an orchestrated set up.
And at no time did I condemn all Pharisees, scribes, lawyers, etc. It could even be that this particular scribe being righteous and believing the false reports of the Pharisees thought at first Jesus to be a fraud which is why he was testing him. Upon recognizing that Jesus answered wisely, he undoubtedly changed his opinion, one would hope.
Secondly, You didn’t address the words of Jesus in John. The New Commandment is his words which matches more or less to that of Paul.
Thirdly, you didn’t address the fact that when Jesus was responding (within the context of entrapment), he was dealing with those who were under the OLD covenant.
Fourth, the NEW COVENANT command (given by JESUS himself in John) that I noted does not negate the old. It is “new” because it is for the New covenant AND is given in the person of JESUS. Read John 13 and 15 again. Specifically, it emphasizes love of one another as Jesus loved us. Therefore if you analyze it you’ll see that the New Command incorporates the Old. Since Jesus perfectly represented God and the love of God and all the will of God and the Father’s commands, if we emulate Jesus in how he loved us by loving each other in the same way, then we are fulfilling the first command which is to love God with all our all as well as the second. So therefore all the law hangs on this New Command of Jesus just as in the Old Covenant it hung on the 1st and 2nd command.
Fifth, Can you show me one instance where Jesus ever spoke specifically of the first command without linking it to the second?
sixth, you didn’t address my point that John more so than the synoptic gospels reveals the New Covenant, as such we’d expect new covenant doctrine to be emphasized more in John and Old Covenant doctrine more so in the Synoptics. This fact is not a contradiction; it is a difference of perspective between the gospels.
The rest of the New testament scripture (including Paul) would naturally have more to do with the New Covenant than the Old.
You’re doing too much “word smithing” and not enough understanding the meanings behind the passages and how Jesus transitions from Old to New. You’re misinterpreting this as a contradiction.
David,
The entire ministry of Jesus from beginning to end was marked by a context of entrapment and hostility, especially from the Pharisees. We agree on that.
Before I try to answer all your new objections, I would like to have clarity on the original point of disagreement, As I laid out above,
I think by far the best way to reconcile the series of events described in these chapters is to simply insert the text of Mark 12:28-34 chronologically in between Matthew 22:33 and Matthew 22:34.
If you have any specific problem or objection as to why this would not work, please tell me. I don’t see any. It seems like a near-perfect fit, with Mark 12:28-34 being an additional episode in the ongoing story that Matthew did not record.
We don’t look at Nicodemus in John 3 and accuse him of “entrapment.” Likewise, for the teacher of the law in Mark 12:28-34, we should not attempt to judge the intentions of his heart and read things into the text that simply are not there. God see us as individuals, and He will meet us if we seek Him with all our heart – regardless of the context, even if we are part of an organization or system that is hostile to God.
David,
Jesus believed in absolute truth, (and being true in relationship), but not relative truth. I agree with Jesus.
Sadly, subconsciously you have been brainwashed by Paul the Pharisee into believing in “relative truth.” As in, “that’s true for them, but it isn’t true for me,” or “this is true for me, even if it isn’t true for you.” For example, Paul wrote to the church he abandoned in Corinth, “Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!” [1 Corinthians 9:2] Paul was not an apostle, and didn’t know what an apostle was. Neither Jesus or any of the true 12 Apostles ever recognized Paul as an apostle in any way. But, Paul was making an argument for relative truth. “It may not be true for others, but it’s true for you!”
Your refusal to accept the clear words of Jesus about the Most Important Commandment and try to twist them to make them fit Paul’s false teaching are another argument for “relative truth.”
You are saying the answer to the question about which is the Most Important Commandment depends on who is asking. You are saying that “the Most Important Commandment” is not an absolute truth, which does not change, which Jesus reminded us of from the Torah. Rather, you are saying that “the Most Important Commandment” is really whatever is most important TO YOU. You are saying that Jesus told the “bad people” one thing – to Love God – but He told the “good people” something else – Love People. No Jesus did not do that.
Jesus told us all the same absolute truth about “the Most Important Commandment” from the Torah. Yes, to Love People is PART of Loving God, and the commandments are connected and not to be pulled apart, but they are 2 Commandments, not 1, and the Love of God is on top, #1.
Matthew,
You wrote:
“The entire ministry of Jesus from beginning to end was marked by a context of entrapment and hostility, especially from the Pharisees. We agree on that.”
No, we don’t agree on that. You even contradict yourself with this.
“We don’t look at Nicodemus in John 3 and accuse him of “entrapment.””
We do agree on that. Nicodemus was not trying to entrap him. So, you make my point. Thank you.
The entirety of his ministry regarding his speech and deeds was NOT ruled by attempts to entrap him. That wasn’t the case when he started out; it wasn’t the case when he taught in isolated places; it wasn’t the case when he taught privately to his closest disciples, and it wasn’t the case as you pointed out with Nicodemus. However, it most certainly was the case at other times such as during the last week of his life while he taught in the Temple surrounded by spies testing him with questions such as the tax question, resurrection question, and greatest commandment question. But, he wasn’t being entrapped for example when he talked to his 11 apostles (Judas was not present) about the “new commandment” for the new covenant. The “new commandment” was to love each other as he loved them.
However, this whole argument (of entrapment) although true and verifiable, is actually of lesser importance than the aspect of my argument concerning the transition from Old covenant to New Covenant (Jesus words: “new covenant” which he spoke at the last supper). Because, YES, absolutely, it does matter who you are talking to, where, for what purpose, under what circumstances, etcetera.
But, since you brought it up (again) arguing the point that there are two scribes I’ll deal it once again (I think for the last time).
So what you are saying is that we may have a good scribe unaware of the conspiracy and another who was involved in the conspiracy to entrap and both are asking the same question at some point in time after the Sadducees were silenced a couple of days before he was executed while teaching in the Temple?
You posted: “I think by far the best way to reconcile the series of events described in these chapters is to simply insert the text of Mark 12:28-34 chronologically in between Matthew 22:33 and Matthew 22:34.”
My response:
So, could the passage of Mark in question fit in Matthew between the Sadducees and the scribe of Matthew?
No.
The last clause of Mark 12:34 rules out that possibility, which reads:
“…After that no one dared to ask him any question.”
So then, because of that, if there are as you argue, two scribes then Mark’s scribe would have to come at the end (after Matthew’s scribe and NOT before) since Mark says that no one asked any more questions. And we know that Matthew’s scribe DID ask a question, the greatest commandment question.
But then that creates yet another problem. That being the problem of Mark 12:28 which reads:
“28 One of the scribes came near and heard THEM disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered THEM well, he asked him…” (my emphasis added).
The way the above reads and must be understood is that when Mark’s scribe came and heard “THEM” (the Sadducees) disputing with one another, he asked his question upon hearing and seeing that he (Jesus) answered “THEM” (the Sadducees) well. AND, both of the plural pronouns “THEM”, in the passage most logically refer to the group of Sadducees disputing with one another (who were told by Jesus that they knew neither scripture nor the power of God; that they were greatly deceived). The passage should not be misunderstood to refer to a single scribe arguing with himself or a single scribe arguing with Jesus. Furthermore, there was NO argument with any scribes on the issue of the greatest commandment; there was only agreement. So it fails on two counts, first because of the plural pronoun and also because of the fact there is no record of Jesus or anyone else “disputing” about the greatest commandment question.
And, if you say that Mark’s scribe didn’t ask “upon hearing” as the scripture in fact reads or in other words, didn’t IMMEDIATELY ask, and instead waited until he heard and saw Matthew’s scribe ask the greatest commandment question, then it fails on logic. It makes no sense that he’d ask the same question he just heard AND also compliment Jesus on the exact same response he just heard Jesus give earlier. That defies logic and reason.
So Matthew, once again, what you believe to be two scribes is in fact clearly just one and the same.
Regarding other matters you wrote about:
You wrote:
“we should not attempt to judge the intentions of his heart and read things into the text that simply are not there.”
My response: I agree, that’s why I don’t read things into the text that aren’t. I try to ascertain the context, what the author is trying to tell me. To do this I take into account such things as whether the author intends the message to be universal, or specific, whether it applies always to all, or to a specific group or individual to a specific time and place.
Regarding your arguments of absolute truth and relativity:
You speak a false doctrine unsupportable by scripture.
God is absolute truth and Jesus is the human manifestation of that truth. Everything that God and/or Jesus does and did must be evaluated to determine whether it was meant by God and Jesus to be permanent or conditional, general or specific, etc.
We must take into account such factors as the intended recipient, what the needs are, what the purpose is/was, the time period in history, whether it applies to the whole planet, a group, or select individuals, etc.
If you disagree, you need only read your bible. It’s full of such example such as these that follow:
God gave the “law” through Moses. He gave it to whom? Did He give it to ALL or a select special group of people? Let’s check scripture.
The preamble to the 10 commandments:
Deuteronomy 5:1
5 Moses convened all Israel, and said to them:
Hear, O Israel, …
And the preamble continues with:
Deuteronomy 5:6 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;…”
Clearly He didn’t give it to me. I’m not an Israelite, I’m not a Jew, God didn’t bring me nor my ancestors out of Egypt.
Let’s also check the first part of the so called “greatest commandment” of the Old Covenant and see who it’s addressed to; to whom does it apply.
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel:…”
Once again, I’m not Israel, at no time have I lived under the old covenant. It might be a great command, the greatest, essential to live by if you’re under the old covenant, but I live under the new covenant commands of Jesus, and every word from Jesus that is for me and the new covenant.
But at the time, the passages above most certainly would have applied to the scribe in question referred to in Matthew and Mark. The passages would most certainly have applied to the spies who were listening. It would have applied to Jesus; it would have applied to those Jews who killed Jesus; it would have applied to Judas; it would have applied to the other 11 apostles.
Now let’s check what Jesus said on the last night of his life when he assured in the New Covenant.
In John 13 Jesus tells us that we must serve each other. Is he talking to everyone or just those who love him and follow his commands? Verse 18 reveals that he is NOT talking to everyone.
“12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord—and you are right, for that is what I am. 14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Very truly, I tell you, servants[d] are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. 18 I am NOT (my emphasis added) speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen…”
We see that Jesus is NOT talking to everyone. He is only talking to those who he has chosen; who will manifest the new covenant; he is speaking to those who will spread the gospel and do and teach what Jesus did and taught regarding the new covenant. They will do this after his death and resurrection. This is the new covenant.
He is speaking to me.
What else did Jesus tell us about the New Covenant on the last night of his life on earth?
He instituted the Lord’s Supper of the New Covenant in the blood of himself and said DO this in remembrance of me. And said in Luke 22:16 that it would be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. Is he speaking to Judas; is he speaking to Satan who entered Judas to “do this” in remembrance of him? Or, is he once again, speaking to what would be new covenant believer’s to “do this”?
Did He give any last commands for the new covenant before he died? Yes, He gave a “New” command.
John 13:34
“34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
John 15:12
12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Was Judas present when Jesus gave this “new command”? No. He told Judas to leave and go do quickly what he had to do. So then of course he couldn’t have been speaking to Judas then either. So, the New Covenant commands apply to those who love him.
John 14:15 “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”
So, we see that on the last night of his life Jesus says to serve one another and love one another as he loved us. This is the New Covenant.
Here’s more scriptural proof that to discern truth we must take into account the context, who is being addressed, etc.
The issue of how to come into eternal life:
Case one: The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25 – 37
Eternal life is attained by Loving God and loving your neighbor (sound familiar?)
Case two: The Rich Young Ruler, Mark 10:17 – 31; Matthew 19:16 – 31; Luke 18:18 – 30
Eternal life is attained by: keeping all the commandments, Selling all you own, giving all the money to the poor, and following Jesus.
Case three: Nicodemus, John 3:1 – 16
Eternal life is attained by being born from above and believing in Jesus.
Note: Matthew, you said that Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee; I too believe that Nicodemus was a righteous man, and he probably attained eternal life, not because he followed the commandments (although he probably did), but because I think he came to believe fully in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God.
How do you resolve the discrepancies above? Are we all to sell all we own for example? If that’s the case why didn’t Jesus mention that to other rich people? The way to resolve the differences is to keep in mind the context. The first and second cases deal with the old covenant. The first person had no problem with great possessions; his problem was trying to justify himself about who his neighbor “wasn’t” really (which is why Jesus gave him the parable of the Samaritan to show him who his neighbor WAS really). The person in the case of the Rich Ruler had a specific problem with coveting great wealth. In the case of Nicodemus, his problem was not the law. What Nicodemus needed was understanding that he, Nicodemus was to be part of the new covenant to understand that he was passing from old covenant to new, that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and that to enter the Kingdom of God (to have eternal life) and teach others to do likewise as a “teacher of Israel” he needed to be born from above.
And how is it that we become born from above? We “believe” that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God and that through believing we have life in the name of Jesus.
To whom and for what purpose did John write? After John writes about the resurrection of Jesus, he goes on to write this regarding eternal life:
John 20:
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may come to believe[d] that Jesus is the Messiah,[e] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
David,
“When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum…” [Matthew 4:12-13]
“The entire ministry of Jesus from beginning to end was marked by a context of entrapment and hostility” does not mean that every single person around Jesus every single time was hostile or trying to entrap him. It’s the general social context. I think you could agree on that. Lets be reasonable.
Sincerely,
Matthew
David,
The last clause of Mark 12:34 reads:
“…After that no one dared to ask him any question.”
For how long? The rest of Jesus’ life? We don’t know exactly. Just for a certain period of time. Please don’t be obstinate and unreasonable.
Matthew 22:34 begins, “Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.” This is an obvious description of what just happened in the Mark passage, simply said in different words. No one dared ask Jesus any more questions, Jesus silenced them. It’s the same thing. It is unreasonable to insist this could not be so. These obviously were 2 different men, and the narratives are significantly different. And although it’s not 100% provable, what I’ve suggested is certainly probable, and cannot be disproven.
The trouble is, you have already decided that Paul must be right, so you have to twist and change and add to the words of Jesus to make Jesus fit into Paul’s false teaching. This could accurately be called “Paulism.” It isn’t new, and it isn’t uncommon, but nevertheless it is wrong.
You are teaching against absolute truth, and promoting relative truth, just like Paul the Pharisee. Jesus taught absolute truth from the Torah. Paul frequently taught his own ideas. You are saying the “The Most Important Commandment” is really what is most important TO YOU, that it “depends on who is asking.” No, it doesn’t.
The Most Important Commandment is to Love God, period. This applies to everyone everywhere, all the time, and it summarizes the first 4 of the 10 Commandments of Moses. The Second Commandment of Jesus is to Love People, which summarizes the next 6 of the 10 Commandments of Moses.
Jesus didn’t change the 10 Commandments, He simply summarized them into 2, NOT 1. (not One Rule as Paul falsely taught, forgetting about God.) Yes, God’s Law was given first to the Hebrews, and now we Gentiles can more freely have access to it, which is a blessing to us. But Jesus didn’t change the Most Important Commandment from “Love God” to “Love People”, and He didn’t make the love of people completely synonymous with the love of God. Yes there is overlap, and interrelationship, but it’s not the same thing. To Love God involves more than simply loving people.
So please don’t go on and on adding things and putting words in the mouth of Jesus when He spoke about “a new commandment.” Jesus didn’t say this was the Most Important Commandment, or the First and Greatest, or One Great Commandment.
Matthew
Matthew,
Leaving behind the argument of whether or not there are one or two scribes, I note that you’ve pretty much ignored most of my counter arguments on the other matters in my last two posts. However, you did address one argument somewhat, that of the concept of truth. But unlike you, I have cited scripture in the matter while you have not.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct regarding your baseless accusation, that I’ve been “subconsciously brainwashed” by Paul. If that’s true, then why should I listen to your claims as opposed to those of Paul, (if I’ve been brainwashed) and if you don’t cite scripture? You started out well enough in this long series of posts and cited scripture for the premise of your claim against Paul, but as soon as your argument was challenged with scripture you have resorted to baseless claims, failing to address my challenges through scripture. Your argument has no depth.
The reason why I say now and have said that you write false doctrine of men is not only because you don’t cite scripture, but because you contradict scripture by what you write as I have shown.
If you want me to believe you that your understanding of the teaching of Jesus is the correct one, and that Paul’s understanding of the teaching of Jesus is false, then when challenged with scripture, you’ll have to cite scripture of your own to defend your position.
So, now…
Regarding the 1st commandment in the law, I cited scripture in my previous post which conclusively shows that the Law given through Moses is not addressed to me or other Gentiles and is therefore not applicable to me or other Gentiles.
In response you wrote among other things (lacking scriptural citations of course):
“This applies to everyone everywhere, all the time…”
My response:
It most certainly does not apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time. God never said that. And, has Jesus ever said that. You can’t just put words in the mouth of God or the mouth of Jesus just because you want it to be so.
You can’t just make baseless claims; you have to prove it through scripture. Otherwise everyone everywhere should reject you’re claims as the teachings of men, the same way you advocate that we reject the teachings of Paul.
Where is your scripture that it applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time?
While you are working on that, I have one challenge questions for you.
1. What did Jesus teach his disciples is the greatest love?
David, you wrote, QUOTE:
“Leaving behind the argument of whether or not there are one or two scribes….” And you expressed a desire ot dialogue on other topies.
First, I want to thank you for helping me understand that Matthew 22 and Mark 12 are largely parallel narrative accounts of one long intense day in the ministry of Jesus, that was filled with conflict and confusion, and they describe several of the same events. I had not realized that before, so I learned something from you.
And I respect and appreciate you willingness to listen to the voice of Jesus, examine the text of the Bible, and dialogue about it, in search of the truth.
There are many issues that it would be profitable to discuss. But the first, main issue we have been debating at length is the relationship between Matthew 22:34-40 and Mark 12:28-34. I believe that if you simply insert the Mark passage directly before the Matthew passage chronologically, it makes near perfect sense. I believe these are clearly 2 different episodes in the same one-day narrative, with 2 different casts of characters, and 2 different scripts, although the 2 casts overlap somewhat and the 2 scripts have some similarities.
These passages show us that Jesus teaches the same absolute truth from the Torah about what is the Most Important Commandment, and the Second, regardless of the context or who is asking. Jesus didn’t teach relative truth, that the most important thing “depends” on who you are.
So before “Leaving behind the argument of whether or not there are one or two scribes….” I would like to resolve it. After everything that’s been written above, I think the answer is now obvious. Wouldn’t you agree?
Sincerely,
Matthew
Matthew,
To continue endlessly the debate on the merely academic point of whether there were one or two scribes is a pointless distraction and has little to no bearing on the other more important questions which we’ve only begun to touch on.
Thanks for the discussion up to this point.
If you come up with something new and worthwhile on the scribe issue, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, I’m done with that.
David,
Jesus was asked the basic question “of all the commandments, which is the most important.”?
In Matthew 22 & Mark 12, Jesus gave a direct, specific answer (which was actually bigger than the question, but did answer it) quoting from the Torah.
Do you believe that Jesus spoke absolute truth here? Or relative truth?
Matthew
We show love by doing things for the one we love that THEY want — not indulging ourselves. The Torah tells us “what does HaShem your G-d ask of you? Only this: to respect HaShem your G-d by following all His ways and to love and serve HaShem your G-d with all your heart and all your being by keeping HaShem’s commandments and laws that I am commanding you today….” (D’varim / Deuteronomy 10:12-13).
How could it be any clearer, more explicit?
It is easy enough to say you love someone — it is quite another to PROVE and SHOW your love. If you think you love someone but you don’t do the most basic things that person (or in this case G-d) requires to FEEL loved — are you really showing them love at all or are you being selfish and indulging in what YOU want?
G-d even warns you NOT to be swayed by your emotions. “Be careful that your heart not be tempted to go astray and worship other gods, bowing down to them.” D’varim Deuteronomy 11:16. and “it will be, when [one following Jesus perhaps] hears the words (Torah) that he will bless himself in his heart, saying, “I will have peace, even if I follow my heart’s desires,”. . .HaShem will not be willing to forgive him; rather, then, HaShem’s fury and His zeal will fume against that man, and the entire curse written in this book will rest upon him, and HaShem will obliterate his name from beneath the heavens. And HaShem will separate him for evil.” D’varim / Deuteronomy 29:17-20.
Love is doing for the person we love (or doing for G-d what He wants) — not in indulging our emotions and doing what we want and calling it love. . .
Sophie,
On a fundamental basic level, I agree with you that, QUOTE:
“Love is doing for the person we love (or doing for G-d what He wants) — not in indulging our emotions and doing what we want and calling it love. .”
I agree as a devoted follower of Yahshua, Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, Son of Yahweh the Most High God of Israel. His testimony recorded by Matthew Mark Luke & John (in the New Testament) is the Torah made flesh, in harmony with and fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the Prophets. (The OT Writings, and NT Letters, are Scripture and they have some use, but just as Jesus recognized, they have less authority.)
No one in the Bible except Paul the Pharisee ever said “All Scripture is God-breathed” and Paul was wrong. Neither the OT nor the NT nor “The Bible” were ever given to us as “one book.” It is a collection of writings. The Gospel writings, the Law and the Prophets are on top. The “Tanakh” was not given as “one book” either.
However, God did also give us emotions, which are not necessarily wrong. God is emotional at times. And it is healthy and good to express our emotions in appropriate God-honoring ways in appropriate times and places – like during worship of Yahweh the One True God, through His Only Son Yahshua our Messiah.
LarryB
You haven’t addressed the texts I put forth for comparison at all.
You seem to imply that either every word Paul ever said and wrote, and everything Paul ever did was 100% perfect, or else I “reject him.” By that standard, we should reject everyone except Jesus.
You are exaggerating to say “Peter very much supports him.” The Apostle Peter briefly mentioned Paul in a passing reference, putting distance between them, while trying to find something good to say about his enemy. He never said Paul was “an apostle” and neither did anyone else except Paul himself. (No Luke didn’t say Paul was “an apostle” in Acts 14 either. Look at Acts 1, 6, 9, 13 & 15). Paul was never recognized as “an apostle” by anyone else. There is no “Apostle to the Gentiles.” Paul made up this title for himself.
And to say that “Acts supports Paul” reflects a lack of understanding.
Acts is a narrative, and it reveals things Paul said and did – some of which were true and good, others of which were false and sinful, or maybe just Paul’s experience. The Bible giving an account of David’s adultery and murder does not mean that the Bible “supports David” in those things.
Paul didn’t write “half the New Testament.” I counted by chapters, and it’s 33.4% by chapter count – so 1/3. Perhaps the reason you give Paul more credit than he deserves is that you spend the majority of your time in the New Testament listening to the voice of Paul, like many Evangelicals. Therefore, you are so used to Paul’s voice that you can’t discern or distinguish the voice of Jesus. Evangelicals have both been trained that way- never to question Paul, or compare or contrast his teachings or behavior with Jesus.
Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed” once, in the middle of a personal letter to his friend Timothy. Jesus never said that. And no other author of Scripture besides Paul ever said that either. (The Apostle Peter wrote about “PROPHECY of Scripture” not ALL Scripture, and no it isn’t the same thing.) If you believe I’m mistaken, please quote me chapter and verse to show me where.
Paul DID contradict Jesus regarding what is the Most Important Commandment, as I quoted here. It’s 2 Commandments, not 1, and the Love of God is clearly and distinctly on top. We love God and love people in different ways. Loving people is ONE of the ways we demonstrate our love for God, but it isn’t the only way, and it isn’t synonymous. We don’t need Paul, or any other man (or woman) to further refine the clear teachings of Jesus. We can listen to Jesus directly, understand, and obey Jesus – not obey Paul.
In the pages of the New Testament, no one besides Jesus and Paul ever held himself up as a singular example and said, “follow me” or “imitate me” or “follow my example” or even “Follow Me as I Follow Christ.” Jesus is right, Paul was wrong. No one else ever said to follow Paul except Paul talking about himself. We cannot serve two masters.
Of course, Evangelicals are all trained to admit, theologically, theoretically, intellectually, that Paul was not flawless- but when it comes to specifics? What were some of Paul’s specific sins, mistakes, flaws, etc.? Our minds go blank, and we get that sinking feeling… It’s a spiritual blindness. But now is the time to wake up, open our Bibles, and listen to the voice of Jesus!
I agree with you that we cannot serve two masters. How do you reconcile that with Ot teaching that “god is not a man nor the son of man”, with your teaching that we need to listen to the voice of Jesus? And, if you listen to the voice of J, does he not also tell you his definition of what holy scripture is in Matt 5:17-19? The Torah.
LarryB
Where are you quoting – Book, chapter and verse? “god is not a man nor the son of man”,
The OT Scriptures were
Torah
Prophets
Writings
Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets here, which harmonize with the testimony of Jesus recorded by Matthew Mark Luke & John. Not “All Scripture.”
What do you mean ” not all scripture”
You recognize that the Kethuvim, the “Writings” including Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, are Scripture but not the Torah or Prophets…. right.? (Jesus made the line slightly blurry with a few prophetic Psalms about Him…)
I’m confused again. What books exactly are scripture to you?
I view the 66 Books of the Bible as “Scripture.” That doesn’t mean they are all equally authoritative, or equally important, or to be used in the same way.
Hi Matthew.
How about Numbers 23:19 (in the Torah): “God is not a man that He should be deceitful, nor a son of man that He should relent”?
Or how about 1 Samuel 15:29 (in the Prophets): “Moreover, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent.”
Hi Dina
I’m glad that you and LarryB are willing to open The Torah and The Prophets, discuss them, and think for yourselves. You provided two good objections, written before the coming of the Messiah in the flesh.
LarryB wrote below: “The torah tells us who the messiah is.” Yes.
Here are a few of the words of God, recorded by Moses in the Torah regarding the Messiah.
“The LORD [Yahweh] said to me: ‘What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.’” [Deuteronomy 18:17-18]
Doesn’t this mean that the Messiah, when He comes, will be a Hebrew or Jewish man?
Yes, Matthew, but so what?
Dina,
What do you mean “so what”?
You agree that the Messiah, when He comes, will be a Hebrew or Jewish man.
So WHEN He comes, He will be “a son of man” and “human.”
Right?
Yes, Matthew.
What I meant by “so what” is “what does this prove, exactly?”
When the Messiah comes, he will be mortal, he will be human, he will be a son of man, and he will be Jewish.
He will be a direct descendant of David from his father’s side through David’s son Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10) . Jesus is not descended from David through his father’s side. The two genealogies in Christian scripture not only conflict each other but they both do not match the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3.
Moreover, the following will occur during his reign:
INGATHERING OF THE JEWISH EXILES
(Deuteronomy 30:3-4; Isaiah 11:12; Isaiah 43:5-6; Isaiah 49:12, 18, 22; Isaiah 60:4; Isaiah 66:20; Jeremiah 3:18; Jeremiah 30:3; Jeremiah 31:7; Jeremiah 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17; Ezekiel 20:41; Ezekiel 34:13; Ezekiel 36:24; Ezekiel 37:21)
REBUILDING OF THE THIRD TEMPLE
(Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 33:18; Ezekiel 37:26-28; Ezekiel 43:7; Ezekiel 44:15:-16; Micah 4:1)
NATIONAL RESURGENCE OF TORAH OBSERVANCE
(Deuteronomy 30:10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:20; Ezekiel 36:27; Ezekiel 37:24; Ezekiel 44:23-24)
UNIVERSAL PEACE
(Isaiah 2:4; Isaiah 65:25; Jeremiah 33:9, 16; Ezekiel 34:25, 28; Ezekiel 37:26; Hosea 2:20; Psalm 72:3)
UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
(Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 45:23; Isaiah 54:13; Isaiah 66:18, 19, 23; Jeremiah 3:17; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Zephaniah 3:9; Zechariah 8:20-23; Zechariah: 14:16)
PUNISHMENT OF PERSECUTORS OF THE JEWS/VINDICATION OF THE JEWS IN THE EYES OF THE NATIONS
(Deuteronomy 30:7; Isaiah 17:12-14; Isaiah 25:1-8; Isaiah 30:26; Isaiah 30:28; Isaiah 34:1-35:10; Isaiah 40:1-11; Isaiah 49:8-13; Isaiah 52:7-10; Isaiah 60:1-3; Zephaniah 3:8-20; Zechariah 8:23; Psalm 9)
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, reffering to your response to Matthew, the ( Messiah) comes , does all the great things but one day he dies as he is sinful and all the glorious future continues for ever. At his coming people get resurrected so that they would live forever, but the messiah dies. Then he functions as a spirit….that is what I understood from your emails…. we die we are spirits. That is scary;-)
Eric, why is the idea of resurrection so important to you when Jewish scripture focuses so little on it? All I need to know is what God wants of me, and God says it is so simple.
Deuteronomy 10:12: “Now, O Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you? Only to fear the Lord, your God, to go in all His ways and to love Him, and to serve the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, to observe the commandments of the Lord and His decrees, which I command you today for your benefit.”
I don’t know when the resurrection will occur. Maybe before, maybe after. I don’t know what happens to the people who are still alive when it will occur. And frankly, I don’t care. It has nothing to do with why I worship God.
Christians are looking for a good deal. Jews love God.
Dina,,Ok, really quick response, today no time at all but will try up to catch up on tall the messages tomorrow. By the resurrection we see that God’s love is so great that He wants us to spend eternity with Him ! There will be time when He Himself will be living among people. Our life is not a quick episode to happen and finish. So that hope give us joy and Jesus the assurance that we will be free from the death one day ( at the resurrection) All is true what you said about what God requires from us how to live, I am not taking away from it, I am just adding the hope for the future and rejoicing in God’s love that is beyond the grave.
One question? Are you God’s servant?
By saying ‘ Christians are looking for good deal’ and worship God just for resurrection -that is very judgmental to say and completely not relevant as we love God the same as you would claim that you love Him.I am sure God wouldn’t want to spend eternity with those who don’t love Him. What in common they would have? Second, what does it mean to love God? It means to love others too. You can’t love God that you don’t see if you can’t love those whom you see who are created in His image.
Eric, I think I gave pretty good reason to believe, as Jews and the overwhelming majority of Christians have believed for centuries, in the immortal soul and the afterlife. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one and let the audience decide who has the stronger argument.
By the way, I think it’s much less scary to know that I have a continuing consciousness that can never die than to think that death is completely final, that with death comes oblivion.
Besides, Eric, there is no room in your theology for people who never heard of Jesus, like the indigenous tribes of continents before they were discovered by Europeans. Is it fair that they should be denied everlasting life for their ignorance?
What about the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust? What kind of God do you believe in that He would consign to everlasting death six million of His chosen people while their Christians murderers get everlasting life (I refer to even members of the clergy who encouraged or participated in this horror)?
Dina, first of all you have to understand that not everybody who calls himself a Christian is a servant of God. Just because somebody decides to kill in my name does not mean Eric is a killer. That is what people used to do throughout the history killing others in the name of God. or Jesus I don’t believe anybody can be follower of Christ and kill. That is a ‘fake Christian’ somebody deceiving himself. If Jesus is your lord , you obey what He says, and he never said to kill. Jesus didn’t come justify our constant disobedience to God. If you want him as your lord, you turn away from sin.
What about the others who didn’t hear about Jesus? God didn’t require from Abraham to fallow Jesus as he wasn’t known at that time. God required from Abraham ( and others living long before us ) to trust His words in whatever was revealed to them at that time ( of the history) by Him. Not all of God’s word was revealed to people right away. God didn’t hand over OT or NT to Adam on the first day of Adam’s life.
Adam and Eve didn’t know about torah as it wasn’t written then, I am sure God didn’t require them to live based on torah, either but by trusting His promises. ( His word whatever word was directed to them).
As far as now- we believe that God spoke through his son Jesus and gave us His promises about life with Him ( life free from everlasting death) , so we trust in what Jesus accomplished.
.
Hi Eric,
I’m going to try to respond to all of your comments here. First, I owe you an apology. It was wrong of me to imply that Christians don’t love God and cynical to say that they’re just looking for a good deal. There are honest people on both sides of this debate, and I do not doubt your sincerity even as I think you are misguided (which surely you think of me as well). I am sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.
Your focus on the resurrection is odd to me because the Torah doesn’t emphasize it. Furthermore, the Torah doesn’t promise us that we will only be resurrected if we place our faith in an individual. I challenge you to find me one verse that says that.
The Torah tells us to choose life. Deuteronomy 30:15-20: “See, I have placed before you today the life and the good, and the death and the evil…I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse; and you shall choose life, so that you will live…to love the Lord, your God…for He is your life and the length of your days.”
Proverbs 3:18: [The Torah’s] ways are ways of pleasantness and all its pathways are peace. It is a tree of life to those who grasp it, and its supporters are praiseworthy.
In Deuteronomy 4:2, God warns us not to add or subtract from His commandments. But Jesus came along and added a commandment (which I daresay replaced most if not all of God’s) that is so important, that even if one follows God’s decrees to the letter (and spirit), he will be eternally damned if he doesn’t follow Jesus’s one commandment to believe in him.
If this is not disobedience to God, then I don’t know what the word “disobedience” means.
You wrote, “Accepting Jesus means I am accepting the way of life you are showing that is living without sin.” Do you really mean that? Do you believe that you are living a life without sin because you accept Jesus? What happens to people who accept Jesus but who sin? You didn’t answer my question about that. (I know you said it would take you some time to answer my other challenges, so I’m just reminding you that I’m curious about your response to the genealogy problem, among others that I mentioned.)
What happens to the indigenous peoples on previously undiscovered continents? You haven’t answered that either. How do you know that the pre-Jesus people are right with God? What does your scripture say about that, besides for, say, Mark 16:16 (He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned) and John 3:36 (“He that believes in the son shall have everlasting life, and he that doesn’t believe in the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him”)?
Why were the pre-Jesus people able to obtain atonement without him? What happened all of a sudden that the guy who lived just before Jesus was fine without him while the guy who came right after suddenly needed him?
You asked me if I am God’s servant. I’m not sure what your point is, but here is my answer:
Isaiah 44:1: “But hear now, Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen. 21: Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant; Israel, do not forget Me!”
I surely don’t always meet the standard, but I just as surely try.
I have two questions for you.
1. Are all Jews denied eternal salvation because they have not accepted Jesus (like me, for instance)?
2. Of the famous Christians leaders and churchmen of the past, from the early church fathers until, say, 1600, are there any among them whom you regard highly? If so, would you tell me who they are?
Thanks,
Dina
Dina,Did I answer your question about ; can I just sin without consequences? I think I kind of mentioned something about it before. If not clear, I say ;no, non sin is without consequences. God may find a way to teach us not to do things what He doesn’t like us to do. Is that clear? The same rule what applied to people in OT applies now. Listen to what God says and apply it into your life. Put your trust in Him. So why I would mention Jesus again? Because I believe – God gave the authority to him and He is continuing to speak to us through him.
You said ; “In Deuteronomy 4:2, God warns us not to add or subtract from His commandments. But Jesus came along and added a commandment “ I am curious what did he add , how dared he to say “have love for each other” John 13;31-35 – :a new commandment I give to you”. Is ir really a new fact and people in OT didn’t know about it? To me it looks like it covers all the commandments of God about how we should live with our fellow people. If you love them you won’t steal, harm, cheat, kill etc. How dared Jesus say that new thing…if you find more let me know.
You ask me ‘Do you believe that you are living a life without sin because you accept Jesus?” Are you living life without sin? For sure we all fail at some time. We do the same, God gives us understanding about sin, we repent and look for restoring our relationship with God. Was David happy after he sinned? I know that it affected his life to the end with no rest from his enemies.
You asked;”How do you know that the pre-Jesus people are right with God?” I have no insight in others people whether they are right with God whether not. Why it should it be my business? It is between them and God.
What do I think about “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned”. What is believing first of all? It is not just mental possession of information or just knowledge . It is not ‘believing’ that usually ref errs only to ‘knowing that something exists’. Believing God is connected with trusting His words. You say ( God) that I do it. That shows He is our Lord whom we obey. What does it have to do with Jesus ( for those who believe in his testimony in NT) we say we trust in the words you are saying as they are words of God.
Similar way was obeying what Moses was telling his people because he was put in charge of leading by God. Each time they didn’t want to listen to him, it meant they also weren’t trusting God. Each time they complained to him about lack of things, they complained about God.
Dina,
My quick answer to Your two questions;.
1. Are all Jews denied eternal salvation because they have not accepted Jesus (like me, for instance)?
Many Jewish people believe God about Jesus, I personally know a person who was so against and God answered him in prayer that Jesus is his servant). His name is Mike Evans ,he started Jerusalem Prayer Team, but I can’t speak about you all- I am not God to judge. He knows everybody , whether your trust in God is honest or not, whether your lack of proof about credibility of Jesus is justified or not , I can’t tell. It is between you guys and God.
As far as famous Christians leaders and churchmen of the past, from the early church fathers until, say, 1600,- I don’t really rely on any and think of any at the moment. Most of them relate to catholic churches that has so little to do with truth.
Dina, still finishing the answers .
You said there is no room for my theology for those who have not heard of Jesus. What about the room for Judaism to those people on the other continents far away living in the past? Did they hear about torah???
Before any missionary would ever reach them with either OT and NT they are left with whatever God revealed to them through His creation. How He exactly deals with them I have no further details.
Another thought, Sophiee earlier stated; Jesus wasn’t a sacrifice, if he was killed it was a murder and abomination to God. But how justify the murder of all the people including children in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 . How does it justify your commandment of not to kill??? You will surely tell me that because Amalek were enemies of Israel at that time . If God had a reason for that killing, He surely had a reason to ‘get rid’ of our enemy which is eternal death , which is ‘done with’ by His son’s atoning death. If this as such ‘abomination’ I would say 1 Sam 15 is much bigger.
Another thing if you can tell me whether Leviticus 16 looks as a ‘barbeque party’ to you???? A ‘barbeque’ with all the strict rules just for no significant purpose.
According to you the word savior applies only to God and no one else can be called so…
(…) when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies. Neh 9;27
I know you will say, but we didn’t worship them. Once again, we honor Jesus for his everlasting redemption that came not out of him only but God who sent him for that purpose..
Dina,
Thanks for your scholarship. According to what you presented, Jesus fits the profile of Messiah perfectly.
Jesus was mortal, human, a son of man, and Jewish.
Jesus was a direct descendant of David from his father’s side through David’s son Solomon. This is shown in the genealogy in Matthew, which is for Jesus’ earthly father Joseph.
The genealogy in Luke is different because it is for Mary, mother of Jesus. It’s a subtle point, easy to miss, but it begins, ‘He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph,… [Luke 3:23] not “He WAS the son of Joseph.” So the 2 genealogies don’t conflict at all, rather they reinforce the point that Jesus is the Son of David, on both sides.
As for the second part of your objections, “the following will occur during his reign:”
Of course they have not been completely fulfilled yet – Messiah is not reigning yet on earth !!! But He will reign when He returns in glory at the end of the age. Would you agree?
Hi Matthew.
According to that, my great-grandfather fits the profile of the Messiah perfectly as well. He was mortal, human,son of man, and Jewish. And like many thousands of Jewish men today, he may well have been directly descended from David on his father’s side. Moreover, he suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. So maybe he’ll come back in a “second coming,” eh?
As for the genealogy in Luke, there’s nothing in the text to show it’s Mary’s. In fact, that defies logic. Luke 3:23: “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” Notice how “the son of Heli” directly follows Joseph. If the genealogy was Mary’s, Luke should have written, “He was the son…of Joseph, husband of Mary, daughter of etc.” The NIV inserts the words “son of” because it was obvious to those translators that it was talking about Joseph the son, not Mary the daughter.
Joseph wasn’t Jesus’s biological father. Tribal lineage, unlike inheritance rights, cannot be passed through adoption.
I don’t know why you don’t see a problem with with the genealogies not matching Chronicles, just because it is less authoritative than the Torah.
You know, Matthew, the very people who decided the Torah was most authoritative, followed by the Prophets, followed by the Writings–the very people who decided which prophets to include in the canon of Hebrew Scripture–are the very people who rejected the “New Testament.” Why trust them on the one and not the other?
Dina,
One final objection you made was that the genealogies in Matthew & Luke “do not match the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3.”
I have not analyzed 1 Chronicles 3 to see where something does “not match”, and I’m not sure what specifically you are referring to .
However, as Jew you should know that the Book of Chronicles (later divided in 2) was never part of the authoritative parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, Torah or Prophets. It is part of the third, least authoritative category, the Writings, or Kethuvim, which include things like Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes. Yes it’s Scripture, and has some value. But as you know it isn’t Torah. Or The Prophets either.
Dina,
The genealogy in the Book of Matthew ends, QUOTE:
“and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of MARY, OF WHOM WAS BORN JESUS, who is called Christ.” [Matthew 1:16]
So Matthew wrote Joseph’s genealogy. Luke wrote Mary’s genealogy. Matthew tells us here that Jesus was born of Mary, not that Joseph was the father of Jesus. It’s a subtle distinction, as is the distinction Luke makes. But they are both there, if you have eyes to see. Joseph served as the earthly father of Jesus and husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. So we agree that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father.
I’m glad we also agree that “Chronicles, is less authoritative than the Torah.” I have not seen any specific explanation of what exactly in Chronicles “doesn’t match” what. But, we agree on the priorities in the Hebrew Scriptures – Torah and The Prophets. Certain parts of the Writings may be just wrong, and that is why they have always been considered by true Torah-observant Jews as less authoritative and not “the Word of God.”
One could debate endlessly about “what Solomon really meant” in writing “there is nothing new under the sun,” just as many Christians debate endlessly about “what Paul really meant” in his letters. It doesn’t matter that much. The OT Writings and the NT letters are somewhat useful, but they are not the Word of God.
Do you have any other specific objection from The Law or The Prophets as to why Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah?
Matthew, I don’t know what you’re trying to prove from that quote in Matthew.
There’s a genealogical problem, and you haven’t solved it. Just compare them to 1 Chronicles 3 to see that they don’t match. You don’t need any “specific explanations.” You can see it for yourself.
Anyway. We don’t agree about the authoritativeness of these books, because the word “authoritative” means different things to us. Torah-observant Jews still consider the rest of Tanach to be true and written by divine inspiration. By the way, so do Christians, besides for you.
My objections are taken from the entire Tanach and here they are:
Dina,
You wrote, QUOTE:
“the very people who decided which prophets to include in the canon of Hebrew Scripture–are the very people who rejected the “New Testament.”
I also reject the “New Testament” as “One Book” which is all equally authoritative and all “the word of God,” but I accept the Testimony of Jesus recorded by Matthew Mark Luke & John as the word of God, in harmony with Torah and The Prophets.
I don’t think the word “canon” appears anywhere in the pages of either the Tanakh or the New Testament. Does it? And wasn’t the Book of Daniel originally in the Writings, and then moved to The Prophets?
Below is a link showing the origin of the idea of a “New Testament.”
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html
Okay, Matthew, I’ll reword it:
The very people who decided which prophets to include in Hebrew Scripture are the very people who rejected the four gospels.
Dina,
What is your source for your statement? – QUOTE:
“The very people who decided which prophets to include in Hebrew Scripture are the very people who rejected the four gospels.”
Which people? When? And when did they reclassify the Book of Daniel from being just the “Writings” into “The Prophets” category? Did they “reject the four gospels” because they were presented with the same false choice that most people think of today – namely, that either all of the “New Testament” is 100% true, or none of it is? I don’t know everything, but I am willing to listen and learn from others.
Dina
I have never heard the term Tanach-observant Jew.”
Does anyone say that? Or is it only “Torah-observant Jew”?
Matthew, I’ll try to respond to your comments here.
Historians agree that Jewish rabbis sealed the Hebrew Bible canon. It’s also well known that they didn’t accept the Christian gospels. Furthermore, in the Jewish Bible, the Book of Daniel is not included in the Prophets but is included in the Writings.
It’s not like the rabbis didn’t include it because of some sort of choice that was presented to them. They simply ignored it, if they even were aware of its existence. It wasn’t even up for discussion. There is no historical record of a rabbinical dispute about it. The insertion of the gospels into the canon was done by Christians.
About the verse that a prophet has never arisen like Moses, it was also written many hundreds of years before Samuel and all the other prophets. So that point is irrelevant (forgive me).
The passage in Deuteronomy that you keep saying refers to the Messiah has never been understood as such by Jews. The classic understanding follows the plain meaning of the verse: “A prophet from your midst, from your brethren like me” simply means that just as Moses was from our midst and from our brethren, the future Jewish leader (Joshua, especially, but those who followed him as well) would also be from our midst and from our brethren.
As for the term “Torah observant,” observant Jews use the word “Torah” loosely to refer to Tanach and often also to include the Talmud. So when we say “Torah observant” we mean Orthodox Jews. In other words, Pharisees. Did you know that all Jews today are descended from the hated Pharisees? I’m a Pharisee.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
Thank you for taking time for this thoughtful informative response- it has helped my gain more understanding. It appears we have no disagreement that the word “canon” is a human tradition that came later, outside of the Torah, the whole “Tanach”, and the whole “New Testament.” Yet we agree that the Hebrew Scriptures consists of Torah, Prophets, and Writings, in descending order of authority and importance, (which agrees with Jesus’ teachings recorded in the Gospels.)
If you believe in a coming Jewish Messiah prophesied in the Torah (which we both do), it is a mystery to me why anyone would look at Deuteronomy 18:15 and not see this as a clear prophecy about the Messiah and commandment to listen to Him. I don’t see any reason this doesn’t refer to Jesus… or at least why it COULDN’T refer to Jesus.
Thanks for your clear summary of the teaching of the Pharisees, QUOTE:
“Observant Jews use the word “Torah” loosely to refer to Tanach and often also to include the Talmud. So when we say “Torah observant” we mean Orthodox Jews. In other words, Pharisees.”
You use the term for God’s Word loosely – Torah, Law, God’s Word – just like Paul the Pharisee! Paul wrote: “All Scripture is God-breathed.” Jesus never said that. No other New Testament author ever wrote that. Maybe you can help me. Did anyone in the pages of the Torah, Prophets or Writings ever write such a thing?
Modern Christian Pharisees today consistently refer to the 66 books of the Bible as one Book which is “the inerrant word of God.” They falsely say the the words of Paul are equal to the words of Jesus. Yet in essence, you are doing the same sort of thing, claiming to be “Torah observant” when you really are following other traditions that came later, in the Tanach or even the Talmud. No offense, but would you agree?
A good question to consider would be SHOULD you use the word “Torah” loosely if you are really “Torah observant”? Jesus did not! If you read the 4 Gospels, you will find that when Jesus spoke and used the term “The Law” Jesus meant one and only one thing – The Torah, the Law of Moses. Nothing else.
Jesus taught against the Pharisees of His day, speaking of “their law” and “your law” to them, because they were using the term “law” loosely to refer to “All Scripture.” But to Jesus “The Law” = “Torah” and Torah only.
By the way, there were at least 2 Pharisees whose hearts were right and they were specifically mentioned by name in the Gospels – Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.
The LORD bless you and keep you,
Matthew
Hi Matthew.
I’m puzzled by your objection to the word “canon,” which simply means a list of written works. The Hebrew biblical canon simply means the collection of writings that make up the Hebrew Bible.
As for Deuteronomy 18:15, Sophiee gave a good reason why it can’t and doesn’t refer to Jesus. The only reason you think it refers to the Messiah is because the Messiah is so central to your worship. If you read the Torah from beginning to end without any preconceived notions about Jesus or the messiah, you would never reach this conclusion. I think it’s almost impossible for you to set aside that bias and read it like I do, but I wish you could so you would see what I mean. Oh well.
As for what Jesus said and did, since the gospels have zero credibility and Jesus is completely meaningless to me (sorry, I don’t mean to offend), then what he said is irrelevant (again, no offense meant).
I know Jesus taught against the Pharisees. I know too well. The tragic consequences of those teachings lie heavily on my people’s past and should give pause to any Christian who considers their moral legacy.
Peace and blessings to you too,
Dina
Dina,
You wrote, QUOTE:
“Historians agree that Jewish rabbis sealed the Hebrew Bible canon.
I’m puzzled by your objection to the word “canon,” which simply means a list of written works. The Hebrew biblical canon simply means the collection of writings that make up the Hebrew Bible.”
“Canon,” “Bible,” “Tanach,” “Old Testament,” “New Testament” are all words created by men, none of which appear in the text the Jewish or Christian Scriptures anywhere. It is presupposing that men have the authority to make one definitive list of Scriptures that they give one name to, which may include the Torah but has additional writings as well.
It’s not a good idea to do that, because it blurs the distinction between the Word of God and words of men. Unlike most Christians, at least many Jews understand theoretically that there are 3 categories of Scripture in descending level of authority, Torah Prophets, Writings.
But rather than thinking and maintaining the distinction, it’s “easier” to just make up a new word, “Tanach”, and then use the word “Torah” loosely to refer generally to all 3 categories of Scripture, plus maybe some other traditions for good measure. That’s the teaching of Paul the Pharisee – “all Scripture is God-breathed.”
To speak of a “Hebrew Bible” is begging the question, assuming there should be “A Bible.” Christians would say it’s 66 Books, Jews would disagree. But you are both agreeing as Pharisees that there is “One Book” which is “the Word of God” which includes the Torah (and the Prophets) but also other books! You are indirectly putting the Writings on the same level as Torah, treating them as the Word of God when they are not! This is just the same as what Christian Pharisees do with the letters of Paul the Pharisee.
If you are really “Tanach observant” rather than “Torah observant” wouldn’t it be less confusing to just say so?
Hi Matthew.
I don’t understand why the name people decide to give their sacred texts matters. Even if it does matter, it’s a distraction from the main issue. Who has the truth? That’s what we need to figure out first.
Dina,
If it really doesn’t matter to you, why do you insist on calling yourself “Torah observant”
rather than “Tanach observant” or “Talmud observant”? 😉
Matthew, you can call me whatever you would like .
You can also call me a rabbinic Jew. Or you can call me a Pharisee.
Dina,
What I’m asking is, what do YOU call yourself, and why? I don’t want to put my own label on you. I want to understand what you really believe, and what is the basis for your belief. Based on what you’ve written, “Tanach & Talmud observant” seems like a more accurate description than “Torah observant.” Wouldn’t you agree?
Matthew, if someone asks me what my religion is, I say Orthodox Judaism. I use this term because that is the label commonly given to the practice of traditional Judaism.
I hope this helps,
Dina
Hi Dina,
This is a good response that would be popular and commonly accepted by many religious people. “Welcome to the middle ground – it’s safe and sound.”
Typically, it’s a claim to be “Orthodox” and a vague reference to “One sacred text” and the religious traditions surrounding that one text – but without clearly distinguishing between the sacred text and the tradition, and without identifying different authority levels for different parts of the text.
In essence, the response of a Christian Pharisee would be similar- something like this:
“I’ve been a Bible-believing Christian all my life. I believe in Historic Orthodox Christianity. The whole Bible is The Word of God, and I believe all of it, because the Bible tells us “All Scripture is God-breathed.” We can’t pick and choose which parts we like and which parts we don’t – it’s all inerrant and can’t be questioned. You shouldn’t listen to those heretics who love to bash our great Apostle Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” As for Bible teachers, I’ve been listening to Chuck for an hour a day every day for years, and I agree with everything he says. Of course he isn’t perfect, none of us are. But why would you insist that he is wrong on a particular point? Don’t be rebellious. Don’t touch the Lord’s anointed!”
Dear Matthew,
You are entitled to your opinion.
Respectfully,
Dina
Matt
14You say that Peter “briefly mentioned Paul in a passing reference, putting distance between them, while trying to find something good to say about his enemy.” Lets look at that.
“(14So then, my dear friends, while you are waiting, do your best to live blameless and unsullied lives so that he will find you at peace.
15 Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved; our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given.
16 He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture–(Torah) to their own destruction.
17 Since you have been forewarned about this, my dear friends, be careful that you do not come to the point of losing the firm ground that you are standing on, carried away by the errors of unprincipled people.”) This is far from a milk toast warning and looks like complete support to me.
today we have J, and peter telling us that the ultimate source of truth is scripture (torah).
LarryB
The ultimate source of truth is the testimony of Jesus recorded by Matthew Mark Luke & John, backed up by the Torah and the Prophets. Not “All Scripture.”
thats not what J said.
Matthew
You said you accept the testimony of Jesus recorder by Matthew, mark Luke and Paul. Well, my Christian bible has 5 full pages of introduction of Matthew and they call him The Unknown Author. So much for testimony. Mark has two pages of introduction, and is considered to be the first of the gospels. Unfortunately the author is “anonymous”. And 70 years later. Luke was real and it seems to written Acts. Like you said. Then there is Paul, and since you already said he was wrong I’ll stop here.
1. Matthew unknown
2. Mark anonymous
3. Luke real
4. Paul wrong
I think you have been a youth minister too long. Maybe kids would believe you but common.
LarryB
That was Matthew Mark Luke & JOHN. The 4 Gospel writers who recorded the testimony of Jesus. Which “Christian bible ” are you using? The introductions to the books are not authoritative, and not part of the Bible. They are simply some person’s opinion. Human tradition.
In my 21 years of knowing Jesus, I’ve never heard or read anyone who said that the 4 Gospel writers did not write the books that bear their names. I’m glad you took a moment to look at by old blog. You can reach me at MatthewMontebello@hotmail.com if needed. Since you have a desire to look to The Torah for truth about the Messiah and you have a Jewish perspective, there is a lot I can learn from you.
Matthew
JOHN, his gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g. That Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry before he changed to one of preaching and signs. Unfortunately, although tradition, ( to you that would mean Mans tradition, ) identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most scholars find that the evidence does not support this. One more thing, the introductions are just as authoritive as Everything you think, do, and say.
Matthew, you wrote “Since you have a desire to look to The Torah for truth about the Messiah and you have a Jewish perspective, there is a lot I can learn from you.” I have no interest in learning the truth about the messiah, as you think, my interest is learning what god teaches, and incorporating that into my life. Which I fail at miserably, so you cannot learn from me. One more thing, if you have not read about the authors of the N.T., its time you learned about your bible. I could tell you who wrote my bible but it’s not the best money can buy and I would not want to limit your search. You’ll have to find out on your own. But may I suggest, start with the Torah. At least there you know who the author is.
Larry, you must be doing a pretty good job because Matthew thinks you’re Jewish 🙂
It took a great sensitivity to the truth and a lot of courage to get to where you are today. Don’t be so hard on yourself 🙂
LarryB
I appreciate your insights and advice, and I agree with you on a number of points. As you know from the Torah, every matter should be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses, and a man’s testimony about himself is not valid. Jesus even applied this Law to himself. Perhaps that is why Jesus didn’t write his own book, like Muhammad or Joseph Smith of the Mormons or many other cult leaders.
Jesus had 4 other witnesses make written records of His personal life, actions, and teachings, 2 of whom (Matthew & John) followed Him personally for 3 ½ years. So Jesus followed the Torah on this point. (Unlike Paul, who deceitfully gave himself the title “Apostle to the Gentiles” and said; “follow me.” But Paul has no witnesses to back him up.)
Man’s tradition is not necessarily right or wrong. I would say it must be examined in light of God’s commandments (Torah & Prophets) and the testimony of Jesus the Jewish Messiah, (the Torah made flesh.) I think you might say simply, “The Torah”, and that’s fine – lets start with that.
You are right, John’s Gospel reveals some different aspects of the ministry of Jesus that are not revealed by the other Gospels. Why would this be strange? If the other 3 Gospels were already written, and John had seen those writings, why repeat all the same things again as a fourth witness? Why not fill in some gaps about important details that were missing? Since John was perhaps the Apostle who was personally closest to Jesus, John had deep personal insight to add.
I still don’t know which mysterious “Christian Bible” you are using that has these long “introductions” to the Gospel books. But I agree with you that, standing alone, “the introductions are just as authoritive as Everything you think, do, and say.” Yes – that is to say, neither I nor “the introductions” are authoritative on their own. Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses, according to Torah.
I believe you agree that God teaches us about The Messiah in the Torah, which we should apply in our lives.
Moses spoke to your people:
“The LORD Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. YOU MUST LISTEN TO HIM.” [Deuteronomy 18:15]
Wouldn’t you agree that this is a command of God, given through Moses in the Torah, which you need to incorporate into your life today? And isn’t Moses referring to the Jewish Messiah here, telling you to listen to HIM? We all fail miserably at things sometimes. But God is never far away, and we will find Him if we turn to Him and seek Him with all our hearts, with “a new set of feelings.”
I agree with your suggestion to “start with the Torah”, and I have started right here with text of The Torah. I want to obey God’s commandment to listen to The Messiah.
Regarding the N.T., the best source to start with is the text of the 4 Gospels themselves. Although I’l never know it all, and there are always new insights to be gained, I have spent a great amount of time in the 4 Gospels. It was 21 years ago that I actually opened a Bible and started to read them, trying to understand who Jesus was, and that is when Jesus revealed Himself to me personally.
You will notice in the text of the 4 Gospels that the authors go way out of their way not to talk about themselves. The Gospels are not about the authors, they are about Jesus. They put the focus on Jesus, where it belongs, not on themselves and their own feelings, experiences and supposed credentials. This is the polar opposite of Paul the Pharisee in his letters, filled with boastful self-promotion, testimony about his own feelings, experience, ministry, intentions, emotions, travel plans, etc. and false teaching.
I have not found anything in the text of the 4 Gospels to indicate that the Gospel writers did not write the Books that bear their names, or that there is really any relevance in considering that. It seems like a non-issue to me. I’m interested to lisen to the voice of Jesus recorded in the Books.
Hi Matthew.
You addressed this to Larry, so forgive me once again for taking the liberty of responding. The idea of establishing a matter by two or three witnesses applies to a court of law, so you took that out of context. Jesus didn’t leave any writings behind (unlike most Jewish leaders who preceded him, including Moses and the prophets) and he also talked an awful lot about himself (also unlike Moses and the prophets). Can you imagine Moses or Isaiah commanding the people to “believe in me” or do something “for my sake”?
I’m sorry to repeat myself, but the verse you keep pointing to that says we have to listen to the prophet absolutely does not refer to the Messiah. You are reading your theology into the text.
You wrote: “I’m interested to listen to the voice of Jesus recorded in the Books.” How about the voice of God? God’s voice is curiously absent in the gospels. We don’t see Jesus saying “the Lord said to me” or “God said” or “so saith the Lord.” Something to consider, no?
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’”
[Matthew 3:16-17]
”a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!’” [Matthew 17:5]
An unidentified voice, twice in all of Christian scripture. Jesus never says “God said to me,” nor does the scripture relate that “God said” anything.
Even if you want to say that the voice has to be God’s, the mere paucity of His voice in your scripture should trouble you.
MAtthew
“You will notice in the text of the 4 Gospels that the authors go way out of their way not to talk about themselves.”
“I have not found anything in the text of the 4 Gospels to indicate that the Gospel writers did not write the Books that bear their names, ”
…………….That is because they did not talk about themselves.
“or that there is really any relevance in considering that”
…………… somehow I bet mormons / Islamers say the same thing. They got their book and are happy with that.
“It seems like a non-issue to me”
…………..thats because You have a particular mind set. You know, don’t confuse me with facts kind of thing. From what you say here when quoting from the torah, you have not learned the meaning of the text from the very people charged with teaching it. Being a light unto the nations was a little more than lighting the menorah and putting it in the window. I would say trust that you were drawn to this web site to get a different point of view of your belief and then thats the free will decision you have to make.
Dina
What courage, I still havent told my mom.
That is really tough, Larry. I don’t blame you.
LarryB
Generally speaking, the recipe for a cult is,
One book, written by one man, who is “above the law” and can never be questioned because he claims God spoke to him, so he MAKES the law.
Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.
Muhammad wrote the Koran.
Paul the Pharisee wrote some letters.
You don’t seem too familiar with the 4 Gospels- most people are not. But the issue of who wrote them is like a walk in the park compared to the question of who wrote the Torah. Do you think Moses was in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve? I don’t question the “authorship” of Moses, although I think we need to use the term a bit loosely in this case.
Dina,
No offense, but you don’t know the Gospels very well.
The words of Jesus speaking:
“God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.” [Luke 11:49]
Jesus said:
“’Father, glorify your name!’
Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.’” [John 12:28]
Jesus said:
“The Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.” [John 5:37]
“A voice came from the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.’” [Luke 9:35]
Okay, Matthew, I stand corrected. You found four instances of God’s voice (sort of) in the gospels. That’s still a remarkable paucity that should trouble you. Why is God so quiet, so absent, from your scripture?
LarryB
So you agree that neither Jesus, nor Peter nor John nor any of the Original 12 Apostles ever recognized Paul as an apostle in any way? And there are only 12 Apostles, with the 12th being Matthias, therefore Paul was not an apostle?
i agree
I guess we disagree with how much of the NT Paul wrote. Lets say your right, he only wrote 1/3 of the NT, if I were to agree with you on how wrong Paul is, thats plenty enough reason for me to reject the whole thing. You say Torah Torah Torah, well the torah tells us who the messiah is. It aint jesus. You would claim differently but I would no more listen to a Rabbi to explaign the NT to me any more than I would listen to an evangelist minister tell me what the Torah teaches. i apologise for saying anything to you, I got hurt on the job last week and I get a little chatty when taking pain medication.
Hi LarryB
Here are the composition percentages of the New Testament by author
By chapter count:
The Apostle Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 52
The Apostle John 50
Paul the Pharisee 87
Anonymous author of Hebrews 13
James half brother of Jesus (Jacob) 5
The Apostle Peter 8
Jude half brother of Jesus 1
Total chapters of the New Testament, 260
87 / 260 = 33.46% written by Paul the Pharisee
Anyone with a Bible can easily verify these figures.
Two notes:
.1) The author of Hebrews chose to remain anonymous, and no knows, or can know for sure, who wrote this book. There is no proof that Paul wrote it, but on the contrary there is evidence that Paul did NOT write it. In all Paul’s letters, Paul very publicly took credit. So if someone tells you “Paul wrote Hebrews”, you will know that they are, at best, ignorant, deceived, misinformed, and relying on the incorrect opinions of other men, rather than taking the time to look at the text of Hebrews and think for themselves.
.2) Luke wrote the Book of Acts, not Paul. It is a narrative. Yes, a lot of the book is “about Paul.” The Bible also contains a lot of chapters of narrative about other sinful characters, like Samson, King Saul, King Solomon, Jonah…
I would agree that “The Torah” could be considered a “whole thing,” the 5 Books of Moses being given to us by God as “One Book”, The Book of the Law.
However, neither the New Testament nor The Bible, nor even “The Tanakh,” was given to us by God as “One Book” or a “whole thing.” They were given as collections of writings, with an order of priority and authority. Would you agree?
You seem to have your own set of facts, so who wrote the torah?
LarryB
Anyone with a Bible can check these facts- they are not my own. I just took a little trouble to examine the text of the Bible, and you have not disagreed. I don’t claim to know everything, I’m sure there are some points where I can learn from you as well.
Moses wrote the Torah – but I don’t mean that with mindset of an American lawyer. I am sure Moses must have used some sources, and where it’s written that “Moses was the most humble man on the earth” I think this was probably inserted by someone else. But these details really do not matter. Would you agree?
I should not try and correct you, your the educated one and trust me, Im the bottom feed around here. The last one you should talk to about such things. One of the problems i have with the NT is many of the authors are unknown or, Like with John, it’s thought many authors wrote it. Since it was written so many years later, its nothing more than an “oral gosple” to me. Nothing done at the time. not trust worthy, or just flat out wrong like as you said Paul was. Do you think the book of the Law is no longer valid? The one book you say god gave us?
LarryB
The whole idea of a “New Testament”, which replaces the “Old Testament” was started by the Second Century heretic Marcion. Here is a link. (This website has a huge amount of other detailed articles to expose Paul worship, most of which I have not had time to read, because I already get the big idea. But I would recommend starting with this one. )
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html
I would not exactly say that God didn’t give us other books in the Bible. But the big picture is, it’s a collection of books, just as the Tanakh is, not all “one book.” Yes, Torah is the most important part of “the Tanakh.” This has been generally accepted by many, maybe most Jews, for millennia, including Jesus.
Likewise, I see the 4 Gospels as the most important part of the “New Testament”, and this happens to exactly be the Orthodox view (as in Eastern Orthodox Christian.) So it isn’t some new idea started by me.
When Solomon wrote “everything is meaningless” and “there is nothing new under the sun” these are not the commandments or teaching or truth of God. They are just Solomon’s sinful feelings based on his own sinful experience. A lot of Paul’s writings are like that. Paul was frequently wrong.
I would say Jesus is the Torah made flesh. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Not everything is fulfilled yet. Certainly the basic moral law has not changed. But Jesus fulfilled the need for an atoning sacrifice, so we don’t need to kill animals in the temple in Jerusalem any more. We can look to Jesus our Messiah, and come into right relationship with Yahweh through His Son Yahshua.
Matthew
The problem I have with your version of religion, i admit i truly do not know what your beliefs are, but it seems to continue to point back to Jesus. I do not believe he is the messiah, or god made flesh. I do not believe I need someone to die for my sins, the very thought makes me sick. Strangely you think its love. You already know all the verses real scripture, Torah, teaches against what you believe, you simply choose to ignore or believe what you desire.
LarryB, Wouldn’t the view of all the animals slaughtered and offered for atonement at that time in the OT make you sick too?? That would make me sicker than, knowing about Jesus who chose to give his life for my redemption to everlasting life, and to save me from God’s wrath.
Eric, I have a bad habit of jumping in and answering questions that are not addressed to me. Please forgive! Not all animal sacrifices were for atonement. Some were for thanksgiving, some were for holidays. And in most cases (except for a particular sacrifice called an olah), the priests and the people ate the sacrifices. Roast meat, yum!
Throughout human history down to our own times animals were slaughtered for human consumption. Do you find that sickening?
(Instead of bringing your hens to the butcher you bring them to the priest.)
Dina,Still, anyways, any animal slaughter would make me sick if I had to repeat it all the time year after year, even if they were for my consumption. Why didn’t God tell you to bring veggies if it was just a food-party? I am just saying that there is no reason to be soooo ‘sick’ about Jesus because he once paid for us with his life.
LarryB,
The passages I’ve been quoting from Torah and the Prophets DO seem to be pointing to Jesus. You agree that these writings point to a coming Jewish Messiah. Can you give any specifics why you think it couldn’t be Jesus? I appreciate your honesty to say bluntly, “I do not believe he is the messiah, or god made flesh.”
You know the command following the Shema to “talk about them” [Deuteronomy 6:1-7] For a Jew,what could be more important to discuss than “who is the Jewish Messiah”? If it’s not Jesus, than certainly you as a Jew should be able to open the Torah and the Prophets and show me why not. Wouldn’t you agree?
Matthew, I hope you don’t mind my responding although you addressed this to Larry. You did not quote Deuteronomy accurately but twisted it for rhetorical effect. Deuteronomy clearly identifies the pronoun “them”: “And these matters that I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children and you shall speak of them etc.” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).
“Them” refers to “these matters that I command you today.” That’s obvious, isn’t it? God commands us to teach and talk about His commandments. Nowhere in Hebrew scripture does God command us to speculate on the person of the Messiah. Who should Larry listen to, Matthew or God?
The person of the Messiah is central to Christianity but irrelevant to Judaism. So your question “For a Jew,what could be more important to discuss than ‘who is the Jewish Messiah’?” is irrelevant. As a Jew, I find it a strange question.
What passages do you see in our Scripture that points to Jesus? I must have missed that.
Dina,
You wrote, QUOTE:
“The person of the Messiah is central to Christianity but irrelevant to Judaism.”
Really?
What do you do with this command in the Torah given by Moses:
“The LORD Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. YOU MUST LISTEN TO HIM.” [Deuteronomy 18:15]
Are you listening?
Yes, really, Matthew.
Have you looked at Deuteronomy 34:10: Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses?
So how do you resolve that?
Besides, what in the verse you quoted proves it’s talking about Jesus? The prophets Samuel, Isaiah and the rest fit the bill nicely.
Isaiah 43:10: You are My witnesses, the word of the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen.
God’s chosen witnesses have been testifying to His truth for over 3,000 years. Are you listening? Are you listening to the testimony of God’s witnesses?
Dina
I don’t see what there is to “resolve” about Deuteronomy 34:10:
“Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses.”
This is written in the Torah, many hundreds of years before Yahshua the Messiah came. So of course He had not already arisen when Deuteronomy was written.
In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses speaks of “a prophet” and “him”. Not “prophets” and “them”. I hope you can enlighten this Gentile Goi. Isn’t this passage almost universally recognized among Jews as a clear reference to The Messiah?
When the Torah speaks of a single prophet the word for prophet is applied with the definite article (and, occasionally, with an additional preposition or conjunction), such as, ביאִנָּהַ (ha’naVI), the prophet, ביאִנָּהַוְ
(veha’naVI), and the prophet, ביאִנָּלַ (la’naVI), to the prophet, etc., it always refers to a specific individual. In contrast, whenever the term is applied without a definite article (and, occasionally, with an additional preposition or conjunction), such as נביא (a prophet) or ונביא (and a prophet) or even לנביא (to a prophet) unless connected explicitly with a name or somehow identified elsewhere in nearby text – it is used in a generic sense. Without the clear distinctions I’ve given the way the Hebrew is understood (as in Deuteronomy 18) it is speaking not of ONE SPECIFIC PROPHET but rather of the office of “prophet.” You can even see this in Deuteronomy 13:2 which speaks of false prophets.
Take a look at the wording in Deuteronomy 18:18 which says “and I (G-d) will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.” Now read Isaiah 59:21 which says “”My words which I have placed in your mouth; shall not depart from your mouth and from the mouth of your offspring. . .” No check out Jeremiah 1:9 “I have put My words in your mouth”
Deuteronomy 18:9-22 speaks of the prophets (plural) who came after Moses. Jesus was not a prophet (well, maybe a false one) as none of his so-called prophecies came to pass. http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Deut18.pdf
Sophiee,What about listening to these ‘plural’ prophets; Zechariah was stoned in the porch of the Temple by order of King Joash, because the Prophet had denounced the people for their unfaithfulness (2 Chrn 24:20-22)
Jeremiah wasn’t appreciated for the message he was sharing to the people.
Unnumbered unnamed prophets of the Lord were put to death by Jezebel, in the time of Elijah (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 19:14). She wanted to wipe out the worship of the Lord, and replace it with the worship of Baal.
No wonder that Jesus won’t be appreciated even for being the servant of God.
Eric, the people who were doing the killing and/or rejecting were wicked, not righteous. Ultimately, all of Israel accepted the books of these prophets into the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Obviously, there was a remnant, a righteous remnant, that was listening to the prophet (for example, with Jeremiah there were clearly two factions, one that persecuted him and one that was loyal to him).
The people who ultimately accepted all these prophets rejected Jesus. Why trust God’s witnesses on the one and not the other?
Dina, who says to trust only on one or the other ( prophet)? If they all are sent by God for a purpose you listen to them all.
Okay, fine, Eric, one more thing (I can’t resist, after all). I must not have been clear. I was talking about the nation of Israel as a witness testifying about the credibility of the prophets. The nation of Israel held the prophets of the Hebrew Bible to be true prophets and included them in the canon. This very same nation rejected Jesus. It doesn’t make sense to trust the nation of Israel on their testimony in the one case (the Hebrew prophets) and reject it in the other case (Jesus). Either the nation of Israel is a reliable witness, or it isn’t.
I hope that helps,
Dina
Hi Sophiee,
Thank you for your scholarly response- I don’t know much Hebrew.
I agree with you that in a general overall sense, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 speaks of the prophets (plural) who came after Moses.
However, I am left wondering about the use of the word “prophet” (and surrounding grammar, singular vs. plural, generic, etc.) in the specific verses Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 & 19. Those were the specific verses I was bringing up, but you didn’t directly address them.
I’m not insisting that these verses could not ALSO have a larger meaning of “prophets.” Yet I find it hard to believe that “prophet” absolutely cannot mean “prophet” but it HAS to mean “prophets.”
Do you believe in the coming Jewish Messiah? (For the moment, lets leave aside if you believe that is Jesus.) And if so, do you believe that Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 & 19 COULD be pointing to Him, at least in part?
Eric
I agree with Dina. Since they ate the sacrifice, A barbecue sounds better than a hanging.
LarryB, but if somebody is a vegetarian he will have a hard time because in he next temple you will have to continue dealing with slaughter before you eat your burger. Maybe you will have to fix it yourself. I don’t mind barbeque if I can buy meat already butchered.
Matt
You wrote “But, in contrast, Paul didn’t know the greatest, most important, first commandment according to Jesus. Paul made up his own rule.” Then you say “You haven’t addressed the texts I put forth for comparison at all.” My question to you why would I? Then you end your rant comparing the Beatles to Paul, and that they were both wrong. Now you say that I “imply that either every word Paul ever said and wrote, and everything Paul ever did was 100% perfect, or else I “reject him.” Well, why wouldn’t you? He rejects the most important first commandment Jesus taught and he probably would have liked the Beatles. And since they were both wrong………Now, in your second rant you say ” no one besides Jesus and Paul ever held himself up as a singular example and said, “follow me” or “imitate me” or “follow my example” or even “Follow Me as I Follow Christ.” Jesus is right, Paul was wrong.” Again, why wouldn’t you reject him? Lastly, you ask for specifics. “What were Paul’s flaws?” I’m so confused I’m taking a cold shower now.
LarryB
So we agree that Paul “rejects the most important first commandment Jesus taught.”
Yes, this has been my main point. I’m glad we agree.
Torah ! Torah ! Torah !
“It is written” is one of Satan’s favorite phrases.
He loves to quote “religious writings”, including the Bible, and many others such as the Koran and Book of Mormon.
Saying “it must be true because It is Written” is like saying it must be true because it’s on TV. Or it must be true because Wikipedia said so- nothing against them, but “every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
In the account of the Temptation of Jesus [Matthew 4:1-11 & Luke 4:1-13]
Satan says; “it is written” and quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Is that really part of the Bible? Yes. It is part of the third, least authoritative category, the Kethubim (Writings or Scripture). Satan didn’t quote the Torah (the Instruction, Teaching, or Law of Moses) or the Nabi’im (The Prophets). Satan quoted the “Scripture” and said; “it is written.”
http://rediscoveringthebible.com/IntroTheProphets.html
Most of us know that when Satan tempted Jesus 3 times, Jesus responded 3 times with “It is written.” But we never stop to ask the basic questions of an “investigative reporter” like Sid Roth used to do, before he hit the “Big Time.” (That marvelous song and video of my youth by Peter Gabriel just came to mind… sorry, where was I?) Oh yes…
Who, What, Where, When, Why, How?
We just say; “Jesus quoted the Bible.” And we stop thinking.
But what specifically did Jesus quote in the Bible? Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians? No, it wasn’t written yet. Proverbs? No. Another part of Psalms, or other Scripture? No.
“Deuteronomy” literally means “second law.” It is the 5th Book of the Torah.
Question: So what specifically did Jesus quote when he said; “it is written”?
Answer: Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 6:16, Deuteronomy 6:13
In other words…
Torah ! Torah ! Torah !
LarryB. I put my comment in a wrong order. It is supposed to be after Matthew, as it included some of his answer that was also in his comment. I hope you will figure it out.
How do you tempt a god? The whole “Satan tempted Jesus” thing never made sense to me! And BTW, the Hebrew word “satan” simply means adversary. There are human and angelic adversaries in the Jewish bible — but no devils. There is only one G-d and no demi-gods like the devil!
Matthew,
I would like to take up the following points, if you will permit me:
1. Whether or not the testimony of Jesus is the ultimate source of truth, backed up by the Torah and the Prophets; and
2. Whether or not the Gospels are trustworthy.
Regarding the first point, the statement itself betrays that it is untenable. If Jesus’ testimony is the ultimate source of truth, it needs nothing to back it up. Rather, the Torah and the Prophets should have to rely upon Jesus’ testimony. Obviously this is untenable, however, since the only way to know if Jesus is a true prophet or the Messiah is to test his words in their light. For example, if he countermanded the laws of theft, we would immediately know that he was not a true prophet, because his words did not adhere to Torah. We would, in fact, recognize him as an evil or disturbed person. This is made clear by the Christian refrain that Jesus taught that not one jot or tittle should be done away with. If he were the ultimate authority, he could do away with those. Therefore, the Torah and Prophets have greater authority than Jesus.
Moreover, because Jesus doesn’t seem to really understand the Torah, we can say that he is not backed up by them. In fact, his teachings sometimes contradict Torah, showing that he could not be the ultimate source of truth. For example, he makes “eye for an eye” to be about revenge. But if you read the Torah, you will find that the phrase is used in regard to compensatory damages. The Torah is not issuing permit to take one man’s eye for the eye he destroyed in another. It is speaking about the valuation of the eye. Review Exodus 21.12-37. In this regard Jesus is either an ignoramus or is purposefully misrepresenting the law. Either way, he is proven be out of sync with the Torah that is supposed to be pointing to him.
One further note: you omit the Writings, seeing them as not authoritative. But the Gospels, which you do find authoritative appeal to the Writings on multiple occasions, particularly the Psalms. Note for example that the Gospels have Jesus proving from the Psalms that the Messiah must be greater than David–“The Lord said to my lord”. Likewise, Matthew tells us that the parables Jesus spoke were to fulfill “what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world”. This is actually from a psalm, however, 78.2. So the gospels rely on the Writings, or at least the Psalms.
This does lead into the second question, which is whether or not the Gospels are authoritative. I applaud you for rejecting Paul, although labeling him a Pharisee is an insult to our Pharisee friend. However, accepting the Gospels is equally perilous. I have already shown that Jesus did not understand the Torah–or he purposefully represented it. His scribes are equally guilty of this, particularly Matthew.
Let’s examine for a moment Psalm 78.2, to which I made reference two paragraphs ago. Notice how Matthew has misrepresented it. The Psalmist, Asaph, is not writing a prophecy regarding the Messiah speaking in parables. He is speaking of himself. This is the teaching he is giving over, and he says that these things were traditions passed on from their parents and which they will share with their children. Note verse 5: “For He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children…”. In no way does this have to do with the parables of the Messiah. In fact, as he goes on, the lessons Asaph teaches us are those of Israel’s history. Matthew has wrenched the verse out of context and misapplied it where it had no application.
This is Matthew’s way, of course, as has been commented on many times. The first two chapters are a travesty, the way he alters the words of Isaiah, and removes from their context the words of not only Isaiah, but Jeremiah and Hosea. He mutilates the works of the Holy Prophets. Nothing is sacred to him, if he thinks by employing it, he can prove Jesus fulfilled something. He casts about desperately, seeking anything close at hand.
This being the case, Matthew is not an authority. He is not trustworthy. As I said of Jesus a short time ago, he is either an ignoramus or an evil man. I will leave it to you to decide which.
Mark and Luke were not witnesses as you already admitted. At best theirs is second-hand testimony. They certainly don’t carry the words of Jesus as they heard them. Their testimony, then, is totally irrelevant. In this, I should also add that Matthew is not witness to much of his book, as well. He did not see Jesus born, was not privy to the messages from the angel to Mary, the flight to Egypt, Jesus’ baptism or temptation, or Jesus’ crucifixion, for that matter. He reports matters of which he had no first-hand knowledge. None of these men is the authority you proclaim them to be.
Now, I suppose you might be left with John. He doesn’t quote the Tanach the way that Matthew does, making his honesty a little harder to test. He does quote a psalm and apply it to Jesus. (Another psalm for the Gospels to establish Jesus!) Jesus is betrayed according to himself in John “that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me'” (John 13.18). This comes from Psalm 41, written by David, and there is no reason to see it as a prophecy at all. David is writing about his own troubles. But if Jesus wants to apply verse 9 to himself, then he must also apply verse four where David asks for mercy “for I have sinned against you.” Now if you are going to hold that Jesus is sinless, you will be in a huge quandary. If John is a good witness, then you have no cause to worship Jesus, nor to ask us to. Or John misapplied this prophecy, casting about in the same dishonest way that Matthew does. Either way, I have no reason to worship Jesus, nor to accept the Gospels as reliable.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I appreciate your writing.
Regarding your first point, QUOTE:
“1. Whether or not the testimony of Jesus is the ultimate source of truth, backed up by the Torah and the Prophets;”
I believe that the Torah is consistent with the principle that “every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses,” and therefore “a man’s testimony about himself is not valid.” I think this reflects the character of God, and also it should be reflected in terms of books of Scripture- not “One Book”, called by either of the man-made words “Tanach” or “Bible.”
If someone comes along and says “follow me because God spoke to me and I said so…. I don’t need anyone to back me up”, that is the sign of a false cult religion. Jesus did not do that.
It is not true that I “omit the Writings, seeing them as not authoritative.” I don’t omit them. But like true Torah-observant Jews for millennia, I see them as LESS authoritative than The Law and The Prophets.
The Psalms are a bit of a special case, and I see them the way that Jesus did – parts of them are really Prophecy. Jesus spoke many times about The Law, or The Law and the Prophets, and He also made a few references to the Psalms, and this reflects the general priority level, I believe. See Luke 24:44. Jesus did not have the mindset of an American Lawyer (nothing against lawyers – don’t sue me.) 😉
I believe that Jesus, His life and His teachings, were consistent with The Torah and the Prophets. (Unlike Paul.) Jesus was the embodiment of the Torah, the Jewish Messiah, I believe. He did not contradict the 10 commandments; rather He summarized the first 4 with the commandment of Love God, and the next 6 with the commandment to love People.
Jim
About the Psalms,
Are they not always listed first on the list (followed by Proverbs) in the Kethuvim (Writings) category of the Hebrew Scriptures? I submit to you that this indicates a sense of priority for the Psalms among other “Writings” in the thinking of the Scribes and Rabbis who put together “The Tanach”…. would you agree?
I have seen a number of “New Testaments” come out over the years that leave out the “Old Testament” – mostly. Yet in every case I can think of, they do include Psalms and Proverbs. So even among Gentiles, who don’t know the OT was given in 3 categories of Torah, Prophets, & Writings, and that Psalms is top priority among Writings followed by Proverbs, there is a subconscious sense of the importance, value, and priority of Psalms compared to other Writings.
Matthew,
Are you really appealing to the ignorant “who don’t know the OT was given in three categories” and who include among their NT’s the writing of Paul? Surely you can see they have no authority.
However, this argument is with yourself. I was only pointing out the holes in your position. I was not asserting that the Psalms are of no or little authority. It was you who wrote dismissively of the Writings, while missing that they are quoted frequently in the Gospels, appealing to the very authority you deny. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if I think the Psalms have primacy over the other books or not. I will leave that for you to puzzle out.
I should point out, however, that if we are to accept them as prophecy with authority, they will undo your thought that the Gospels are authoritative, due to the abuse the Gospels heap upon them.
Jim
Jim,
I don’t know everything and even when I am mostly right, I don’t communicate everything perfectly. I want to be right – not try to prove that I WAS right, when maybe I wasn’t 100% right. I want to learn, which means growing in understanding – which means change sometimes.
The Tanach and The Bible both contain the written word of God, (which does not change), but they also contain a lot of words of men, and men’s opinions, sinful feelings and experience. To think of these Scriptures as “One Book” which is all equally “the Words of God” is not correct.
I think you are exaggerating to write that I “wrote dismissively of the Writings, while missing that they are quoted frequently in the Gospels.” I don’t dismiss the Writings, but I put them were they belong, on the third, lowest level of priority, just as any true “Torah observant Jew” would do. I do not miss that Jesus sometimes quoted the Psalms, but not nearly as frequently as He referred to The Law and The Prophets.
It seems fairly obvious that of all the books in the Hebrew “Writings” category, Psalms stands out above all others in the minds of both Jews and Gentiles who are familiar with the Scriptures.
All Scripture is not equal or equally authoritative. No author of Scripture ever said it was. Jesus never said that. (Paul the Pharisee wrote “All Scripture is God-breathed”, but he didn’t know what he was talking about.) Would you agree?
Matthew,
I would hate for you to get bogged down in what was a minor point indicating an inconsistency in your argument. I do not deny that the Ketuvim do not have the same authority as Torah, although I do not find them full of “sinful feelings”. Nor do I treat the Tanach as one book. I was only showing the flaw in your reasoning. But all of this is beside the point.
In fact you are neglecting the greater part of the argument, which is that the Gospels are of no actual value at all. They do not share in even that “lesser authority” of the Ketuvim. Nor is Jesus the ultimate source of truth. I don’t much care what Paul wrote, because his books do not conform to the truth, just as the Gospels don’t.
Jim
Jim,
I see you are a reasonable man, and that we basically agree right down the line, except for about Jesus and the Gospels.
We agree that:
.1) The Torah is more authoritative than the Ketuvim.
.2) The Psalms are not FULL of sinful feelings – (but there are a few places where sinful feelings are expressed, such as Psalm 137: 8-9 – this is not the teaching or promise or commandment of God.)
.3) We should NOT “treat the Tanach as one book.”
.4) Paul’s letters “do not conform to the truth.”
I will prayerfully consider how to answer you second major point- namely,
“Whether or not the Gospels are trustworthy.”
Sincerely,
Matthew
Eric,
I am sorry the thought of animals dying is more sickening to you than a human being. This, however, is not the value of the Torah. I refer you to Genesis 9. There it is made clear that human life is of a higher value that animal life.
Jim
Jim,That is understandable why you weren’t told to offer people but a bull or a goat.
Jim,
I’m still thinking through Matthew chapter 5, and I’ll respond soon. In the meantime,
I submit to you that God sometimes uses double meanings, puns, figures of speech, inside jokes, word pictures, parables, and, to be more theological, “multiple fulfillments of Prophecy.” Why? I think because it’s fun, and He enjoys it, just as we do. It also causes people to really seek Him and His ways and thoughts more, so we know him and understand Him at a deeper level.
For example, if I say; “That Jewish talk show host used to describe himself as an “investigative reporter” and talk about “thinking for yourself” – before he hit the “Big Time”, as Peter Gabriel might say…” Most people would have no idea what I am talking about. Some might get it on a basic level, which is true. But others might REALLY “get it.”
If I say’ “We should be “Brave” as Nichole Nordeman would say…”
Most people would agree that being “brave” is a good thing. But if you were not familiar with the lyrics to her song, you would not really understand at a deep level.
This morning I ate “Force Primeval Bars” from Trader Joe’s. I’m not positive, but this appears to be a humorous reference to an unusual comment made by Bugs Bunny in one of his cartoons that I remember from my childhood. In what I now believe was a stereotypical Brooklyn Jewish accent, Bugs Bunny spoke of “The Forest Primeval.” My guess is that whoever came up with the name for these baked goods was inspired by Bugs Bunny, and they would be pleased if someone “got the inside joke.”
Matthew
Matthew, that’s a very convenient argument for someone who wants God’s words to mean whatever fits his theology.
God is neither coy nor mysterious when it comes to His expectations of us. He tells us exactly Whom to worship, in such clear language as to leave no doubt about His meaning.
I’m not responding on Jim’s behalf and I look forward to what he has to say. I just couldn’t resist jumping in. Very bad habit of mine.
Dina,
Since you mention “God’s words” we really should have a common understanding of what are God’s words and what are not. Speaking about the Hebrew Scriptures only, would you agree that “God’s words” are The Torah and The Prophets, (with parts of the Psalms included as Prophecy)? Or do you think that “God’s words” are “The Tanach and the Talmud and/or other Rabbinic Tradition”?
Matthew
Matthew, we do not have a common ground here. God’s words comprise all of Tanach, as all of it was written with Divine inspiration. I also accept that the Torah was transmitted along with an oral explication, much of which is recorded in the Talmud.
Your understanding of how the Jews perceive the different levels of divine inspiration in the three sections of our Scripture is seriously flawed.
So we don’t have a common ground. Nevertheless, if you would like to limit our discussion to the Pentateuch and the Prophets, I’m game.
Dina,
You said, QUOTE:
“God’s words comprise all of Tanach, as all of it was written with Divine inspiration.” That agrees with the teaching of Paul the Pharisee, “All Scripture is God-breathed.”
However, besides Paul, I am not aware of any other author of Scripture, either in the “Tanach” or the “New Testament”, who said such a thing. Jesus certainly never said anything like that. Jesus spoke specifically of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” [Luke 24:44]
Could you enlighten me please, as to why you believe this, and if you have a Scriptural basis from the pages of the Tanach itself?
Blessings,
Matthew
Hi Matthew.
A long time ago, my ancestors stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard God speak. The foundation of the written word is the national testimony of Israel. Rabbi Blumenthal explains this idea in “Faith Structure.” You can read it here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/faith-structure/
The word “Torah” as used in the Five Books refers to a body of law, not to a book. You can find a comprehensive explanation of this idea by Rabbi Blumenthal here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/deuteronomy-334-oral-law/
I hope you don’t mind my sending you to other articles on this blog, but it saves a lot of time and space.
Anyway, even if you disagree, this might help clarify to you the common terms we use and why we use them.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
What I’m hearing you say is that:
There are no specific Scripture verses in the Tanach itself that you would use to make the claim that ““God’s words comprise all of Tanach, as all of it was written with Divine inspiration.”
Rather, you would make that claim based on the writings of another Rabbi who came later, namely Rabbi Blumenthal. (“Bible-believing” Evangelical Christians would use the same logic, except with a different Rabbi – they would listen to Rabbi Paul the Pharisee.)
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but have I understood you correctly?
Shalom,
Matthew
Nope, not even close, Matthew. So here’s a challenge: Read the articles I posted links to and see if you can poke holes in the logic.
May we draw ever closer to God in our humble quest for His truth.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
I appreciate you sharing some of your traditions with me. But this particular suggestion seems like all hole, and no logic. I understand that you are holding up the writings of “Rabbi Blumenthal” (which we both agree were NOT “written with Divine inspiration”) as the standard to define and analyze the writings that you say WERE “written with Divine inspiration”, namely the entire Tanach and the Talmud.
I don’t see the logic in that. Rather, it seems to me that we should look at the divinely inspired writings first, as the standard to evaluate all other writings.
You wrote to me, QUOTE:
“Your understanding of how the Jews perceive the different levels of divine inspiration in the three sections of our Scripture is seriously flawed.”
Well, I’m trying to understand more, but now you are bringing up the Talmud – so is that the fourth section of Scripture? And what about all the Jews who lived before “Rabbi Blumenthal” was born? Maybe it’s hard for you to answer the question “what is God’s written word”, because it’s a constantly moving target. That is very dangerous, because the line between the Words of God and the words of men becomes hazy and blurred.
The Prophet Isaiah warned us about this kind of situation:
“Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.” [Isaiah 29:13]
peace,
Matthew
Hi Matthew.
You wrote: “That is very dangerous, because the line between the Words of God and the words of men becomes hazy and blurred.”
Using your standard, quoting only from the Law, the Prophets, and/or the Psalms, show me where the following is taught:
1. One must place his faith in the Messiah in order to attain eternal salvation (Psalms 146:3).
2. Turning away from evil and instead turning to God in prayer and repentance are not enough to atone for sin (Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33).
3. At the end of days, rather than the gentiles approaching the Jews to learn from them the truth about God, the Jews will come to the gentiles to learn from them the truth about Jesus (Isaiah 25:1-8; Isaiah 60:1-3; Zechariah 8:23).
I wish you well,
Dina
Hi Matthew.
One more thing. You seem to be laboring under the impression that I hold up the work of Rabbi Blumenthal to be authoritative. I simply linked to his articles to save me the time of writing what already has been written. Since this is Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog, I sent you to his articles. In fact, since we are guests on his blog, I do think it’s only polite to pause for a moment to listen to what he has to say.
In the particular articles that I posted, Rabbi B. explains the way Jews understand these matters and he cites Scriptural support for it. Do you want to understand our perspective? Or at least hear it? Then I suggest again that you read those links. After you read them, you might at least understand where we are coming from, even if you ultimately disagree. It would also be interesting and perhaps clarifying to see you present what you find to be the faulty reasoning.
So what do you say, Matthew?
Best wishes,
Dina
Dina, just jumping in , I am also curious what about those born long before torah , long before Moses, how reliable was their witness, no huge crowd hearing word of God but individuals, this is what is so much brought against Christians, that the witness of minority doesn’t count, like who witnessed the angel talking to Mary about the magnificent role her child would be playing, was not less reliable than the visit of 3 man and Abraham. Just giving tiny example.
Eric, that’s a fair question. The answer is that the foundation of the Jewish faith does not rest on these examples, nor do we use these examples to prove the truth of our claim. Our claim rests on national revelation, a claim no other religion has ever made, a claim that the Bible predicts no other religion will ever make (Deuteronomy 4:32-35). Verse 35 in this passages tells us that God specifically did this to prove Himself to us:
“You have been SHOWN IN ORDER TO KNOW that the Lord, He is God! There is none beside Him!”
The tremendous miracles that accompanied the Exodus were not enough. God had to reveal Himself personally to the entire nation (some three million people), not just to a handful of folks who were already devoted to Him. It’s a pretty strong claim of credibility.
Eric, to continue, since God established Moses’s credibility in front of the whole nation by talking to him in front of us (again, the miracles Moses performed were not enough), and since Moses transmitted to us the Five Books, we believe everything that’s in it, including individual revelations. Does that make sense?
Dina, It all makes sense, I am not doubting Moses and God;s revelation to your nation. The thing is you are locking yourselves up in the past not allowing God to speak to you since your descendants. God still speaks through the one He sent. Lots of Jewish people recognized Jesus as their Messiah and they are these are light to the world. Jesus said , if you claim you listen to God , you would also listen to his words. John 8;47 -59, John 6;45 . John 5 30-47.
His words are not to take you away from God but to lead you to God.
Eric, when the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, it spread quickly through the Roman empire. Jews who converted to Christianity had very little, if anything, to do with it.
It does not make sense to say that the fact that Christians attracted a few Jews and converted them means that those Jews are a light to the gentiles. It would make more sense for you to say that the Christians are a light to the those Jews. (Besides, what would make these Jews different from any other converts to Christianity?)
Let me tell you what happens to Jews who convert to Christianity. Within a few generations their descendants completely lose their Jewish identity through assimilation and intermarriage. Tell me, where are the Jewish descendants of Pablo Cristiani, Nicholas Donan, Heinrich Heine, Karl Marx, and so on? (Not sure if these guys even had children.) Where, in fact, are the Jewish descendants of the early Christians, who were all Jewish?
Converts to Christianity, a light to the gentiles? I don’t think so.
It should trouble you that God does not preserve the Jewishness of those who convert to other religions, that the only Jews who have survived persecution and enormous pressure to convert are the Pharisees. Did you know that every Jew today (with the exception of converts) are descendants of the hated Pharisees? Every schismatic group throughout history has assimilated itself into oblivion. We see this happening, for example, with Reform and Conservative Jews whose birthrate is lower than the general population and who assimilate at a rate of 50% (compared with Orthodox Jews whose birthrate is four times higher than the general population and who have a 3% assimilation rate).
I’m curious about what it means to you that at the end of days the gentiles will come to the Jews to learn the truth about God rather than that the Jews will come to the gentiles to learn the truth about Jesus (Isaiah 25:1-8; Isaiah 60:1-3; Zechariah 8:23).
Also curious about what it means to you that Moses tells the Children of Israel that they will be punished for their sins, but ultimately they will return to God and to obedience to His commandments, and that God will then gather them from the ends of the world and bring them back to the Land. It would have been simpler, don’t you think, for Moses to say something like, “You will sin, but God will send his son to redeem you from your sins.” See Deuteronomy Chapter 30 for Moses’s stirring speech to the nation of Israel.
Dina,
-It didn’t start with Christians converting a few Jews. It started with Jewish people to follow Christ’ teaching that was from God.Jesus first came to Jewish people being himself Jewish and they were the first followers before anybody else. That is what we call the light of the world because the message of salvation came from them first. I would say everybody who listens and obeys God is the light to the world. Forget about the titles or names; there are Christians who don’t follow God and there are Jews who don’t care about God. That is why I don’t put everybody into the same ‘box’. By the way you mentioned suffering of your people by Christians. I already said that before; that followers of Jesus are not killers. And numbers of people all over the world are suffering every day not because of NT but because of people who don’t know God.
-Where are the Jewish descendants of Karl Max? Does this question point to anything? What if he didn’t call himself a Christian but still Jewish and completely ignoring God? What that matter where are his descendants?
– I tell you what happens to Jewish people who became Christians. I will skip the names you listed and mention about the good side you might not heard, as the hatred toward Christians doesn’t let any bright light at all. . They are helping their own people as much as they can , doing fund rising for all the old holocaust survivors that live in Israel without any help and serve food every day. Somehow the example of Jesus’ teaching to feed the poor didn’t mess their brains up.
-You said ;”Converts to Christianity, a light to the gentiles? I would say it differently; those who obey God’s word and listen to what He says , that is including also through His son Jesus.
-I don’;t consider Jewish people who believe in Jesus being their Messiah- converters to the other religion, as Jesus’ testimony is from God. You might call it ‘the other religion ‘whatever you want to. I care what God says about listening to His son. ( which is unreliable testimony to you- so I skip commenting it more)
You asked me why didn’t Moses say, “You will sin, but God will send his son to redeem you from your sins.”
– To this I say ; God can’t redeem you from your sins if you choose to sin and choose not to listen to Him, so saying God will redeem you from your sin it is like expecting God will do it by force whether you sin or not. So of course Moses didn’t say that. Besides not much was revealed to him at his time, no prophets speaking yet. Before and now the same rule applied;
You submit yourself to God freely out of your will, you will be in His hands. He takes care of you and knows how to wipe away your sins.
We trust Him, he takes care of that and He told us how He took care of it , by His son who paid it all. And I trust Him in that.
Dina,
-You asked me;” I’m curious about what it means to you that at the end of days the gentiles will come to the Jews”
I can say that watching God fulfilling of His words about Israel , is a great testimony of His care. Gentiles are surely watching that. Knowing how He will gather all the people after being scattered tells you He will fulfill His words.
But I believe that being the light of the world in these last days is not only accomplishment of people to me. It is about God’ grace in everything what He will do. ( Zech 9;9-16 ) (Is 2;2-4 ) including deliverance of Jerusalem . ( Zech 12)
I believe the glorious future and the greatest light to the world will be also thanks to the rules of the Messiah who will be hand with hand with God and rule with the iron rod ( Is 11;1-6 ) from Jerusalem All people will want to hear the word of God that will come out from there.
Meanwhile before that glory the earth will go through lots of trouble; and in that trouble there will be those who turn to God and will be saved. Isaiah and other prophets ( Amos 9;8-10) tell you that NOT all Jewish people are obeying God but they will have God’s grace to call to Him.
( nothing personal- Gentiles do the same).
“And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.” (Joel 2:30-32)
Also Isaiah 4;3-4 and 10;20-22
Ia 4;3-4 “ And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”
Isaiah 10;20-22 “And it shall come to pass in that day
That the remnant of Israel,
And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob,
Will never again depend on him who defeated them,
But will depend on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.
22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea,
A remnant of them will return;”
Why would God say that? Because not everybody is listening to God.
Eric, you wrote:
“His words are not to take you away from God but to lead you to God.”
I already worship God, so I don’t need Jesus to lead me to him.
Dina, do what you want.
I Hebrew 1;1-3
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:”
Okay, Eric. Let me put it differently. If Jesus’s role is to point people to God, then if I’m already worshiping God, what is missing in my worship?
Thanks!
Dina, If you realize what price was paid for our redemption, then you will know.
Eric, you said that Jesus leads people to God. So why do I need Jesus to lead me to Him if I’m already there?
Can you answer the question?
Eric, are you still there? I hope you are, because it would be nice to hear from you! I asked you a question about your words that Jesus leads us to God, not away from him. I wanted to know if I already worship God, what am I missing? I wanted to know, if I’m already worshiping God, why do I need Jesus to lead me to Him?
You answered that “if you realize what price was paid for our redemption, then you will know.”
That’s not an answer. How am I supposed to know, if you won’t tell?
Is there a rational way to reach this conclusion, that’s what I’m trying to get at here.
Respectfully,
Dina
Dina, I don’t know what type of answer are you expecting from me. maybe to answer your question would help if you tell me what it means to you to worship God?
Eric
Eric:
Deuteronomy 10:12-13
Dina, to your question about what is missing in your worship. Because part of it is walking in obedience to Him, I will ask this question; Can you obey God and at the same time not trust His words or decide which words you want to trust which not? Would you trust the words about his birth in Luke 1 ;26-37 and Matthew 1;21. Would you trust the words said in John 6;39 and 51, or Matthew 26;28 or John 5;24?
You would surely not consider them true. Would you? That is what is missing, trust in His provided redemption.
Eric, how do you know the Torah is true? How do you know the Prophets are true? How do you know the Writings are true?
Finally, how do you know the NT is true?
Eric, I am asking these questions because faith must have a rational basis. If you tell me just to trust that the NT is true, and a Muslim tells me to just trust that the Koran is true, and a Mormon tells me to just trust that the Book of Mormon is true, how do I know who has the truth?
So can you answer the questions I posted above?
Dina, That is a good question you asked. Not only different religions claim they know the truth but even the atheist would think their theory of evolution and universe creating itself is true no matter how many arguments or facts we ( believers in God) would bring them about that there is God who created the world. As far as me what I believe came out of the need to know the truth and have peace with God. Do all people have peace with God because they believe something that they consider true? I don’t think so.. I will first tell you my story. To me growing up in Catholic religion God seemed very distant , giving you unknown future. So no matter how many times I would go to church or repeat their prayers or believe in the confession of sins to the priest, that wasn’t giving me any peace. I could go with the flow of other peoples’ sayings; we are all humans, we make mistakes, God is love , we should not worry what will happen to us when we face God. That wasn’t satisfying to me, having your own faith without any ‘proof’ from God , didn’t give me any peace.
Then I kind of lost my interest in God as there were no answers to my questions in that church and that made God too mysterious to me and distant to understand him. I had no interest in the other religions either because in each of them God seemed distant so I focused on my career as a student at that time that seemed more interesting than thinking about unknown God but I remembered to live ‘good life’ so that I would not face God’s judgment in case there was some. At that time if anybody asked me If I knew the truth I would say; I believe there was God who created the world and we should do his commandments not to harm others and that would be it. What else was missing?
I could not love God whom I didn’t know. I had no peace, I didn’t know if I was reconciled with him or not. I had no answers about my future . Then I came across these words “ Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7;21
Just because these words come from the NT I didn’t spend years to try to prove them whether they are true or not. I simply prayed to God expressing my will to do His will because I didn’t want to be deceived by my ‘own righteousness’. For the first time in my life I felt like God heard my prayer because he gave me so much peace. It was so surprising to me as before he seemed so distant But that day there were no more doubts in my heart, no distance, no fear about the future, just so much peace . No more doubts whether I am good enough to God or not. I felt that God met all my needs after I prayed to him not questioning his words. I didn’t question whether Jesus who said these words was really true, the main thing was by his words in Matthew 7 I finally honestly prayed to God. If his words led me to God do I want to question him? No, the peace I have is so sufficient that I don’t have any need to look into other religions to search which one would offer me anything better. What is better than already having peace with God in your heart and knowing He can hear you? My needs in God were met what I later found in the other words; John 14;27”Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. “
Did I know everything that is in the scripture at that time? Definitely no. Only because God wasn’t distant anymore I had a new interest to search the scriptures to see what is written about Him. I was searching both. God’s character is clearly expressed in both OT and NT to me. The same forgiving nature and patience of God I see in the Torah, prophets and NT books. Events predicted thousands years before they came true both in OT and NT. Words of Jesus about his death and resurrection, about destruction of the temple about people being scattered and the last days that are found also in Joel and other prophets. There would be so many examples to write about. If I find it hard to understand why Jesus had to die for our sins, then I go back to leviticus 16 and ask myself the question why everything had to be cleansed with blood in the temple .Why only the high priest could enter the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.
The NT says about Jesus that he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
You said; Deuteronomy 10:12-13 doesn’t talk about trusting in God’s promised redemption. Redemption is for those who love God and trust him and obey him so trusting in the redemption without obeying God doesn’t work. Deut 10 talks about walking in all His ways which requires trusting Him and listening to Him. You can’t walk in His ways without listening to him, or else you don’t know where you walk.
Hi Eric.
Thanks for sharing your story with me.
I asked you how you know the Tanach and Christian scripture are true, and, to sum up your answer, it’s because you have found peace.
So now I will share my story with you.
I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. I had a happy childhood. Being raised in traditional Judaism was a positive experience for me. I felt fulfilled, I felt purposeful, I had a lot of joy and a lot of peace.
When I was in my early twenties, I asked myself if I remained observant because that was how I had been raised. Could I defend my faith on rational grounds? Because to me the truth mattered more than feeling good.
I investigated and found that indeed, I could defend my faith using reason.
If the Torah is true, and I listen and obey God through His words, then I need to be very cautious about the assertions of any religion that claims to supersede the Torah. For example, if I follow God, and if Jesus is not following God, then it would be a grave error (and sin) to follow Jesus. I am sure you agree.
Therefore, the claim that you have found peace is simply not strong enough to convince me. It is not unique, because I have found peace too. And many Muslims and Buddhists will say the same.
Jim has a useful analogy to falling in love. Let’s say a woman falls in love with a rascal. No matter how much you might try to persuade her that he’s entirely wrong for her, she refuses to see his glaring faults–nay, she cannot see them. Her objectivity is clouded by her emotions.
If we have fallen in love with the wrong religion, we must try as hard as we can to be clear-headed and to examine the evidence with as little bias as possible. This is not easy, to be sure. But we must do the best we can, praying to God for guidance and clarity.
So, Eric, is the Torah true? How do you know? Is Christian scripture true? How do you know?
Can you defend your faith on rational grounds rather than emotion?
Dina, I am out of town tomorrow so I will try to go back to your email on Thursday.
Dina,
They gave me some time today so I am back. You said because I found peace – that is not convincing to you and you consider it more like emotions.
I would say I am not here to worry about convincing anybody because everybody is responsible for himself to find the truth. I am sharing why I believe in what I say. I believe the truth of the scriptures is obvious to anyone – willing to fairly investigate it. I can also say that if God has designed us according to His image – then if we believers read His Word, we recognize it as the voice of our Creator. And then emotions are one thing but I am talking about the bases and reasons for my belief that are in God’s word.
Lets start with the Torah, prophets and NT in general. They make very distinctive truth claims that God exists and that He has chosen to communicate with us through His creation, through the people , our moral conscience, and through His word in which He let us know His will and a purpose of creating everything. And although these words in all these books were written over a period of thousands years by more than 40 different writers you see inner consistency and the whole picture of God’s plan. From beginnings to the very end.
The words in the scriptures show the facts that correspond to reality; in the past, in the present time and about the future with the great accuracy when it comes to predicted events. You see that some words were already fulfilled ( about Israel or the rest of the people) or are being fulfilled or will be in the future. They show you the whole picture of God’s plan for the mankind and relate to it;; you have the creation of the world and then stated purpose for it
( unless you want to believe the world created itself). You have moral law of God shown in OT and NT , dealing with people’s sin, the history of man’s rebellion against God, the historical details of God’s work of redemption for all who trust in Him, and the final victory over sin and death and glorious future with God the King. ( mentioned in Is 24;23 and and as the final fulfillment of God’s plan written in NT). All the messages both OT and NT show a consistent plan.
If you want to only focus on Torah or just all in the books in OT you have the physical evidence, archeological about history that was recorded in these books, testimonies of people passed on, fulfillment of God’s words that were spoken to Jewish people about being scattered and promises related to the future about deliverance, new heavens , new earth ( Isaiah).
You have the truth there about God wanting to save people since the beginnings ; (after the sin entered the world) God was teaching people to obey Him and to listen to His voice if they wanted life, but that life still wasn’t free of death. Then you read about the promise of woman’s seed crashing the head of ‘the seed’ of the God’s adversary. Then ( jumping to Isaiah) in the chapter 25 of Isaiah you have the promise of the victory over death and final reign of God as King ( Isa 24;23). Once again; CONSISTENCY of the God’s plan!!!
So now about prophets – as I believe in their truthfulness, too
Here are also some of the examples of the predictive prophecy and divine insight in Daniel , Isaiah and Job. ( by the way Job is not a prophet) A number of passages in the scriptures predict future events in great detail—events that were future to the writers but are now in our past. For example, in Daniel 2 a prophecy predicted the next three world empires (up to and including the Roman Empire) and their falls. If these scriptures were not inspired by God, how could its mere human writers possibly have known about events in the distant future?
The OT scriptures also touch on matters of science in ways that seem to go beyond what was known to humankind at the time. In Isaiah 40:22 we read about the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). The fact of such expansion not discovered until the 1920s. –
I loved the astronomy -The spherical nature of the earth and the fact that the earth hangs in space are suggested in Scriptures such as Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is thought to have been written around 2000 BC—long before the nature of our planet was generally known. So here are just a few examples we can’t go over all the prophecy here- would not fit in that one email. One thing at a time.
Then I go back to NT now which to me is the continuation of everything God promised in the OT scriptures to fulfill his plan of redemption; doing away with mankind’s sin, repentance and God’s forgiveness promised, God;s new covenant, God’s coming judgment promised ( Isaiah 24) destruction of God’s adversary, deliverance of God’s people, God’s kingdom being proclaimed that is near, resurrection to life and final reign of the messiah, victory over death. Again consistency of the plan carried by God about which we read in OT.
While Genesis tells you about death coming to the world, the prophets tell you about the future victory over it ( Isaiah 25;8, Is 26;19 ), the books in the NT tell how is God dealing with it and how His plan is being carried through and accomplished why one day “death will be swallowed up” ( of course there is still plan about Israel – I just can’t fit it all here)
So how can I believe that the plan shown in NT is true??
Apart from prayer for God’s revelation, our common sense about the logic,we have over unique 300 facts from the OT that came true about Yeshua ( Jesus) not including the things he said will happen in the future that are consistent with God’s plan in OT about a kingdom that will be set up and never destroyed.
So to me the gospels are completing the picture of the OT.
I have to mention that the cornerstone in the NT is the resurrection of Christ. It is written in (1 Corinthians 15:17) that if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith “is futile; you are still in your sins” . According to Deut 18 any prophet speaking words not from God was to die. Can you disprove Jesus resurrection?
Another point, Eric. Deuteronomy 10:12-13 doesn’t talk about trusting in God’s promised redemption. As it happens, I do trust in God’s promised redemption. I believe that God will send the Messiah at the end of days and will gather the Jewish exiles, return us to the Holy Land, rebuild the Temple, bring universal peace, establish universal knowledge of God, exalt Israel in the eyes of the nations, and punish those who persecuted us, as promised throughout Tanach. I wrote about this here:
Dina,What about credibility of the other books after Moses died, especially prophets?
Hi Eric.
That’s a great answer! (This is regarding your comment https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-10434). And thank you for taking so much time to write it. I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Science, archaeology, and true predictions together form strong evidence for the truth of Tanach.
The question is, what is the Torah’s standard of evidence for itself? The Torah does tell us how we can know it’s true. The Bible rests its authority on the testimony of Israel based on the Exodus and the Sinai revelation (Deuteronomy 4:9, Exodus 12:27; Leviticus 23:43; Psalms 78:6).
As for the 300 prophecies, I refer you to an article Rabbi Blumenthal posted on this very topic:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/the-applicant-with-353-references/
As for proving the resurrection, can you disprove that the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, or that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed? Rather, I should ask you, can you prove the resurrection really happened? However, whether it happened or not is irrelevant, actually.
You can read why here (another article by Rabbi B.)
http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca/resources-info/resources-in-judaism/essaysycb/resurrection
I hope you don’t mind that I’m sending you to these links. It saves me a lot of time, and it saves everyone a lot of space in this comment.
May God bring us closer to His truth.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, thanks for your kindness to refer me to your rabbi B, but I find the words of rabbi Yeshua
(Jesus) more reasonable to me. Asking me; can you prove ‘ this’ , can you prove ‘that’ –
I might first ask you about Isaiah’s ( prophet) birth certificate to start with .
But at least can you give your answer ( based on God’s words) to the fact; why people are still dying?
If it is just to turn away from your sin to be forgiven by God why do you still have to die? What stops you from living forever? And if you will be resurrected, how do you know you won’t die again, just as you will in this life? Why death?
You said before, you believed in God’s redemption, that is very good, you can have hope based on Ezekiel words about resurrection, but if God revealed to you the way the redemption was accomplished, would you tell Him ‘that was not what you expected so you don’t want it?
At least you knew why the high priest couldn’t ever show up ( carrying on his ministry) without blood ( for a reason), which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people- once a year as a reminder of something or just as a good feast?
Hi Eric.
I’m just wondering if you can refute what Rabbi Blumenthal wrote in the article? You asked me if I can disprove the resurrection; this article disproves it. But instead of responding to the article, you changed the topic to redemption. I’m curious to see what holes you can poke in his logic. You wrote that the resurrection is the cornerstone of your faith, so I’m surprised that you dismissed this so lightly
The topic of redemption is complicated for us to discuss because we define it differently. I’m happy to explore it with you, but I have something else to say first, which I think is desperately important.
If Jesus is not who he said he was, then it’s the greatest sin against God to follow him. Therefore, we must exercise extreme caution when evaluating his claims to see if they are true. Although you can’t accept that possibility, I’m sure that in theory, for argument’s sake, you could agree with that statement. Do I have that right? Can you agree with me that if Jesus is not who he said he was, it would be a terrible mistake to follow him, and that I should therefore examine very carefully your evidence for the truth of his claims?
If you can answer yes to that question, then what would you offer as your strongest proof?
Thanks,
Dina
Dina,I tell you, the main argument in in this article is not about disapproving the truth about resurrection ( whether it really happened or not) – because even if there was a solid prove of it that it was true – your rabbi admitted – he would not trust it as a true testimony . And his last words; who cares speak for themselves. The whole message is in the first part of his explanation that “here are a few points though, which these Christians failed to consider.. based on Deut 13.” I would say he failed to consider that it is not Jesus resurrecting himself ( dead people don’t resurrect themselves, it has never happened in the history, death is death which means there is no life and power in it or else we don’t call it death but an unknown stage of subexistence) but NT clearly states it is God who raised him back to life. Deut 13 ;6 if I he was a false prophet he WOULD DIE FOR HIS SIN OF MISLEADING THE PEOPLE!
None of the four Gospels gives all the details of what happened . No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. The gospels’ details correlate together to supply the larger picture with no contradictions. Each of one gives you different focus; One gospel tells you the number of angels seen, the other focuses on what the angel said. One tells you that the women came to the tomb, the other tells you which women was grieving the most and how happy she was seeing Jesus alive again. One gospel tells you that somebody left early in the dark to see the tomb, the other gospel tells you the people were there early morning. You have four reporters to tell you the main fact took place and each reporter gives different focus to the details.
What else I can say; like most of the articles on this website and in your rabbi’s they are with the attitude to prove Jesus false, not with the opposite and to try to find things that are speaking for the truth. You know if I was an atheist and somebody was trying to prove the OT to be true, with my will to justify my atheist life I would find millions of facts that would speak against it. I would question every single prophet as they might be the false ones using Deut 13, I would question the God’s conversation to Adam and Eve- as there was no witness and I would take it as a good fairytale , I would question the contradiction of God’s words about loving other people and the fact of killing all the pagan folks. And the list would go on…at the end I would say; I am an atheist so I don’t carry anyways.
But as a believer who wants to trust God’s word I am looking for the things to see the truth in the scriptures. Looking at all events , and prophesy revealed step by step as puzzles that make the whole picture of God’s plan from the beginnings to the end complete .
Going back to that article, I will discuss only a few points as it is too long. Saying what do we know about Peter to believe him, I might ask what do we know about Jeremiah to believe him, what do we know about Job or Amos who was a shepherd? Even telling me the names of their fathers doesn’t mean their words might be trustworthy. Their message might be a visions or voices of a schizophrenic.
But you put faith to these words and see if they are not telling you who God really is based on the other scriptures you learned about Him. The same I do with Peter . He tells me about a loving God who doesn’t want the world to perish and he tells me about His son who is reflection of God’s glory.
Now about that article; ” Luke tells us that Jesus’ first appearance to his disciples took place in Jerusalem, Matthew and Mark (if we accept the version of Mark which contains the resurrection story) claim that this took place in the Galilee. “
I took my time to check it myself ; no such thing what it is stated above.
Luke doesn’t talk about anything as the first appearance in Jerusalem, but about two disciples on the way to Emous. Two people saw him and invited him to the house and then they came back to Jerusalem v.33. Matthew illustrates the following ; that an angel is telling the women that Jesus will see his disciples in Galilee It doesn’t say that it was the first appearance at all
( because the woman saw Jesus before the guys) but the message was passed on that the first appearance to his group of disciples was to be in Galilee. Mark does say the same. ( read for yourself)
Your rabbi says;“Matthew has an angel informing Mary that the resurrection had taken place, before Jesus is sighted. John tells us that until Mary had met with the resurrected Jesus, she was under the assumption that human hands had removed the body of Jesus from its grave. The fact that these authors contradict themselves tells us that someone is lying somewhere. “
My answer to that comment; Matthew 28 v.9 tells you two women see Jesus on their way to inform the guys. Because John is mentioning the fact that before seeing Jesus, Mary first saw an empty tomb and thought somebody removed the body- doesn’t indicate any contradiction. Only in the eyes who wants to see the contradiction.
“the only ones who testified that they saw him were people who were already totally devoted to him “ -My answer ; it doesn’t speak anything against the truth. But who is telling the lie?
Matthew 28;11-15
“While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. “
“Jesus demanded that his followers love him more than they love their parents, spouses or their children. “ My answer; Jesus explained what it meant to love him; which means to listen to God’s words and love them the most and love others- you put it as priority .
Rabbi B says; “With all this in mind Matthew reports (28:17) that when Jesus reappeared to his disciples, some worshiped him, but some doubted.” Of course not everybody believed such thing would happen, that is not an argument proving resurrection fact as false.
Your rabbi said; resurrected Jesus -it might have been just a vision.
People saw him in different places and different circumstances , and not the same group at once – and believing that they would be “affected by the same vision”… hundreds of people having the same vision of resurrected person in different circumstances ….very doubtful to believe that to me. Trying to tell me here they were all hallucinating the same vision?
I would say that if the whole story is made up, the writer had to be both really creative to match so many details from the OT prophets and he had to be a prophet himself as everything what Jesus said happened in the future ( historical events; destruction of the temple, scattering of Jews , wars, future events matching the situation now and details of end times completing the picture together with OT prophets.
“If indeed Jesus did reappear in a physical sense it would make sense that the physical details of the event should have been recorded. “ You have it all in 4 gospels; eating together, conversations, invitation to the house, people touching Jesus’ hands and feet.
“There could have been an empty grave.” In fact it was indeed. So what?
“(..)if his loyal followers would have required more evidence than an empty grave before preaching and believing that an actual resurrection took place. “ The evidence was to them the personal appearance , what other evidence do you expect, a videatape?
So everything what rabbi B wrote is to me as a pure speculation to find as possible denials as he wants to without any logic and foundation.
“One example for such a situation would be that there may have been confusion concerning the precise burial site of Jesus.” There is no confusion as it is clearly stated ; which place and where he was put. Somebody is looking for confusion.
The last part about possible ;”digging up his body by the disciple”‘- it is a waste of time to me to comment that speculation that has no support in anything.
“If the governing authorities did exhume the decaying corpse and display it in order to discount the claims of his followers, how would we hear about it today?” You won’t hear about any decayed body of Jesus as that didn’t happen. ( his body was not to see the decay. psalm)
The last of your rabbi B words are; who cares- they speak for themselves.
Hi Eric.
You took a lot of time to read through the article and attempt to refute it point by point. I’m amazed that you did this. The reason for my amazement is that you wrote this:
“Like most of the articles on this website and in your rabbi’s [by the way, Rabbi Blumenthal is the author of almost all the articles on this website] they are with the attitude to prove Jesus false, not with the opposite and to try to find things that are speaking for the truth.”
If you believe that is my attitude, why are you bothering to talk to me?
The difference between Christians and Jews is that Jews believe that Christians may be sincere but are misguided, while Christians believe that Jews are hardhearted, stubborn, and/or spiritually blind. A sincere Jew? No such thing! They get this notion, I am sorry to say, from 2 Corinthians 3:13-15, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 11:7, and Romans 11:25.
That belief absolves you from taking our well-reasoned arguments seriously and really searching for the truth. It is also–and forgive me for saying this–very cynical of you. Do you believe that the sincere truth seekers are only on your side? Have you searched within yourself to be sure that you are open to evaluating evidence presented by the other side in a fair manner? Is there any kind of standard of evidence that you might require that could potentially change your mind?
If you answered “no” to the last question, then you are not intellectually honest. There’s an old Jewish saying: Take out the beam from your own eye before taking out the splinter in your friend’s eye.
I’m taking the time to articulate this because I don’t know how we can have an honest discussion if we each believe the other is not capable of evaluating our respective arguments with an open mind.
Having said that, I do have a standard of evidence. If you can show me clear, direct teachings in the Torah (not “hints”) that faith in the Messiah is necessary for salvation, that prayer and repentance are not enough to atone for sin, and that the gentiles rather than the Jews will have the truth about God at the end of days, then you will silence me.
As for the points you raised, there were many, so I will address just a few. Regarding the “eyewitness to car accident” theory, the problem is this. Eyewitnesses to the same event might be hazy on some small details, but they won’t confuse time of day (for example, according to Mark the crucifixion occurred in the morning, while according to John it occurred at noon). The contradictions in the gospels regarding the crucifixion and resurrection are such that it is impossible for them all to have taken place. Furthermore, aren’t we supposed to believe that these “eyewitnesses” were writing with Divine inspiration–that these are the inerrant words of God? Here’s a chart that shows the contradictions between the stories, and it doesn’t look good. This would never stand up in a court of law!
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/cru-chart.html
You wrote that the details from the Hebrew scriptures match up to the Christian scriptures. I don’t see that. What details?
You don’t think it’s a little too convenient that Jesus only appeared to those who were already devoted to him and only performed miracles for those who had faith? When the Pharisees asked for a sign (according to Christian scripture), he refused to give them one, except for his resurrection. But did he appear to them after his resurrection? No indeed! Why not?
There’s a lot more to say, but I have to get back to work.
Thanks for staying with me in this conversation, even though you doubt my sincerity.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Matthew,
You have shown a very important principle, which contradicts the Christian notion of double fulfillment. When you say one should be brave in reference to Nichole Nordeman, you point out that someone who doesn’t know the lyrics to her song (as I don’t) won’t really understand what you mean. Their agreement is based on their understanding of “brave” but not in reference to her song. They don’t have the context.
The Christian notion of “double fulfillment” (as Dina points out) is convenient, and for them even necessary, but it ignores context, and so they are unable to understand the meaning of the prophecies they quote. For example, Matthew quotes Jeremiah, Rachel weeping for her children, but he relates that to the killing of Bethlehemite babies. And, amazingly enough, he calls this a fulfillment of the prophecy. But this clearly cannot be the case. The context of Jeremiah does not allow it. Only one unfamiliar with the prophecy could hold the deaths of these children to be a fulfillment of that one solitary verse. The context is about exile, and the next verse promises comfort because the exiles will return.
This has nothing to do with puns, double meaning, parables, or the rest. The context tells us what the verse Matthew quotes is about, which is not the slaughter of children at the hands of a jealous king. By removing the prophecy from context, Matthew is able to force upon it a new meaning. But that new meaning is an invention, clearly not intended by Jeremiah, nor by God. Matthew has played false, either through ignorance or intention.
The Christian claim of “double fulfillment” is problematic in another way, too. In a conversation with a Christian friend the other day, he brought out the same point, and I asked him then, as I will ask you now: “What principle will you stand on when a new religion arises to take the words of Jesus out of context and apply to them a ‘double meaning’?” You won’t be able to appeal to the context. In fact, I don’t think that you will find any general principle to defend the teachings of Jesus from their claims at all. And so, if they show that Jesus was predicting a third testament to come, a more perfect teaching than Jesus’, you will have no recourse to refute them. The principle of “double fulfillment” can be used to erode Jesus’ words as well.
It’s an important point you’ve brought out. True understanding relies on context. As I showed in “Horace’s Tree” one who comes to the text with an agenda is able to prove whatever he wants from it. But he won’t be able to discover the teachings of God from it. He will have created his own message, piecemeal from the text, a theological Frankenstein patched together in a horrific fashion.
(For “Horace’s Tree” go here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/horaces-tree-by-jim/ .)
Jim
Jim,
Actually, I think what I wrote affirms the idea of double fulfillment. Here’s the quote:
“If I say’ “We should be “Brave” as Nichole Nordeman would say…”
Most people would agree that being “brave” is a good thing. But if you were not familiar with the lyrics to her song, you would not really understand at a deep level.”
I think any English speaker CAN understand the simple basic obvious meaning of “We should be brave,” and most people would agree, at least in theory. (People might differ in their opinions as to how exactly to be brave, but it is understood as a positive desirable quality by most people.)
Yet, to “really understand AT A DEEP LEVEL” is more rich than at a basic level, but it is not necessary. One can still understand what being brave means without knowing the song.
I’ll give further thought to you other points too.
Matthew
Matthew,
To be brave in a generic sense and to be brave in a specific sense according to Nordeman’s definition may not be the same thing at all. I don’t know her song, and thus I can’t say. And so, if you ask me if one should be brave as she says, I can only answer that I don’t know. I have no context for understanding what she says. She may really be teaching foolhardiness or some other quality easily mistaken for bravery, but in actuality a violation of it as a principle. I need the context, and so does anyone else to understand what she says.
Notice in your quotes you have to change the context to assert people’s agreement. First you write it in the context of what she would say; then you remove the context. You say most people would agree that “we should be brave”, but those are very different questions. They do not yield the same answer.
Again, you only emphasize the importance of context, even if that is not the point you intend to make.
Jim
Jim,
I think I understand you point, and I agree that “To be brave in a generic sense and to be brave in a specific sense according to Nordeman’s definition” ARE DEFINITELY NOT the same thing at all. One is generic, one is specific – not the same. It’s a great song – you can find it easily on Youtube. I’m not sure if it’s permitted to post video links on this site.
🙂
Jim,
Regarding Jeremiah 31:15, quoted in Matthew 2:17-18,
I agree that a prophecy about “the killing of Bethlehemite babies” was “clearly not intended by Jeremiah.” But this is the nature of true prophecy. Prophets are All-telling, but not All-knowing.
As for context, yes, we should always consider context with any passage of Scripture. But for this particular verse, Jeremiah 31:15, you can see that the prophet Jeremiah goes out of his way to make it stand alone to a large degree. This is not yanked out of the middle of a paragraph.
Verse 31:15 begins, “This is what Yahweh says:” and the next verse, 31:16, begins with the identical words again: “This is what Yahweh says:” So in this case, this one verse is very intentionally a single unit of thought, much more so than almost any other single verse in the Scripture that I can think of.
I don’t at all dispute your assertion that
“The context is about exile, and the next verse promises comfort because the exiles will return.”
However, I would say that, speaking for God, Jeremiah very intentionally weakens the context in this case to such an extent that the context WOULD allow this one verse to be a prophecy about the slaughter of children at the hands of a jealous king in Bethehem.
Matthew
Matthew,
By stripping away the context you are left with whatever interpretation you see fit. One can relate the prophecy to an earthquake, the Crusades, or Jewish children leaving their parents to go to college. You are left with no means to interpret the passage. One will apply it to whatever situation suits him, as your namesake has done, and assert with no evidence that this new situation here is the second fulfillment of the prophecy.
Regarding the repetition of “Thus says Hashem”, it is actually a common practice throughout Torah and Prophets. Does it change the context every time that happens? Clearly not. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, if the Gospels only took prophecies that were broken up the way you talk about, it would be interesting. I would have to consider that there was a hidden meaning, as you suggest, and this was the way it was hinted at. But in the same chapter Matthew takes Hosea 11.1 out of context, not even a whole sentence but just a few words and in the previous chapter he not only takes Isaiah 7.14 out of context, he alters the prophecy to make it more to his liking. He doesn’t just truncate it, he changes words to fit his agenda. Therefore, the principle you suggest is not that employed by Matthew. He’s just an unreliable narrator who does not respect the Prophets.
Jim
What about making up a prophecy out of whole cloth? Matthew does this in 2:23: “And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’ ”
You can search the prophets inside out and upside down; no such prophecy exists. Furthermore, the town of Nazareth isn’t even mentioned anywhere in Tanach.
It’s outrageous that Matthew gets away with it.
Hi Dina & Jim,
God enjoys making puns and word plays. He is God, so He is free to do that. Anyway, it’s fun, and it makes His Word more interesting. God has a sense of humor, and we should too.
Example #1.
“The word of Yahweh came to me: ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’
‘I see the branch of an almond tree,’ I replied.
Yahweh said to me, ‘You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled.’” [Jeremiah 1:11-12]
[NIV footnotes: “The Hebrew for WATCHING sounds like the Hebrew for ALMOND TREE.”]
Example #2
“… and he went an lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’” [Matthew 2:23]
Doesn’t the Hebrew root word for Nazareth mean something like “branch”, so Nazareth might be loosely translated “branch town”?
The Prophet Isaiah wrote:
“A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” [Isaiah 11:1]
So saying “He will be called a Nazarene” could be sort of like saying “He will be a branch man from branch town.” I’m not saying that this is THE answer, but it’s a possible answer.
Here is an example of a similar pun today: Mt. Fuji is a famous landmark in Japan. New York is known as “The Big Apple.” There is a type of apple called the “Fuji Apple”, (which is the favorite of my wife and I by the way…) So if a Japanese person was born in New York, he might jokingly refer to himself as a “Fuji Apple.” Get it?
Blessings,
Matthew
Matthew, there are a couple of problems with your argument.
The first, most obvious one, is that Matthew makes it clear he is quoting from the Prophets: “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’ ”
“What was said” is followed by “He will be called a Nazarene.” Matthew could not have made his meaning more clear. He also could not be more clearly wrong.
Nowhere does Scripture tell us that the Messiah must be from Nazareth or called a Nazarene.
So your explanation amounts to nothing more than desperate apologetics.
The second problem is that you are speculating on the etymology of Natzeret. The root of that name could just as easily and more plausibly be “natzar” which means “watch” or “guard,” in the sense that the town was guarded or protected due to its location.
You should be really troubled by this, instead of dismissing it as a fun play on words because God just likes to have fun.
By the way, in the example of a pun that you took from Jeremiah, the meaning is very clear. The pun is immediately explained. (Just like in the example you took from the Psalms about parables.)
Jim,
I agree with you, QUOTE:
“Regarding the repetition of “Thus says Hashem”, it is actually a common practice throughout Torah and Prophets. Does it change the context every time that happens? Clearly not.”
Yes. But it is at least sort of like a “paragraph break” in most cases, as I think you would agree. So Verse 31:15 is a very “short paragraph” compared to most other “paragraphs” in Jeremiah chapter 31, and also throughout the rest of the Torah and Prophets. (I will try to address elsewhere the other verses you mention in passing.)
Matthew
Matthew,
Once again you conflate two issues: the use of puns and double fulfillment. The two topics are not related.
Matthew did not make a pun. As Dina pointed out, he made a claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy about being from a particular city. No such prophecy exists. If he had only made a pun, that would have been tolerable. However, he ascribes fulfillment of prophecy to one that does not exist. You might as well say the Jesus fulfilled a Laffy Tafffy wrapper.
Jim
Jim,
You asked, QUOTE:
“What principle will you stand on when a new religion arises to take the words of Jesus out of context and apply to them a ‘double meaning’?”
My answer- here’s a start:
The words of Jesus in context, recorded by the 4 Gospel witnesses, in alignment with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. “Let every matter be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.” Understand the First and Greatest Most Important Commandment is to Love God. The Second is to love people. It’s 2 commandments, not one, and God is first.
False teachers are constantly doing what you describe here. For example, Paul the Pharisee was primarily responsible fo redefining Communion (the Lord’s Supper). Instead of it being an extended intimate dinner party with rich fellowship among believers to REMEMBER JESUS, Paul’s evil influence made it into a short, cold religious ritual, with no real food, just a thimble of wine or grape juice and a tiny cracker, to remember the DEATH of Jesus. Paul’s bad influence on communion is most obvious in the Roman Catholic Mass.
Blessings,
Matthew
Matthew,
You are in a contradiction.
Now, for you, the context matters. But the very point is that the NT ignores the context of the Torah and Prophets to set up their own agenda. In defending the Gospels you ignore the context and claim a second fulfillment. Now, if Paul wants to set up a new meaning to the communion, you want to object to him based on the context. But Paul could turn around to you and say that their is a second “DEEP MEANING” to the communion. He would say that there is a double fulfillment. And if he did so, he would not violate any of the principles according to which you operate.
You cannot complain about Paul changing the teachings of Jesus when the Gospels are doing the very same thing to the Torah and the Prophets, and you stand behind them. Your principle cannot be the very one you violate in defending the Gospels. You cannot appeal to context.
With respect,
Jim
Jim,
In terms of Paul, Jesus reminded us from the Torah:
“Let every matter be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
So this is in both the Torah and the Gospels.
No one agreed with Paul about many things, including his interpretation of Communion, the Most Important Commandment, what is an “Apostle” and his own claim to be “Apostle to the Gentiles.” The list goes on. And there are many other “Pauls,” through history and today, that people choose to follow
Hi Jim,
Thank you for being a light to a Gentile. Until I read your e-mail, and then looked at the Torah for myself, I always had the general idea that “eye for eye” [Matthew 5:38] was about “revenge”, which was “bad.”
You wrote, QUOTE:
“But if you read the Torah, you will find that the phrase is used in regard to compensatory damages. The Torah is not issuing permit to take one man’s eye for the eye he destroyed in another. It is speaking about the valuation of the eye. Review Exodus 21.12-37.”
I agree with you about the actual meaning of this Torah passage. It seems to be designed to prevent acts of “revenge” done in moments of wild emotion and passion, so that people have a commonly accepted standard to reason from and think clearly. In other words, “the Law.” So we should take it “seriously”, but not “literally,” just as we should with Matthew 5:29, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.”
Without the teaching (Torah) and presence of God, men will become unreasonable in a quest for revenge. It’s human nature – look at the beginning of the Torah itself. “I killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.” [Genesis 4:23-24] Lamech didn’t have the Torah to restrain him. The writer of Psalm 137 had the Torah, but seems not to have been applying it in verses 8-9. None of us can perfectly control our own emotions all the time. We are human.
I would not say that Exodus 21.12-37 is wrong. I affirm that it is good, reasonable, better than the ideas of man on his own, and I’m sure that Jesus would agree. But I would also say that the teaching of Jesus is even better, and calls us to live at a higher level, which makes the world a better place for everyone.
I would need to respectfully disagree with your statement that “he [Jesus] makes “eye for an eye” to be about revenge.”
The relevant words of Jesus are in Matthew 5:17-48. Jesus begins by saying; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Previously, I had expressed in my own words my understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Law & Prophets, and you did not find that agreeable. That is fine – I’ll just let Jesus speak for himself in his own words, they are better than mine.
After beginning with this clear affirmation of the Law and Prophets, for the remainder of Matthew chapter 5, Jesus expounds 6 points, beginning each with a variation of the basic idea or phrase: “You have heard that it was said…”
Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43.
Jesus did NOT say, “It was said,” “It was written,” or “It is written.” But rather “YOU HAVE HEARD that it was said.”
Jesus was preaching against the superficial sound-bite version of Judaism put forth by the hypocritical talking heads of his day, (Pharisees mostly), which took a few words out of context and misinterpreted them. Many Christians, or self-proclaimed Christians, do this today, with words from “the Bible.” Also our technology makes it easier to do this.
Back when I used to watch TV, I noticed that a politician might give a speech for an hour, but the TV news would only show half of one sentence out of context, which made him appear to be saying exactly the opposite of what he really said in context. I think that out of context, “eye for eye” does seem to be advocating at least a limited form of revenge, most people today probably see it that way, and I’m sure that many people 2000 years ago also saw it that way. It’s a wrong understanding, which Jesus was attempting to correct, telling them “YOU HAVE HEARD that it was said…”
However, it seems clear to me that Matthew 5:38-42 is about more than simply Jesus correcting the false idea that “eye for eye” is about “revenge.” It’s a picture of a new way of thinking and personal relationships, where we don’t “strike back” immediately. Jesus still is advocating a measured response, not promoting abuse or encouraging people to let themselves be used or victimized. Jesus is encouraging us to be kind and patient with each other within reasonable limits, rather than “going ballistic” right away and “demanding our rights.”
“If someone strikes you on the right cheek,” and you are ABLE to turn to him the other also, it means that you are not seriously wounded or injured or knocked down. And you only have 2 cheeks.
“If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,” your cloak probably costs less than a good lawyer would. Jesus doesn’t say give him your house.
“If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” Most healthy people could walk 2 miles in a day without trouble – it would be good exercise. It isn’t 100 miles. And Jesus said to go WITH HIM, which implies a sense of shared fellowship, conversation, and communication.
“Give to the one who asks you” doesn’t mean give him whatever he asks for. You might just give him a smile and a word of encouragement.
“Do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” is not a command to necessarily loan him whatever he wants, as much as he wants. Rather, it’s a command to be kind to each other, to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew
Matthew and Jim, forgive me for jumping in again. Matthew, it doesn’t matter what you think Jesus was preaching against, whatever he taught of value was not new, and whatever was new was of no value. For an in-depth study of the Sermon on the Mount compared to traditional Jewish teachings, I highly recommend The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount by Gerald Friedlander.
You might find the Jewish perspective informative and enlightening, from a Jewish scholar writing at the beginning of twentieth-century England.
If you ever read it, I’d love to get your thoughts on it.
Best,
Dina
Matthew,
I do not have the time at this moment to respond to your entire comment, but I hope to do so later today. However, I do not want to mislead you. I am not Jewish. From your comment about me being a “light to the Gentile” I gather that is your impression. My apologies if I made you think that. I am a ben Noach, a non-Jew. I am sorry if I made you think otherwise.
Jim
Matthew,
I must admit that I am a little troubled by your response here. It appears to me that you are unwilling to actually investigate the words of Jesus and weigh them properly, that your goal as an apologist is only to find how they can be true rather than whether or not they are. Further, I am quite troubled by your unjustified attack on the pharisees, that is to say on Torah observant Jews, without evidence. However, I recognize that the NT has shaped your view of them, so I shall try to be understanding.
You admitted up above that until recently you had the idea that “eye for an eye” was bad and that it was about revenge. But in my opinion, you are not honest about where you got that idea. I doubt it was from a deep reading of Torah. And it wasn’t from Rabbinic teachings, since they clearly teach that it is about compensation. So where did you get that idea? You got it from the Gospels and from the Church.
And what I find particularly troubling about your response is that you then impute this wrong understanding to a sound-bite version of “eye for an eye” given by the Pharisees. This is something for which you have no evidence. In fact, the best evidence would suggest rather the opposite. The rabbis did not make this to be about revenge. The sound-bite comes from Jesus and shaped your understanding of the text, not from the Pharisees, and it is grossly unfair to misrepresent them, when in fact the very error you attribute to them is one you made.
Even now, you seem to want to rewrite it. I see nothing that would make this about limiting revenge. I wouldn’t put it within the sphere of revenge at all. It’s civil law. It’s justice. It’s restitution. Revenge isn’t even the topic. It has nothing to do with “striking back,” or taking a more measured response. It is simply this. If I harm you, I ought to make it right. And a court system is set up in place to assess damages and make me pay them. Restitution is not revenge.
Regarding the rest of your argument, I’m going to come back to it. Even now, after sitting with this for 24 hours, I am so flabbergasted by your response. I am deeply troubled by the way you misrepresent Jewish teaching so that you can exalt the teaching of Jesus. So, I’m going to deal separately with the idea that Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Since you used to watch politicians on television, you should already have an idea of what I’m going to say about the words of Jesus.
Jim
Also, Matthew, you can’t argue successfully that when Jesus said “you have heard it said of old,” he followed up with a nasty “Pharisaic soundbite,” because we have the writings of those very Pharisees to give the lie to his words.
The Pharisees taught such things as:
“Be exceedingly humble.”
“Let your home be open wide [to poor people].”
“Let the poor be the children of your household.”
“Greet every person with a pleasant countenance.”
“Be the first to greet every person.”
“Who is rich? He who is content with his portion.”
“Who is wise? He who learns from every person.”
“Who is strong? He who has mastered himself.”
“Judge every person in the scale of merit.” [I.e., judge favorably or give the benefit of the doubt.]
That’s in their own words, I just randomly picked a few ideas from their own writings. I should like to know which of these teachings Jesus objected to.
Dina
I don’t think Jesus objected to any of the teachings you listed. And these teachings fit perfectly with the teaching of Paul the Pharisee.
But you are leaving out the Most Important teaching of the Torah.
Paul made up his own rule. Paul wrote:
“The entire law is summed up in a SINGLE command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” [Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18]
However, in contrast, here is what Jesus answered when asked the question:
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than THESE.” [Mark 12:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
Blessings,
Matthew
Matthew, you didn’t respond to my challenge to your claim that Jesus misrepresented the Pharisees with his “you have heard it said of old” sayings.
Please don’t call Paul a Pharisee. He was not a Pharisee; he was a Liar.
Dina,
We agree that Paul was a liar.
Here is the response you requested.
Jesus said:
“Whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
[Matthew 5:20]
Jesus also spoke at length about the Pharisees in the entire chapter of Matthew 23.
Jesus said vicious things about the Pharisees in that chapter. And in other places as well. My people suffered unspeakably for nearly 2000 years because of what he said (or because of the words that are attributed to him).
I don’t see how your quote answers the challenge. Jesus said “you have heard it said of old,” then presented a twisted teaching that you claim was taught by the Pharisees. But we have the writings of the Pharisees (the real-live ones, not the ones who existed in the imaginations of the Evangelists) that prove Jesus wrong. They never taught ideas such as “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” That’s a lie. If you can find such a teaching in all of the voluminous writings of the real Pharisees, I will eat my words.
If I sound angry, it’s because I am. Millions of my people were tortured, degraded, hanged, burned, massacred, expelled–because of the anti-Jewish teachings of the “New Testament.”
Dina, people suffered because of hating the others and Jesus didn’t teach that so there is no reason to blame him for that. He thought the opposite. If everybody put that into practice, there would no war ANYWHERE.
I don’t think he was referring to Pharisees as if they were teaching the idea “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”, these words WEREN’T WRITTEN anywhere , the words might have function simply in the SPOKEN language . Why did David had that hating attitude towards his enemies? It is because naturally people’s attitude is like that , it is easier to hate them , rather then to do any good to them. Jesus was just simply pointing to; be different , don’t show hatered “ that you may be children of your Father in heaven”
David said in Ps 137 v.7-9
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Matthew 3;43-48“You have heard that it was SAID , ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Dina,
Jesus and all the true 12 Apostles were all Jewish. The teachings of Jesus and the Gospels are not Anti-Jewish at all. Paul the Pharisee said all kinds of things, many of which are wrong, and some of which are Anti-Jewish. This is why we should not adopt the language of the Second Century Heretic Marcion, who coined the term “New Testament” was a devoted follower of Paul. We should think in terms the Torah, the Prophets, and the testimony of the Jewish Messiah as our priority. Yes there are other Writings and Letters that have some value, but they should not be confused with The Word of God.
Matthew
Matthew, the only thing I agree with here is that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. Why is what Paul said anti-Jewish and what the gospels said not?
Do you think that just because someone is Jewish then whatever anti-Jewish thing they say is inherently not anti-Jewish?
Why isn’t it anti-Jewish, for example, to call Jews children of the devil (as in the gospel of John)? Why isn’t it anti-Jewish to blame all the Jews for all murders ever committed since the murder of Abel (before there were even any Jews)?
You’ll have a hard time convincing me that these and other statements aren’t anti-Jewish, seeing as how my great-grandparents paid for them with their lives.
Dina,
You wrote, QUOTE:
“We have the writings of the Pharisees (the real-live ones, not the ones who existed in the imaginations of the Evangelists) that prove Jesus wrong. They never taught ideas such as “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” That’s a lie. If you can find such a teaching in all of the voluminous writings of the real Pharisees, I will eat my words.”
Yes, I can believe that you have some of the writings of some real Pharisees preserved now 2000 years later. And I’m sure that “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy” isn’t in the writings you have.
However, you were not alive 2000 years ago, and even if you had been, you are not omnipresent like God is. You could not hear ALL the ORAL teachings as well as read ALL the written teachings of ALL the Pharisees in ALL the synagogues in ALL of Israel.
We do have the written record by the Jewish Scribe Matthew recording the oral teachings of a Jewish Rabbi, Jesus, who was referring to some of the oral teachings among some of the Pharisees of his day. Human teachers sometimes teach false doctrine, whether Pharisees, Christians, Jews, 2000 years ago or today. You cannot prove that no individual Pharisee ever taught “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy” 2000 years ago in Israel. The main point that we all agree on is, this wrong. God rebukes those he loves.
Peace and blessings,
Matthew
Matthew:
SOME of the writings of SOME real Pharisees? Try hundreds of Pharisees in a work roughly the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is an unserious argument, Matthew.
But you are right. I cannot prove that there was not some Pharisee somewhere who taught what Jesus claims was taught. Nor can you prove that what Jesus said was not a hateful lie, the consequences of which cost the lives of millions of my people.
Although we each can’t prove our respective points, there is one fact from which we can draw a conclusion.
That fact is the answer to this question: How did the followers of the Pharisees fare morally, compared to the followers of Jesus?
Let’s take a look at history from the end of the fourth century until, say, 1950.
While Christians were busy persecuting Jews and people of other faiths, herding Jews into ghettos, expelling them, massacring them, and so on, Pharisees prayed for their enemies (the Russian Jews were famous for praying for the welfare of the anti-Semitic czars).
While Christians engaged in wars with each other over land, religion, and politics, spilling a lot of blood, Pharisees prayed for their enemies, set up charities within the ghetto walls, and performed acts of loving-kindness.
While Christians put to death petty criminals (like hanging someone for stealing a loaf of bread), applied death penalties with little evidence, like the witch trials that swept through Europe and claimed tens of thousands of lives, Pharisees didn’t put anyone to death.
While Christians demonized Jews in their writings, Pharisees studied the Jewish sacred texts, prayed for their enemies, and gave most of their money in punitive taxes to the Christian governments.
The fact is, Christianity claimed to lead its followers down a path that was morally superior to Judaism but failed spectacularly.
Now you might argue, as many others on this blog have argued, that those Christians weren’t real Christians. If you would argue that, just consider this: Why don’t you hear modern-day Pharisees defending themselves against such horrific acts by saying that those weren’t real Pharisees?
And that is that.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
The Satan does some of his best work through “religion” and “religious writings.”
Just because people claim to know God and follow God and obey God does not mean that they are telling the truth.
By the way, until I ran across “yourPhariseeFriend” I had assumed that the Pharisees ceased to exist somewhere around 70 AD. I had never heard anything about them, other than what is in the “New Testament.”
Hi Matthew.
You wrote: “Just because people claim to know God and follow God and obey God does not mean that they are telling the truth.”
I anticipated this argument when I wrote that “you might argue, as many others on this blog have argued, that those Christians weren’t real Christians [or to use your words, weren’t really following God and that this was Satan’s work]. If you would argue that, just consider this: Why don’t you hear modern-day Pharisees defending themselves against such horrific acts by saying that those weren’t real Pharisees?”
Why, indeed?
I’m very curious to know who you hold up to be a true Christian follower of God. Which famous teachers of Christianity from the early church fathers until, say, 1600, would you point to as genuine?
I’m amazed by your admission that you thought the Pharisees ceased to exist when the Temple was destroyed, when they were in fact the only group to survive. I thought this was well known. The other groups were destroyed or disappeared (the Jewish Hellenists, the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the early Jewish followers of Jesus, such as the Ebionites).
Historians agree that the only segment of the Jewish population that is suited to survival is the Pharisaic, i.e. rabbinic, segment. Anyway, if you don’t mind my suggesting it, I recommend that you read a little Jewish history. If nothing else, it will at least help you understand our perspective. I recommend A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson and Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll (neither of these authors are Jews).
Jim,
Yes, I admit I got the idea that “eye for an eye” was bad and that it was about revenge from the Christian church traditions. (I may have used the term “Pharisees” loosely, referring to ‘Christian Pharisees.”) Not from a deep reading of Torah or from Rabbinic teachings. I was wrong about that, but now I am learning more. Thank you for being patient with me. Yes, “It’s civil law. It’s justice. It’s restitution. Revenge isn’t even the topic” of this portion of the Torah. We agree now.
You also wrote to me, QUOTE:
“I am quite troubled by your unjustified attack on the pharisees, that is to say on Torah observant Jews, without evidence.”
You seem to be saying here that “Pharisees” = “Torah observant Jews.”
Here on “yourphariseefriend”, I have just recently had substantial dialogue with Dina on this very point. Based on Dina’s responses, it seems to me that this equation is not correct. It might be more accurate to say “Pharisees” = “Tanach, Talmud & Rabbinic Tradition observant Jews.”
Would you care to comment?
Respectfully,
Matthew
Matthew, what are Christian Pharisees? Is “Pharisee” an epithet you attach to Christians you disagree with?
Dina,
It’s just my personal opinion, using the term “Christian Pharisees” loosely, so I don’t have a clearly thought-out definition. Even if I did, it is still just my own words, not The Word of God.
But since you asked, roughly, I am referring to nominal “Bible-believing Christians” who practically speaking are really following Paul the Pharisee, the self-appointed “Apostle of the Gentiles.” They are not following the Lord God Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, Son of Yahweh the Most High God of Israel, as I am.
Peace and blessings,
Matthew
Thanks for explaining. But you should know that Paul was not a Pharisee.
Matthew, that’s an honest question, no disrespect intended. Thanks!
Matthew,
Yes, Pharisees are Torah observant Jews. And yes they observe the oral law as well as the written. (It could not be otherwise.) They do observe Rabbinic strictures as well, but those are not equated with commandments given by God. You are much better off asking R’ Blumenthal or Dina about this, however, as I am a baby, and I would not wish to misinform you regarding the Jewish position. As you can see there are no such thing as “Christian Pharisees”.
Jim
Dina, I am trying to give you my answer to the genealogy. I don’t like to jump to a new ‘twisty’ subject before the other are completely discussed , but anyways here what I would say;
What about Jeconiah curse ?
The thing is – Jesus is not Joseph’ biological offspring so the curse is not passed on as there is no sinful nature inherited from them. Jesus said his Father is the one in heaven.
You said; “If a Kohain or Levite adopted a child from another tribe, that child would not be allowed to serve in the Temple.” and “If Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s natural (biological son) then he had no tribal rights.”and all my three examples I spoke about before – you say – refer to inheritance and/or property rights, NOT tribal lineage.
Why the tribal lineage could not be inherited but why Jesus could inherit it?
To answer that we have to look at the fact that all the mentioned adoption examples and inheritance rules in OT related to a child who had a biological father and the child who was adopted into a new family carried already his biological father’s tribal lineage and blood .
So if God made it possible that an unmarried woman had a child ( mentioned before in Isaiah
( without a biological father) , that child ( Jesus) was born into Joseph’s tribal lineage as a descendant of David having a right to the same lineage with all the tribal rights as there was no biological father of a different lineage.
Not having a birth-father was a clear sign that Jesus is Son of God. There is no Jewish law that tells you whether the child born like that can’t be born into a certain lineage, or has tribal rights or not. I am living it up to God .
When it comes to genealogy in Matthew and Luke;
there is no confusion in both genealogies as one is the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph , the other is through Mary ( mother of Jesus).
In each of the two genealogies every name is different up until David with the exception of Joseph, Zorobabel and Salathiel. Therefore these two genealogies do not trace the same lineage
Luke starts with Joseph son of Heli instead of listing ;Mary daughter of Heli.
The expression “Joseph, [ ] of Heli”, without the word “son” being present in the Greek, means that “Joseph, of Heli” is to be read “Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli”.
In Matthew ; Jacob is Joseph’s biological father, and in Luke ; Heli (Mary’s biological father) became Joseph’s surrogate father, ( and would be referred as father) making also Joseph Heli’s heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom. Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his “son-in-law” would have been called “son” and considered a descendent. Men in those times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons. (The term “son” was also used to mean “grandson” or an even more remote descendant). Jesus was also called son of David, although he is not his ‘literal’ son.
Dina, You asked me,Are you listening? Are you listening to the testimony of God’s witnesses?
Yes; and God’s witness is not limited to the one before 3000 years ago to me. “This is my beloved son, listen to him.” Luke 9;35 Jesus tells you who God is and how much He carries.
P.S Your idea about after -life ‘always living consciousness’ has no support in God’s word.
Psalm 6:5, which says, “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks” ? Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing.
Ezekiel 37;12-14 “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord.” When God puts His spirit in you, then you are alive again. Ezekiel doesn’t say that all the live ‘souls’ were returning to their bodies.
Another example; the spirit is not your consciousness; Numbers 11;25
“And the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to Moses. Then he gave the seventy elders the same Spirit that was upon Moses. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied.”
Hi Eric,
I need to look at all of these, plus I have a pile of comments from you that I haven’t responded to. I will try to get to them tomorrow or at least some time this week. Thanks in advance for your patience.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, my last comment today; You said our interpretation of the Messiah is completely different. You see him as a national leader – I will say; it is the same when it comes to his coming in the future and restoring everything. ( Jeremiah 23;5-6) . When Jesus came 2000 years ago he didn’t come as a king to rule but was a part of your suffering nation. This type of a person seems to you not to fit at all in the history to play the role we believe we did. So I gave myself time to read through detailed jewish interpretation of isaiah 53 to see if I can justify your thinking if there is no place for Jesus at all.
http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html
Because the commentary is too long to talk about it here I will just point to a few things .
The Jewish commentary says; “There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.
First of all, there is no ‘someone other” because Jesus was Jewish , part of your nation. If you are part of that ‘suffering servant’ as a nation so was He. Some of you suffered at the exile , some from the holocaust, Jesus suffered from his own people and was crucified. Jewish commentary says ; the chapter is also about the glorious Messianic future of Israel. I am sure Jesus will be there too as he is a part of it! What else you have in common with him in that chapter is the suffering. However you want to translate it that every single thing here described is a group accomplishment ( as a nation) even limited only to a ‘righteous remnant’ I can’t agree;
v.5 “ through his wounds we were healed” Jewish interpretation is a pure adjustment of these words to fit the nation. These words mean what they literally mean and Jesus clearly explained that his blood will be poured for many.
v.6 “God inflicted upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.” Jewish commentary says; “how punishments that should have befallen the nations were averted through Israel’s suffering.”
-You are not the only one nation that has been suffering. The other nations are NOT free from suffering. More logical to me is that the punishments that should have befallen the nations ( so it is me also ) were averted through Jesus’ suffering.” Another words what I deserved , he paid. Not a nation .
v.8 “because of my people’s sin they were afflicted.” Even if your translation says it in plural to use that against Jesus, it still means Jesus is there as he is in the nation of your people ( they) so he is also afflicted because of other people’s sin.
The difference is , he is sinless so he can take these sins upon himself and pay for them, the nation can’t as it consists of people who will die one day for their own sins.
v.11 “My servant will cause the masses to be righteous; and he will bear their sins.
First of all what do you mean by being righteous? Second , you can’t bear the peoples sin to make them righteous as everybody is a sinner even among Jewish people ( you all die as well). Only sinless Jesus who didn’t deserve death could accomplish that. God supported his testimony by raising him back to life. To bear somebody’s sin means to take it upon yourself and make the other person free of it. Jesus said he did that all, why wouldn’t I believe God’s word about Jesus, and instead of trust a group of people who also need God’s forgiveness?
Sorry , I jumped back to that subject about the servant again.
Hi Eric.
Usually I can handle a few topics at once, but I’m beginning to feel overwhelmed by the number of different turns our conversation has taken and trying to keep up with every twist and turn. If you are agreeable, I would like to suggest picking a topic and hashing it out before moving on to the next.
Would you like to pick a topic? I’m okay with going back to Isaiah 53, if you wish. You mentioned a virgin birth in Isaiah, which does not exist–so we can talk about that. Or anything else you’d like.
Let me know if you’d like to do that.
Respectfully,
Dina
Dina, you just asked me so many questions in your emails that is what I was trying to give my answer to… I am not sure if our conversation is going to anywhere as you will keep defending your view I will be defending my view. And what? You will be only referring to torah, I will be referring to both OT and NT. I will be proving that Jesus’ life wasn’t without a meaning, you will be responding with the fact that the only torah is sufficient source of God’s communication. So what is the point to continue….? I let you chose if you want to continue… maybe just asking questions about things relating to Christianity or Judaism would make more sense than putting long explanation to one topic… And you don’t have to give the answer to all my messages , if you don’t see a need for it or don’t have time for it. I let you decide.
Eric,
Thank you, Eric, you are very kind. I do have time for a dialogue with you (not a lot, true), but I shoved so many topics into our conversation that I overwhelmed myself. I do think there is a point to this conversation if we are both seeking the truth. The more we discuss the issues, the more clarity we gain, I believe.
I would be honored to continue this discussion with you. You’ve been respectful and kind.
Thanks again,
Dina
Or we can talk about the genealogies, Eric. There’s a lot to choose from, as I can see by just glancing over some previous comments.
The voice of Yahweh, speaking through the Prophet Hosea:
“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt. I will make you live in tents again, as in the days of your appointed feasts. I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told PARABLES through them.” [Hosea 12:8-10]
The voice of Yahweh, speaking through Asaph:
“O my people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in PARABLES, I will utter hidden things, things from of old – what we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us.” [Psalm 78:1-3]
Matthew, did you miss the meaning in the second part of the verse from Psalms that you quoted? It refutes your point.
Matthew
You are operating under a false assumption taught to you by the traditions of the Protestants (like Martin Luther) the Five Books of Moses refer to a “Torah” as a body of law that exists in the hearts and minds of the people taught to them by Moses orally – you can read about it here
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/deuteronomy-334-oral-law/
Dear Pharisee Friend,
I’ve read through your article here.
What do you do with this passage from the Prophets?
“Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, ‘I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of Yahweh. He gave it to Shaphan, who read it…..When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders… ‘Go and inquire of Yahweh for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is Yahweh’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” [2 Kings 22:8—13]
Respectfully,
Matthew Perri
Hi Matthew,
I’m taking the liberty of responding on behalf of our Pharisee friend, Rabbi Blumenthal. I have cut and pasted the following from his paper “Supplement to Contra Brown.”
The Torah scroll of Josiah
Another objection put forward by Christians in support of their rejection of the Jewish national legacy relates to the history of our people. Scripture records many instances where the Jews forsook the Law. In the times of the Judges and in the times of the wicked kings of either the Northern or Southern Kingdoms, the nation fell into idolatry. The searing words of rebuke recorded in the scriptures describe a corrupt nation that disregarded the Law. This does not sound like a nation that was meticulously guarding minor details of the complex traditions. In scripture’s depiction of the religious revivals that followed some of these periods of disobedience, we learn how the written word was a central factor in getting the people back on track. Under the reign of Josiah, the finding of one scroll of the Law (the Five Books of Moses), triggered a wave of national repentance (2Kings 22:8 ‑ 23:25, 2Chronicles 34:14 ‑ 35:6). The implication seems to be that the nation had lost the Written Law. If the people had forgotten the basic written directives of Moses, how could the same nation have retained a vast and complex body of unwritten teachings of Moses? In the times of Ezra and Nehemiah the people needed to read about the festival of Tabernacles and about the law prohibiting intermarriage in order to learn of their existence (Nehemiah 8:14,13:1). How could this same nation who had forgotten some of the foundational written laws, at the same time have memorized countless details of an oral tradition?
These questions are not new. This criticism was formulated by the Muslims long ago in an attempt to discredit the Scriptures themselves. The responsa of Rabbi Solomon ben Aderet (13th century Rabbi of Barcelona) records this Muslim argument ‑ If the Jewish nation was disloyal to God, how could we trust them to preserve the Scriptures? How can we know that the Torah scroll that Josiah found was truly the scroll that Moses had written?
For those who believe in the divine origin of Scripture, this question is not relevant. If it was important to God to preserve His message, the fallible nature of man will not stand in His way. The Christian who believes in the inspired nature of Scripture, recognizes that God maintained the accuracy of His word, through the medium of the Jewish nation. The question only remains ‑ what is God’s word? If God had given Moses directives that were not recorded in the Five Books, and those directives were relevant to the later generations, then we can trust that God protected those directives from corruption.
Those who present this challenge to the authenticity of the Law, be they Muslim imams or Christian missionaries, are missing an important feature of the nature of Scripture. Scripture’s objective in recording Israel’s past, is not to satisfy the curiosity of the history buff. The purpose of Scripture is to improve our future. We are therefore enjoined to recall our shortcomings (Deuteronomy 9:7) and these are magnified and emphasized with the most forceful words. Before Moses died, he spoke to the people. He did not commend them for all the love that they had poured into the Tabernacle. He did not praise them for following God into the wilderness (Jeremiah 2:2). The Jewish people would have to wait almost 1000 years before hearing this compliment from God. Instead Moses rebuked them for every failing that occurred throughout the 40 years, and described these at length (Deuteronomy 1:26‑45, 9:7‑24).
The book of Joshua further illustrates this point (7:1). One individual, a man named Achan, had violated the oath that Joshua had declared to the people. The terminology that Scripture uses to describe this incident seems to be way out of proportion to the crime committed. The chapter opens with the words “The Children of Israel trespassed”. The entire nation is declared guilty for the sin of one lone individual. Further on in the chapter we read “Israel sinned, they have also violated My covenant that I have commanded them, they have also stolen and denied” (Joshua 7:11). Not only is the nation being blamed for the sin of one of her members, but the crime itself is magnified in the strongest possible terms. The consequence of this one sin seems exaggerated as well. The nation was punished with a defeat in battle (Joshua 7:5), and God tells Joshua that He will no longer be with the Jewish people. All this for the crime of one individual! This gives us an insight into the standard that God demands of His people. The sin of one man is the sin of the nation, and the repercussions come on a national scale.
With this in mind we can appreciate that the intense words of rebuke that the prophets directed against the nation do not imply that every individual member of the nation was guilty of every trespass that the prophets mention. The prophets looked at the nation as a corporate whole, and the sin of some of the members is attributed to the complete national entity. The divinely inspired authors of scripture were certainly people of great moral caliber, yet they included themselves when they spoke of the nation’s sins. Exodus 16:28 has God accusing Moses together with Israel for refusing to obey His commandments. Isaiah 6:5, 42:24, and 64:8 have Isaiah including himself in confessing the sins of the nation. Jeremiah 14:7,20, Micha 7:9, Psalm 106:6, Lamentations 3:42, Daniel 9:20, Ezra 9:6, and Nehemiah 1:6 all record how the divinely inspired authors recognized the sins of the nation as their own sins.
There can be no question that there were times when a large percentage of the nation was disobedient to God. But even in the lowest times there was a recognizable element that was loyal to God. Not an element that saw themselves as separate from the nation, but an element that saw themselves as part of the nation ‑ and the nation saw this element as a part of them. When the nation recognized that they had strayed and needed to return to God, they knew to whom to turn. God always had representatives amongst His nation, and these representatives were the medium through whom God preserved His Law. These were the people who treasured every word of God’s Law, both written and unwritten and passed them on to the future generations.
This element of Jews who maintained their loyalty to God never lost the written Torah. When the Scriptures tell us that the reading of the Torah taught the people about the holiday of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8:14), or about the prohibition against intermarriage (Nehemiah 13:1), this refers to the lower elements of the populace. The scripture itself makes the distinction between the two segments of the population ‑ “those who know the laws of your God” and ‑ “those who do not know them” (Ezra 7:25). These people who knew the Law, and certainly Ezra himself and the leadership around him, did not need to read a verse to discover something they never knew. Ezra himself is described as a “scribe of the law of God” (Ezra 7:12). Having copied the Torah we can safely assume that he knew what he had written.
Similarly, we can understand that the scroll that was found in the times of Josiah, was not the last surviving copy of the Five Books of Moses. It would be ludicrous to believe that the recently converted Samaritans only several miles to the North, possessed their own copies of the Law (which differ significantly from the Judean version), while Jeremiah, Hulda the prophetess, and Zephaniah never saw a copy of the book. If every last copy of the Five Books went lost until Josiah found this one scroll, then who preserved the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Micha, Ruth, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes? The fact that these books are with us today, tells us that in Josiah’s generation there must have been someone who was safeguarding them. If there were people who took the pains to preserve the writings of David and Solomon that related to the Temple appointments (2Chronicles 35:4), these same people would certainly recognize the importance of preserving Moses’ Five Books It is only sensible to assume, that God’s prophets and those loyal to God were faithfully preserving all of God’s word, both written and unwritten.
Jeremiah began prophesying in the 13th year of Josiah’s reign, five years before the scroll was found. He criticizes those who “grasp the Torah” for their lack of intimacy with God (Jeremiah 2:8). Jeremiah denounces those who boast in their superficial possession of the Torah (Jeremiah 8:8). These verses clearly imply that even the lesser elements of the population had not lost track of the Torah. They certainly did not comply with her spirit, but the letter of the Law was with them to some degree. It is clear then that when Josiah found the scroll, he was not discovering a book that no one knew about. The scroll did not cause an impact through the information it imparted. The impact of the scroll was inspirational.
We must consider which particular scroll it was that belonged in the Temple in the first place. Deuteronomy 31:9 informs us that Moses himself wrote a scroll of the Law and presented it to the priests and Levites who bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord. The ark had been moved from its rightful place (2Chronicles 35:3) ‑ presumably some time during the reign of Menashe ‑ who had violated the Temple precincts (2Kings 21:7, 2Chronicles 33:7). In the process, this particular Torah scroll disappeared. We can only speculate if it was some righteous priest who hid it from the ravages of the wicked kings, or if God used some other means to protect this holy scroll. What the scripture does tell us is that it had vanished. During the renovations of the Temple that took place under Josiah, this precious scroll was found. When the curses of the covenant were read from this very scroll (2Chronicles 34:24), Josiah was affected to the core of his being. The discovery of the scroll at this juncture in his career, and the words being read ‑ as if Moses himself was commanding him, helped him see that the past ten years of repentance were as shallow as the young Jeremiah had declared them to be.
The word of our God stands forever (Isaiah 40:8). When God promises Israel that His spirit will remain in our midst (Isaiah 59:21), we can be confident that His promise will stand. All the forces that our enemies bring to bear against us will never prevail ‑ be they external enemies or our own fallible nature. When it is time for our nation to return, we will still have the teachings of Moses to guide us on our path back to God (Deuteronomy 30:2).
Dina
Thanks
Hi Dina,
This writing about “The Torah scroll of Josiah” says,
QUOTE #1:
‘The scripture itself makes the distinction between the two segments of the population “those who know the laws of your God” and “those who do not know them” (Ezra 7:25). These people who knew the Law, and certainly Ezra himself and the leadership around him, did not need to read a verse to discover something they never knew. Ezra himself is described as a “scribe of the law of God” (Ezra 7:12).’
I notice that these 2 quotes from the Writings, the Book of Ezra chapter 7, are actually reprinted from the words of a letter written by the pagan King Artaxerxes.
Is there any words from Yahweh, or quotes from Torah or the Prophets, that would support the idea of a distinction between the two segments of the population “those who know the laws of your God” and “those who do not know them” ?
QUOTE #2:
“Scripture’s objective in recording Israel’s past, is not to satisfy the curiosity of the history buff. The purpose of Scripture is to improve our future.”
I agree that Scripture is not to “satisfy curiosity.” But I don’t really understand what is meant here. Is it saying that Scripture is not about Yahweh the God of Israel, but rather it’s about the people of Israel, and helping them improve themselves?
QUOTE #3:
“….we can understand that the scroll that was found in the times of Josiah, was not the last surviving copy of the Five Books of Moses…. It is clear then that when Josiah found the scroll, he was not discovering a book that no one knew about.”
Yes, I would agree. But it is equally clear from [2 Kings 22:8—13] that King Josiah WAS discovering a book that the top leaders of Israel did not know about, including himself as King, and the High Priest. Therefore, I would need to respectfully disagree with you assessment that:
QUOTE#4:
The scroll did not cause an impact through the information it imparted.
I don’t see how one could arrive at that conclusion.
Respectfully,
Matthew Perri
Matthew
# 1 Nehemiah 8:7 shows us that the Levites understood the Torah and that at a given time they shared this understanding with the people – the entire concept of judges as articulated in Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15; 17:9; and 2Chronicles 19:5 demonstrates that there was always a class of people who were familiar with the Law
# 2 Of course Scripture is about God – that is how Israel improves – by coming closer to God. It would be more accurate to say that Scripture is about the relationship between God and His people than to say that it is “about God”
# 3 If Josiah did not know the law before he had the scroll then how did he turn back to God before he found the scroll? (see 2Kings 22:2; 2Chronicles 34:3).
Furthermore – please note what I have written on this in my article entitled Deuteronomy 33:4 – “The first reference to the complete Torah scroll appears in relation to the imprecations of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:58; 29:19,20, 26). The curses that will befall Israel if they disobey the Law are described as: “the imprecations of the covenant that are written in this book of the Law”. It is significant to note that the details of the curse would not be relevant to the practical day-to-day living of a Jew in his observance of the Law. It therefore follows that this information would require a written document in order to ensure its preservation. Again we see that the written document is not mentioned in relation to the practical observance of the individual Jew.”
So if there was knowledge imparted it would relate to the curses that would befall the Jews should they stray – not to the practical observance of the law
Matthew,
Regarding Matthew 5:
When someone says to you, “I’m not saying that Morris is a jerk…”, you know that that is precisely what they are going to say. If someone says they do not want to malign others, the first thing they say often is that they don’t want to malign someone, usually followed by a “but”. In a similar vein, when someone has offered racist comments, they will defend themselves by saying, “Some of my best friends are black!” Misogynists, likewise defend themselves from the charge that they hate women by appealing to the fact that they have mothers, sisters, wives, and/or daughters, so how could they possibly hate women. It is quite common for one to deny doing what he is doing even while he does it, if what he is doing is frowned upon.
It should give us pause, therefore, when Jesus announces that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. This is very suspicious. Which of the prophets ever had to announce that he was not coming to destroy Torah? Why would we even suspect that was his purpose? The fact that he sees this as a necessary announcement tells me that he is going to lay into the law after all. He is like a politician who want to defend himself against a charge of lacking patriotism, even while praising those who wish to see the dissolution of the country.
Now you have offered one interpretation of why Jesus would take commands from the Torah and misrepresent them. You say that he was countering the false teachings of the Pharisees. This view is untenable. First, it is a defense that rests on no positive proof. Certainly you can assert that some Pharisee somewhere might have made “eye for an eye” to be about revenge, but it is an assertion without any proof. It shifts the attention away from Jesus’ error and places it on a nameless “false teacher”, but no source of such teaching is known. In fact, it flies in the face of the known teachings of the Pharisees.
Second, Jesus doesn’t support your assertion. He says that the Pharisees teach well, but they do what is evil. According to him they are hypocrites. In Matthew 23, he says that they sit in Moses’ seat, and that their words must be observed, “but do not do according to their works” (vv. 2-3.) He does not say that the Pharisees don’t understand the Law, but that they are focused on superficialities and are proud. Therefore, you have no grounds to say that Jesus was correcting a Pharisaic teaching that “eye for an eye” grants one the right of revenge.
I must interrupt myself here: I am on vacation at my sister’s house, and I need to drop her off at school. If I have time, I shall continue this argument later today. I hope to do so, anyway.
Jim
And… I’m back,
Now, we do not have good grounds to think that Jesus was correcting Pharisaic teaching, but for the moment, I am going to assume that your assertion is correct. I’m going to assume that because Jesus did not say “It is written…” but “You have heard…” that he was not commenting on the Torah itself, but a perversion of the Torah. And I think that you will see that even if we accept that starting premise, Jesus is denying the Torah.
For the sake of convenience, I’m going to call the false teacher “Phil”. Phil has been badly instructing the people. He has promoted unrestrained vengeance, violating the very essence of the Torah. And he has done this by taking it out of context. Of course, one of the phrases taken out of context is “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth,” and he has misrepresented this to mean that if your enemy takes your eye, then you may take his. And we’ll assume that this has become a popular understanding, although not the only understanding because other rabbis are teaching the things that Dina mentioned above. Moreover, the rabbis by-and-large agree that “eye for an eye” is not a phrase meant to be taken literally. Still, Phil has enough pull that he’s had an influence on a somewhat significant portion of the population.
Jesus comes along, and he needs to correct this notion. Now the first thing one would expect Jesus to do is quote the context of “eye for an eye” so that the true understanding might come out. He should not be appealing to his own authority: “but I say to you”; he should be showing from the Torah itself how Phil has been misrepresenting the Torah: “but it is written in the Torah”. But he does not do this.
Instead, he leaves them with the wrong notion that Phil’s idea of revenge is in the Torah, but that Jesus proposes a “better” way. This enforces the idea that Phil’s notion is the actual Torah teaching, leaving the people to still misunderstand the words given by God. It creates the idea that the Torah is an insufficient Law demanding amendment. And it makes Jesus’ teaching superior to the Torah, because the people still don’t understand what the actual teaching of the Torah was and are left with the idea that he proposes something superior to Torah itself, not just Phil’s incorrect notion of the Torah. The people are not being taught the responsibility one carries for wrong-doing as the Torah teaches, but are given instead platitudes regarding petty injuries.
In fact, Jesus’ words are in the vein of non sequitur. If he is fixing Phil’s teaching, he should be appealing to what God’s actual command was. None of Jesus’ follow up teachings, going the extra mile and all of that have anything to do with “eye for an eye” whatsoever. He has used that as a launching place to push his own agenda. He has still shown that either one of two things is true: 1. He is ignorant of the Torah and believes that Phil’s teaching is that given by God; or 2. He cares little for the words of the Most High, using them only as an opportunity to aggrandize himself. Either way, your proposal that Jesus is only answering some bad teaching by a mythical Pharisee does not stand.
I think we begin to get a clearer picture why Jesus opens with a declaration that he does not come to do away with the Law. He certainly won’t be its defender. He is going to denigrate the Law, in fact, leaving the uneducated masses with the wrong ideas of Phil as their understanding of Torah, supplanting that bad understanding, not with God’s actual commands, but his own teachings irrelevant to the topic. Or, there is no Phil, and Jesus is just misrepresenting the Torah himself. He portrays his own teaching as superior to that given by God in a most dishonest way. One can hear Jesus protesting, “But-but-but, some of my best friends are Torah scholars.” Sure they are.
Jim
Just to clarify, Matthew, I also do not accept your assertion that in these statements Jesus was referring to Pharisaic teachings, though I accepted it for arguments’ sake. I agree with Jim that Jesus referred to the Torah itself. Thus when he said something like “you have heard it said…love your neighbor and hate your enemies,” he was falsifying the Torah in order to pretend that he was presenting a superior teaching.
I spent several weeks last summer studying the Sermon on the Mount, and I discovered that all of the good teachings (not all are good), were lifted wholesale from Tanach and from the traditional teachings of the Pharisees. Yet Jesus, with his words, “but I say to you,” presented them as his own.
The word for that, of course, is plagiarism.
Perhaps I’ll edit my extensive notes and post them.
Dear Pharisee Friend, Jim, and Dina,
I want to thank you all for your dialogues. You’ve brought up so many points it is hard to know where to begin. So perhaps I can start with what Jesus said was the Most Important Commandment, and ask if you agree with him based on the Torah.
Here is what Jesus answered when asked the question:
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than THESE.” [Mark 12:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
For the moment, perhaps we could leave aside objections to his other teachings, or whether he is the Messiah, or Church history, etc. Do you agree with Jesus on what is the Most Important Commandment?
Respectfully,
Matthew
Matthew
Matthew 12:28-31. States that is the first commandment. Jesus does not say the most important.
Oops 31 does say that
Matthew,
I mentioned in a previous comment that in my study of Mark and Matthew I discovered that Jesus lifted ideas wholesale from the teachings of the Tanach and the Pharisees and passed them off as his own.
In the case of these two commandments, this holds true.
I will tell you our attitude to these commandments and you can draw your own conclusions.
Regarding “Hear O Israel,” this Shema prayer is recited three times a day. It is the last words a Jew utters before he dies (if he knows his death is imminent, obviously).
Regarding love your neighbor, Rabbi Akiva, a famous Pharisee, said, “Love your fellow as yourself–this is a fundamental law of the Torah.”
The Talmud records a story of a heathen who approached Hillel and asked Hillel to teach him the Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel responded with “love your fellow as yourself.” He said, “What is hateful to you do not do to others. The rest is commentary. Go and learn it.”
But do I agree that these are the greatest commandments? When Moses transmitted the Law to the Children of Israel, he didn’t list them in order of importance or tell us that any of them are optional. So I can’t say I agree with the statement “there is no commandment greater than these.”
But in the end, if Jesus was false to God and Torah–and he was (at least as portrayed in the gospels)–then what he taught, even the good parts, is irrelevant. What Mohammed taught, even the good parts, is irrelevant. What Buddha taught, even the good parts, is irrelevant. In the end, it doesn’t matter if we agree or not with some of Jesus’s teachings, or Mohammed’s, or Buddha’s. The question you should be asking is not is what Jesus taught agreeable, but is Jesus true? Is he the Messiah? (And if you are a Trinitarian, is he god?)
Dina,
Jesus is obviously QUOTING the Torah, not passing the teaching off as his own. Yes I am familiar with the Shema. Hear O Israel introduces the Most Important Commandment, which appears to be missing from your post here.
The famous Pharisees you quoted, Rabbi Akiva and Hillel, agree completely with another famous Pharisee, Paul. “love your fellow as yourself.” But none of them mention any command about the Love of God, and neither did you.
In your view, what specifically is the Most Important Commandment? Do you think that it’s “love your fellow as yourself”, or something else?
You wrote, QUOTE:
“When Moses transmitted the Law to the Children of Israel, he didn’t list them in order of importance…”
May I ask where you got this idea? Every single time I have ever seen the 10 Commandments anywhere, they are always listed in the same order. The 4 Commandments regarding loving God are first, followed by the 6 Commandments regarding loving people. Have you ever seen them listed differently anywhere?
The question I am asking is, is what Jesus taught here true?
Peace and blessings,
Matthew
Matthew, you must not have read all of my post, because I mentioned that we say Shema several times a day and it’s on our lips when we die. If that doesn’t suggest to you how important this is to us, then nothing else will. Part of the Shema prayer is the rest of the passage; the next verse is, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart etc.” So love of God is mentioned.
Have you read all the writings of the Pharisees, that you can say that none of them mention love of God? Do you think it was an emotion other than a fierce love of God that inspired countless numbers of my people to choose torture and death rather than convert to your false religion?
Your implication that the real Pharisees share Paul’s mindset shows your ignorance of Pharisaic teaching and tradition. If you would read some Jewish history you would not say these things. In addition to the books I suggested in an earlier comment, I recommend The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby, which presents evidence that Paul could not have been a Pharisee (he lied about his credentials). Maccoby discusses theories about Paul’s background that are unproven, but his central argument that Paul wasn’t a Pharisee is very strong.
The next thing I want to say is that the ten commandments are not the whole Law, nor are they listed in order of importance, unless you would like to believe that murder is a less severe sin than dishonoring your parents, or adultery is a less severe sin than transgressing the Sabbath. Can you find any place in the Torah that tells us which commandments are more important than others?
Matthew, I don’t care what Paul said or what Jesus said. I don’t care if some of the things they said were true. They are irrelevant to me. They are as irrelevant as Mohammed, Buddha, Hare Krishna, Joseph Smith, and Reverend Moon.
Do you agree that if Jesus is not who he said he is, then he is as irrelevant as these others? And if that’s the case, then do you agree that your time is better spent first ascertaining beyond a shadow of a doubt whether he is what he claimed to be?
Dina,
To answer your last 2 questions, Yes.
But with all due respect, you are dodging the question I posed. You say yes, The Shema is important, (yes the love of God is mentioned, yes the Pharisees mentioned the love of God.) How important? The Most Important? Or just “important”? It’s not the same thing.
You asked, QUOTE:
“Can you find any place in the Torah that tells us which commandments are more important than others?”
My response is, can you find any listing of the 10 Commandments where the 4 commandments about loving God are NOT listed first?
So my question to you is,
In your view, what specifically is the Most Important Commandment? Do you think that it’s “love your fellow as yourself”, or something else?
Matthew,
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance of the question. It seems to ignore the objections raised and prevent us from investigating them properly. I try to avoid distractions.
Jim
I agree with Jim. This distracts from the important issues. Besides, I did indeed answer your question. I also proved that the order of the ten commandments (which is not the whole law, although Christians think it is) can’t be in order of importance or you would have to say that “honor your parents” is a greater commandment than “you shall not murder” and that “remember the Sabbath day” is a greater commandment than “you shall not commit adultery.”
Please read my comments carefully because I sense that you are not quite registering everything I write.
If you want a simple yes or no question, the answer is no. I do not agree with Jesus.
Now it’s your turn to answer my questions. I refer you to some of my comments that you haven’t responded to either at all or in a serious and deep way. I will post the links in a series of comments because this website only allows a couple of links at a time:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-10098
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-10176
Jim, LarryB & Dina,
In the Torah (and everywhere else that I am aware of)
the 10 Commandments are always listed in the same order. The 4 Commandments regarding loving God are first, followed by the 6 Commandments regarding loving people.
Are you saying that there is no meaning or significance to Moses putting the commands regarding God above the commands regarding people? That there is no priority or order of importance indicated by Moses in the Torah?
Respectfully
Matthew
Matthew, I’m going to do the Jewish thing and answer a question with a question (or, rather, questions). Looking at the 6 commandments that concern our relationship to our fellows, why is the commandment to love your neighbor missing? I mean, if the two most important commandments are to love God and to love man, and if the Ten Commandments are the only ones you regard as important, how can it be that that one got left out?
Of these six commandments, which is the most important one, why, and how do you know this?
How is it that the commandment to love God is not listed in the Ten Commandments, if it is one of the two greatest commandments?
In fact, why reference the Ten Commandments at all, when they simply do not list “the two greatest commandments” to love God and love your neighbor?
Before I sign off, I will once again express my wish to get off this distraction and address the real issues. Your reluctance to respond to my challenges, such as the evidence for lies in the gospels, mystifies me.
Dina,
You wrote above:, QUOTE:
“the ten commandments are not the whole Law”
and your referred to, QUOTE:
“the ten commandments (which is not the whole law, although Christians think it is)”
Your quotes above answer your own questions here.
Jesus simply quoted one commandment from Torah to summarize the first 4 of the 10 Commandments, and He quoted a second commandment from Torah to summarize the next 6 of the 10 Commandments,
Matthew,
If the Ten Commandments could be summed up in two, why did God bother writing out ten?
Dina,
If the Torah could be summed up in 10 Commandments, why did God bother writing out the Torah?
Where in the Torah does it say that the Ten Commandments sum up the whole Torah?
Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are NOT a kind of summary?
Are you saying they are? And if so, what is your Scriptural basis?
Dina, When I read that question of yours I was more than surprised about what you said; “Looking at the 6 commandments that concern our relationship to our fellows, why is the commandment to love your neighbor missing?” Now look at your 6 Torah commandments;
5)“Honor your father and your mother(…)
6) “You shall not murder.
7)“You shall not commit adultery.
8) “You shall not steal.
9) “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10) “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.
I might sound sarcastic but even kids will understand that these things are based on the principle; love your fellow/ neighbor as yourself. If I tell my kid; share your toys, share your candy, play nicely with your sister, don’t pull her hair, don’t say mean words, and one other day
I just say:BE NICE TO YOUR SISTER, did I added something new?????
Eric, if you read the rest of the thread on this with Matthew, I think you’ll see that I’m going somewhere with this 🙂
Matthew
Can I jump back in one more time? I do agree with Jim that this is just a distraction. I am just trying to figure out what your asking, or trying to prove. first you ask that according to what J said was the most important Commandment if others here agree. Then you state
“Here is what Jesus answered when asked the question:
Of all the commandments, which is the most important”
After that you list mark 12:28-31,-Deut 4:5 and Lev 19:18
First off I cannot find the question where he was asked “of all the commandments which is the most important”. In mark 12-28-31, he is asked a rather minor question that most children at the time would have known.
28 “One of the scribes who had listened to them debating appreciated that Jesus had given a good answer and put a further question to him, ‘Which is the First of all the commandments” He was not asked which was the most important commandment like you claim. He was asked a simple question of what was the First commandment. J then explains that loving god was the first and then adds later that Lev:19:18 to love your neighbor as your self is the second. And to him these two are the greatest commandments. To me, your question is misleading. For some reason you miss quote the scripture and it seems to be based on what J’s response was. He thought those two commandments were the most important. He was never asked that question. Your question should be, Of all the commandments do you agree with J that the most important commandments is to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. It is a question based on what the NT wants to teach, not what God teaches.
Yes the torah teaches us to love god and each other, just not with misleading questions and in J’s order.
Hi LarryB
I think a while back we agreed that Paul was wrong about the “most important commandment.” Paul said it was “love your neighbor as yourself.” Yet, this is really the same thing that a couple of other ancient Pharisees quoted here were teaching – “love your fellow as yourself” I believe it was. This leaves God out.
Would you agree that to “love God” is more important, more inclusive, and involves more than simply “loving people” without God?
Jesus order was:
#1 Love God
#2 Love people.
I think this is Torah observant. Wouldn’t you agree?
Matthew
Would you agree to respond to my comments?
Your having a conversation with yourself.
Dear Larry’s
Other than one comment above, where you wrote “Oops 31 does say that” and nothing else, I have not seen any of your comments. What are you referring to?
Matthew
Matthew
It’s LarryB and on 3-21-2014 @3:25 and 3:34 directly above your previous comment. I’ll repost my question if you need.
actually i think you and i only agreed that paul was not an apostle.
Matthew, I think this is so important that I am going to say it again. It’s crucial to stop focusing on distractions like the term “Torah observant” or whether we agree with a specific Christian teaching–and instead confront the mountain of evidence that the gospels are not credible.
Other things to confront are the moral legacies of our respective religions, twisting scripture to fit your theology, and the questions I posted to you which remain unanswered.
More comments for Matthew to respond to:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-10165
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-10128
Hi LarryB,
I think I understand the point you are making, and I agree with the basic distinction that you are bringing up. You observe that the answer Jesus gave was bigger than the question he was asked. Yes, that is absolutely true. I omitted to specifically mention this – not to be misleading, but just because I can’t bring up every point and nuance at once. So I appreciate that you thought through this enough to notice this truth.
You wrote, QUOTE:
“He [Jesus] thought those two commandments were the most important. He was never asked that question. Your question should be, Of all the commandments do you agree with J that the most important commandments is to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus taught here that these 2 Commandments are the most important, and they should not be separated, or thought of in isolation, because they are interrelated. No one can honestly say he loves God if he simultaneously hates people.
However, there is an order. Loving God is first and most important, and loving people is second, if we are really following and obeying God.
You also wrote, QUOTE:
“Yes the torah teaches us to love god and each other, just not with misleading questions and in J’s order.”
I believe that the Torah DOES teach in “Jesus’ order” – #1 Love God, #2 Love People. The Ten Commandments are probably the most obvious example, in my opinion. The only other “order” that I can see would be to love people first, and love God second. I don’t think the Torah teaches that. Do you? (I’m not asking here if you believe everything in the NT, or everything Jesus said, or if Jesus is the Messiah. Just this particular point of teaching.)
Matthew
Matthew
I did not observe anything other than you miss quoting scripture. You now claim that you were not being misleading but simply failed to “bring up every point and nuisance at once”. I disagree. The only thing you failed at was being truthful. Your original question, notice the quotation marks, “Here is what Jesus answered when asked the question:
Of all the commandments, which is the most important” You have totally changed the point of the question, from a scribe asking what was the first commandment to a scribe asking what is the most important commandment. And now you claim to “not to be misleading, but just because I can’t bring up every point and nuance at once.” I would buy into that if you were explaining something or even explaining what you thought J was saying. This is not the case here, you changed the original question into 9 words of your choice. You seem to not even care what your new bible says. Your reason for doing it seems to be because that is what you think J taught, and that the torah teaches the same thing. I would challenge you on this, please find that for me. I cannot. The last 6 commandments you allude to do not require love to achieve any of them. I will ask you, Why did God not command us to follow these rules because of love? God knows people do not kill the ones they love. People do not steal from the ones they love either. It is the ones you do not love he is protecting. For myself, I am incapable of loving everyone. some people I really dislike, alot. What does John 8:44 say about liars?
LarryB
Here are some different translations:
Matthew 22:36
NIV “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
NASB “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
KJV “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Amplified “Teacher, which kind of commandment is the great and important – the principal kind – in the Law?”
Likewise, in the other scene where a different man asked basically the same question.
Mark 22:28
NIV “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
NASB “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
KJV “Which is the first commandment of all?”
Amplified “Which is the first and most important commandment of all?”
These are translations, and they all seem to mean basically the same thing to me. If you do see some important difference between the “first commandment of all” and “most important commandment”, what would that be?
LarryB
Sorry, I made a typo. These are from Mark chapter TWELVE verse 28 (not chapter 22).
Mark 12:28
NIV “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
NASB “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
KJV “Which is the first commandment of all?”
Amplified “Which is the first and most important commandment of all?”
You are right I was wrong. I forgot you have to google everything because of all the different versions of bibles out there. Somebody tell me I don’t have to check a dozen versions of the Torah, to know what it says. I dont mean the christian version of the torah.
Larry, good point!
LarryB
You bring up an excellent point. You wrote, QUOTE #1:
“The last 6 commandments you allude to do not require love to achieve any of them. “
Yes, you are right. And I believe that is why God gave us the entire Torah as The Law, not just the Ten Commandments. (It seems clear to me that the Ten Commandments are a sort of summary, but they are not an comprehensive summary.)
You wrote, QUOTE #2:
“I will ask you, Why did God not command us to follow these rules because of love?”
I think God did, in the Torah:
“Do not hate your brother in you heart. Rubuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yaweh. Keep my decrees.” [Leviticus 19:17-19]
You wrote, QUOTE #3:
“For myself, I am incapable of loving everyone. some people I really dislike, alot.”
So you are human- and so am I. Even Jesus didn’t command us to LIKE everyone or TRUST everyone. There are different ways to love people appropriately, even your enemies, although its hard to do, for me, you, and everyone else who is honest about it.
Matthew, you wrote: ” There are different ways to love people appropriately, even your enemies.” Are there appropriate ways to love Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Jong Un, Osama bin Laden, and all such monsters?
Psalms 139:21-22
Dina,
God is The Judge, not me. David expressed his sinful feelings in this Psalm, which I have also felt toward certain people. For some individuals, perhaps the most loving thing to do for them, and for those around them, is to give them a swift execution.
God is the Judge, and He told us in His Torah what is morally repugnant.
By the way, how do you know when David is expressing his sinful feelings, his righteous feelings, or a messianic prophecy that applies to Jesus?
Is it sinful for him to say, as he does in Psalms 119, “How I love your Torah; all day long it is my conversation,” for example? If not, why not? If God is the Judge, who are you to judge which words or his are sinful and which are not?
Dina,
We are to judge which words are Torah and which words are not.
The Psalms are not Torah.
I agree with you. “God is the Judge, and He told us in His Torah what is morally repugnant.”
Jesus the Jewish Messiah understood that.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-9821
Matthew, proving your point from Christian Scripture is meaningless to me. Let’s stick to our common ground, and let’s be honest about it. We agreed that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms ca be quoted authoritatively in our discourse. Thanks.
Matthew,
You are playing fast and loose with your own rules. You declared the Psalms authoritative, and now when it doesn’t fit your theology, you declare them not to be authoritative. This grows absurd.
Jim
Jim,
The Torah is the MOST authoritative. Maybe that’s why people like to say they are “Torah observant”?
Larry B,
I do not agree with Matthew Perri. That’s an understatement I guess. But, on the other hand, regarding your comment on the greatest commandment, I think you also may be misunderstanding scripture. Which bible version are you using? On the 21st at 3:25 you made a couple of statements as follows, “First off I cannot find the question where he was asked “of all the commandments which is the most important”. In mark 12-28-31, he is asked a rather minor question that most children at the time would have known.” … “He was not asked which was the most important commandment like you claim. He was asked a simple question of what was the First commandment.”
I checked several English translations and they all read essentially the same which contradict what you wrote above. I’ll quote from the ESV. In Matthew he is asked, “…which is the great commandment in the Law?” And in Mark he is asked, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
After answering the question of the scribe, Jesus adds, in Matthew, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” And, in Mark, he adds, “There is no other commandment greater than these.” Note that here he speaks of two (not one), referring to them as “these.”
There is no passage or verse in the Hebrew Scriptures which contradict Jesus on this point. And neither are there any passages which directly state which is the greatest, hence our “debate” and “test” question from the scribe. The scribe (as recorded in Mark) knew the answer he was looking for. And the scribe (in the account of Mark) combines the two commandments and speaks of them as ONE. Jesus does NOT correct him on that point. Quite the opposite, he praises him as having answered “wisely.” We therefore can surmise that Jesus believes the two can also be combined and spoken of as one commandment.
I think we can all agree that the answer to the question as asked is a no brainer for anyone at the time who studied and lived under the Old Covenant. But Jesus didn’t limit his answer the question “as asked.” He linked the 2nd with the greatest characterizing it as “like it” in Matthew, and then said that all the Law and Prophets depend on THESE (in Matthew) or that there is no other greater than THESE (in Mark).
There are nuanced differences depending on the version of the English translation of course, but here’s the full text of both accounts (Matthew and Mark) in the ESV:
Matthew 22: 35 – 40
35 (AR)And one of them, (AS)a lawyer, asked him a question (AT)to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, (AU)“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And (AV)a second is like it: (AW)You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 (AX)On these two commandments depend (AY)all the Law and the Prophets.”
Mark 12:28 – 34
28 (AX)And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, (AY)‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, (AZ)the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 (BA)The second is this: (BB)‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment (BC)greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that (BD)he is one, and (BE)there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all (BF)the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, (BG)is much more than all (BH)whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (BI)And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.”
However, the question was asked and responded to in the context of the Old Covenant in the last week of his life.
So, how is the Old Covenant expressed in the New Covenant, or is it? I believe it is expressed through Jesus as follows:
On the night before he died, he introduced the New Covenant. At that time, he gave a new command (which John later explains is really an old command from the beginning) to 11 of his apostles (he didn’t give it to Judas). The new command is found in John 13 as follows:
“34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
And how did Jesus love his apostles? John 15 provides the answer.
“9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”
We cannot claim to love Jesus if we don’t keep his commandments. John 14:
15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
Then Jesus prays for future new believers in Jesus who will be in the New Covenant (that would include me of course) in John 17:
20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,…”
Therefore, combining all the above scripture, if Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus and we who love Jesus today also keep his commandments and love one another as Jesus loved his apostles, then we know that we are in both the Son and the Father and they in us.
Then also, the greatest commandment(s) of the Old Covenant upon which the Law and Prophets hang as debated above are also fulfilled in the New Covenant.
David,
With all due respect, why are you being so obstinate and unreasonable?
You wrote, QUOTE:
“The scribe (as recorded in Mark) knew the answer he was looking for.”
You don’t know that. You don’t know what he was thinking or looking for.
You wrote, QUOTE:
“And the scribe (in the account of Mark) combines the two commandments and speaks of them as ONE. Jesus does NOT correct him on that point. Quite the opposite, he praises him as having answered “wisely.” We therefore can surmise that Jesus believes the two can also be combined and spoken of as one commandment.”
No, the man did NOT combine the two commandments and speak of them as ONE. He spoke of them as two, but since his understanding was still growing, he did not distingish and spell out as clearly as Jesus did the difference between the first and the second.
Jesus did not harshly correct the man and demand that the man parrot His words exactly. Jesus said “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” [Mark 12:34] Jesus didn’t say the man had arrived, or had given a perfect answer. Also, you don’t need to put words in the mouth of Jesus. Jesus didn’t say “wisely”, that is in the editorial comments.
So no, we CANNOT surmise that Jesus believes the two can also be combined and spoken of as one commandment. That is your personal opinion, and it is wrong. You know what happens when we ASSUME.
The words of Jesus are clear – they are 2 commandments, not to be spoken of as one commandment or combined.
Your repeating yourself.
David
Thanks for the correction. I’m more useful if I just stick to asking questions. As for the rest of you comments here, I do not consider anything in the NT. I just hope I do not find out there are dozens of versions of the Torah out there.
Larry, fortunately, there is only one version of the Masoretic text of the Tanach that religious Jews use. There may be several versions in English (because that is simply the nature of translation), but only one in Hebrew.
Thank you Dina, There is a God. Doesn’t that just put a smile on our face?
🙂
LarryB
Here is a discussion you may find interesting.
http://theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-version-of-the-tanakh-do-you-read-1
Matthew, this link just proves my point. There are many versions of translations of the Masoretic text, but only one version in Hebrew.
So the Stone Edition and the Keter Crown Edition are two versions of a TRANSLATION.
No problem.
God bless.
Larry B.
Sorry, I didn’t specify; the above reply was for Larry B.
Don’t worry, David; it didn’t occur to me that you might be blessing me 🙂
Just thought I’d say hello for old time’s sake.
Eric
You wrote and I quote “Redemption is for those who love God and trust him and obey him so trusting in the redemption without obeying God doesn’t work. Deut 10 talks about walking in all His ways which requires trusting Him and listening to Him. You can’t walk in His ways without listening to him, or else you don’t know where you walk.”
I couldn’t agree more – but what do you call listening to God? Is it finding peace in your heart? Do you think that you are the only one that has peace in their heart?
Obedience to God means obedience to His commandments and since you accept that the Torah is God’s word wouldn’t you say that trusting in God, loving Him and obeying Him means hearing His voice to you through His word?
yourphariseefriend, Of course we obey Him through His words. If I didn’t mention that then sorry for confusing you.
To me His word continues through the prophets and also through NT which includes words of Jesus .
By the way didn’t say I am the only one that has peace, I am happy for everyone who has it.
Eric
I don’t have time to comment on all of the points you made in your post but here are a few to consider
You did not read Deuteronomy 13 – it doesn’t say anything about the prophet “preforming” the sign or wonder – it says that the sign or wonder comes to pass – and it clearly says that God is doing it to test you – it is on this basis that I wrote “who cares”
The reason we believe Jeremiah is because the judges of Israel who were entrusted with applying the Law of Moses ratified Jeremiah according to the Law of Moses
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/how-were-the-jewish-scriptures-canonized/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/non-prophet/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/believe-in-his-prophets-2chronicles-2020/
Dina, I read the whole Deut 13 what I was saying that besides the fact of people being tested ,
v 6 that tells you how you can recognize the false prophet- he would die for his sin. Jesus was raised by God to life. The other thing the only people in the OT who had power to perform such miracles like raising others from the dead were Elijah and Eliah- both men of God. This power of bringing life back was not given to any magician , nor any sorcerer ever , nor anybody, except prophets of God. The only power to raise others from the dead had Jesus in the NT.
Eric, I don’t know what version of the Bible you’re reading, but mine says: “And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH.” That’s not the same as “will die,” no indeed. This verse tells us that it is our responsibility to execute him.
And I’ve shown you why I have good cause not to believe anything in Christian Scripture. But in any case, the assertion that Jesus could perform miracles DOES NOT PROVE that he is a prophet of God. A prophet of God never came to tell us to cancel our obedience to the law and to believe in him instead. Deuteronomy 13 tells us that if such a prophet comes along, even if he can perform miracles, we are not to believe him but to put him to death.
I encourage you to take a look at that crucifixion/resurrection chart I posted and to respond to my challenges about your “eyewitness argument.”
Thanks,
Dina
Also, Eric, I am curious if you do have a standard of evidence that you would require that could potentially change your mind, and why every Christian I ask to show me clear teachings in the Torah about the items I listed in my earlier comment always ignore me. They consistently pretend I never asked that question, but address my other points or change the subject. It’s very interesting, to say the least.
Dina, I will have a look at it tomorrow, it is too late today and by the way I don’t have always too much time to keep writing so I can’t answer all your questions always right away.
Eric
That’s okay, take your time, and thanks for telling me. I don’t have so much time either, but I spend too much time here, more time than I have. 🙂 It’s so much fun!
there is a greek word that describes the sort of ressurection jesus did. how many pagans BEFORE jesus claimed that their holy men did a similar type of ressurection? just look at the greek word before christianity used it and inform people here how many other people did jesus type ressurections.
Dina,Ok, back to writing. Before I start, I wanted to say; don’t be hard on yourself , if I thought you are not honest about your questions I would not be here trying to answer your questions. I am glad you mentioned the contradictions, as I definitely want to know what is going on . And looking at the fist thing you mentioned; confusion about time regarding the resurrection – I am sure you didn’t come up with that from your own research but read what others wrote. So lets open Mark and John and read how did they report the resurrection. Where is that information about crucifixion taking place in the morning??? Nowhere! Mark reports you all the events that took place before crucifixion, events that stared in the morning which was getting together of the leaders, making plans, bounding Jesus and handing him over to Pilate Then you have interrogation , facing the mocking crowd, verdict of crucifixion, then handing Jesus over to the Roman soldiers , beating and mocking by them, then before the crucifixion there was flogging, walking to the final execution place. Does it look like a morning??? I don’t think so. Now back to John reporting; nothing mentioned about noon! So If you collect hundreds of this type of ‘ contradictions’ without checking it first by yourself- then I am not surprised it makes you think it is all fake. I will have a look at the rest of the chart later.
Now what else I wanted to address in the same email is Deut 13. Yes, mine has the same translation, “ the prophet had to be put to death” – I said it in my own words ( I am using my thoughts in the other language) so I said that he had to die which points to the same end. So if he had to be put to death I don’t see the reason God wanting him back to life, like it happened with Jesus. If he was back to life , he was without sin, because the only reason for death is sin.
To reject the whole truth about Jesus being the son of God , you have to prove his life is made up and the resurrection never happened. But doing it based on peoples’ speculations without proof doesn’t prove anything.
You also said you have your standard of evidence regarding your beliefs and you want me to show you if the faith in the Messiah is necessary for salvation. This is a wrong statement. It is like asking if faith in the words of the prophet Isaiah or Jeremiah ( during their times) was needed for salvation .
Usually if you trusted and obeyed God you wanted to accept the words of the prophet that God sent, instead of having in mind ; ‘I don’t care what is He saying”. That mainly meant you didn’t care what God was saying. And why not to ask God Himself whether you need Jesus and whether he is true? I am sure God can answer our prayers.
I know from the scriptures that prayer and repentance are enough for God to forgive us but that doesn’t have to exclude the fact that the price for our eternal life ( reason for freedom from the death) wasn’t paid by the One God sent.
The book of Leviticus (17:11), clearly gives the prescription for forgiveness: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” To me it is not only about instructions relating to not eating blood without a reason.
The Levitical High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies in the temple and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat. And he never could come like that without blood. Jesus arrived as a High Priest, He entered through the greater and more complete Tabernacle, not made with hands—and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered into the Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been made common, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the Living God?” (Hebrews 9:11-14).
I would be glad to hear your opinion to my question I put in the previous email; why there is death despite God’s forgiveness and why the high priest couldn’t enter the holy of holiest- place in the temple without blood? It is not a change of the subject. It is all connected.
What can I say to your question about Jesus not appearing to all people but to the ones who believed in him. The same question I would have to ask why God spoke only to Moses at the burning bush , and no other people can hear God speaking like that? I don’t know everything.
How convenient it would be if God spoke to an atheist like that so that the atheist would have a reason to believe there is God? Maybe it would be convenient if all people saw Jesus after his resurrection.
But we also know from the scriptures that God opposes the pride ones and gives grace to the meek. And Jesus always said he was doing and saying things what God told him to do.
I will look at your chart tomorrow if I find time,
Eric
“So if he had to be put to death I don’t see the reason God wanting him back to life, like it happened with Jesus. If he was back to life , he was without sin, because the only reason for death is sin.”
god has been giving life to creatures for a billion years and decided to give life to himself one day? can you explain how a god giving death to himself works in the trinity? the father doesn’t give himself death, the spirit doesn’t give himself death, the son does? if there were 2 persons who had death in a defeated position , then did death defeat and CONTROL the son?
about death
if u don’t give little infants food they would die. so in this case an infants death has nothing to do with sin.
mrqestioner, Son of God is son of God , Father in heaven in Father in Heaven not somebody else. I don’t believe in trinity. So it was you who mentioned that infant, for some reason it was in my mind that it was Dina ( sorry Dina) . So you are the lucky one . As an infant you were given food to survive till now but why just by eating all the time can’t you live forever??
yourphariseefriend, About ; performing a miracle or giving a wonder that comes to pass- what is the big difference between them? Just a similar saying pointing to doing something that is inconceivable , beyond our understanding and capability to do it yourself or impossible to explain how it happened, ” If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams–and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,(..) whereof he spoke unto thee–saying: ‘Let us go after other gods (…) – then I understand – you don’t follow such , so what type of wonders ( that are not performed miracles) did Jesus do that you think you are being tested? What other gods does he tell you to go after??
Dina, little correction. I am describing the crucifixion time in Mark and John ( not resurrection). I mentioned that word by mistake by having a look at the previous message but I am talking about the one you asked me.
Hi Eric,
Your argument about long life proving the validity of a prophet’s claims tells me that you have missed the point of Deuteronomy 13. This passage in Scripture tells us that miracles mean NOTHING when evaluating the claims of the prophet. The only thing we need to know is what direction is he pointing our worship to. Jesus did not point people to God as much as he pointed them to HIMSELF. And that is not okay. Did Moses ever tell the people to do anything for his own sake, or to believe in him?
Eric, it almost seems like you’re saying that if a person didn’t die in his sin then it proves he didn’t sin. If someone commits adultery and doesn’t die, does it mean he didn’t commit adultery? Of course not.
Even if Jesus was miraculously resurrected–and I do not accept that claim–that would prove nothing so long as he failed the test of Deuteronomy 13. Which he did.
Our discussion about redemption is not going to go anywhere because we define it differently. To you redemption means resurrection of the dead. To me, redemption is as described by the prophets: world peace, universal knowledge of God, ingathering of the exiles, rebuilding of the Third Temple, vindication of the Jews in the eyes of all the nations, punishment of our oppressors and enemies. That is redemption according to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Our spiritual salvation lies entirely in our own hands as agents of free will (Deuteronomy 30).
Furthermore, while I am not in any hurry to die, the notion of death troubles me less than it troubles you because I believe in the immortal soul and the afterlife. (Science is beginning to support this idea. See http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Afterlife-Science-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0061452572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396553383&sr=8-1&keywords=evidence+of+the+afterlife.)
Now I will address two side points. One is your dismissal of my question about the sign given to the Pharisees. You don’t know the answer to that question, but that doesn’t trouble you. It should. According to Christian scripture (I emphasize this because I don’t believe this conversation ever took place), Jesus tells the Pharisees that the only sign he will give them is his resurrection after three days. Then he fails to fulfill that sign by not appearing to them after three days (or ever).
This is a HUGE theological problem. And it totally justifies the Pharisees’ rejection of him according to your scripture (there are lots of other good reasons as well). Jesus did not keep his word to the Pharisees according to your own scripture.
Second point, about the contradiction of time of day in Mark and John, check this out:
Mark 15:25: “It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.”
John 19:14: “It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.” The proceedings started then, so the crucifixion was even later in the afternoon.
The eyewitnesses couldn’t tell the difference between morning and afternoon? Writing with divine inspiration? That’s a big deal, Eric. A very big deal indeed.
Thanks for taking the time, truly.
With respect,
Dina
Dina,I admit I confused you a bit, I missed that 9 am in Mark but anyways with the correct time given there is still no contradiction. I read it again to have the whole picture in 4 of the gospels. Mark describes so many events all together that took place and even if I wanted to fit them all before 9 am the same day -it is not possible. So logically I would say the crucifixion had to take place next day at 9am. Mark and Matthew list you how much happened before; which was questioning by Jewish leaders, sending Jesus to Pilate, questioning , beating, mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, flogging, sending Jesus to Herod ( Luke 23;7 ), then questioning by Herod, mocking and beating by Herod’s soldiers, then John is telling you it was about 12 pm when Pilate finished his questioning and was later talking to Jewish leaders. Then there was also negotiating with Jewish leaders to release Jesus as Pilate didn’t see any reason to kill him, ( Matthew 27;24, Luke 23;22 ) then Pilate’s asking the crowd whether to release the criminal Barabbas or let Jesus be free, and crowd chose Jesus to be killed. Too many events to take place before 9 am, then we still have to add the walking to Golgotha carrying the cross ,Jesus barely having strength to walk and if Mark says that at that time ( third hour) they already crucified him, it had to be next day. The gospels list you all events one after another but time given tells me one day was for trial and torturing , the other for crucifixion.
I looked at your chart and there are many of that type situations when the reader doesn’t know the way the gospels are written so he takes the missing details in one gospel as a contradiction. There is no point to write explanation to all of them right now, you don’t believe them anyways and – it takes my time, but I looked also at this one; What your chart says about last words of Jesus that were confusing. I looked at the verses your chart gives to that ; Matthew 27;46 but I didn’t find that these were the last words but only that he said them, then Mark 15;34, is the same way, his words were still NOT his last words,, His last words are in Luke where it clearly says that AFTER saying them he died. Then John is focusing on the words Jesus said before he died ( they don’t say it was right after saying them). The reason John focused on these words is to emphasise the meaning of the crucifixion; ;”it is finished’, – the work to obtain our redemption.
You wonder why the gospels are written that way. Each of the Gospels has its own emphasis on the ministry of Christ. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, proving that He is the long-awaited Messiah. Mark writes a fast-paced, condensed account, recording Jesus’ miraculous deeds and not recording His long discourses. Luke portrays Jesus as the remedy of the world’s ills, emphasizing His perfect humanity and humane concern for the weak, the suffering, and the outcast. John emphasizes Jesus’ being Son of God by selecting many conversations and also including “signs” that prove He is the Son of God. Why God chose them to be that way, is to put focus on each side of the person Jesus was; In one he is presented as the King, in the other as the Servant, then the Son of Man, and in John as the Son of God, He is completing all there.
Because you mentioned so many points in the other emails I will have a look at them and try to respond to them later this weekend,
Eric
Eric, sorry, but this doesn’t work because you are speculating about why the contradictions are there and are ignoring the plain meaning of the text.
I want you to know again that I appreciate your taking the time to write lengthy explanations to all my questions, and I look forward to your future comments addressing my other points.
All the best,
Dina
Dina, my last comment to that contradiction issue about crucifixion times. You mentioned the plain meaning of the text. Ok, Let me accept John’s report as one story without time space and that after 12pm they were going to crucify Jesus. But then lets look at the chapter 18;28 till chapter 19;15 . How many events do you have described? mainly interrogation by Pilate and some talk with Jewish leaders. If you want to believe that it was all after and that the crucifixion took place right after talks in chapter 19; verse 15, then we are missing the trial by Herod, mocking by Herod’s soldiers, negotiations regarding releasing of Barabbas, releasing Barabbas, sending Jesus by Herod back to Pilate.
Every gospel exposes different details to focus on, and you have to take it as a whole picture, rather than saying John 12 tells you about 12pm contradicting Mark. Then about Mark after chapter 15;20 it was not the end of the trial and torturing as this report is missing trial by Herod and his soldiers beatings, so you can know that events starting in v.21 were not fallowing right away but next day to be 3am.
It is not the first time that the scriptures tell you about the events not necessarily listing them all in a chronological way; Look at Isaiah 3 last words and the whole chapter 4 starting ‘On that day…” as if it was continuation without time span. Huge time span between these two chapters , one telling you about cursed times and chapter 4 about glorious the Messianic times.
Hi Eric.
I have read these in context. I spent last summer reading Mark and Matthew very carefully. I wrote over 30 pages of notes on Matthew.
You are not giving me serious answers. When I say that Jesus did not keep his word to the Pharisees, your response basically boils down to “so what, what’s the big deal, he revealed himself to Paul.” When I say that Jesus’s prophecy that this generation will not taste death until these things come to pass was a false prophecy, or that not one stone will be left standing on the other was a false prophecy, your answer is pretty much “well, that’s not what he meant.”
When I show you contradictions between time of day (and in the case of the resurrection, how long Jesus was in the tomb, which was not three days and three nights, so that’s another false prophecy), you say that all these differences together give a full picture. I see contradictions that make the story impossible to have taken place according to all the versions.
So I don’t really know what to say!
Respectfully,
Dina
Dina, I don’t know what more to say , the conversation doesn’t go anywhere. You say my answers are not serious to you, but that is ok, you think what you think. I am trying to explain you the way I see the gospels are written and I clearly showed you the fact that each gospel is giving different details and taking just one of the gospels won’t show you the whole picture at all . So making an assumption just based on John to say the crucifixion took place at 12pm is pointless and without any logical base. I wrote you yesterday how the crucifixion story is not complete based on just one report until you put all details together. But for you it still doesn’t make sense. Well it makes sense to me. If it doesn’t to you I am not going to insist on you seeing things the way I see. I haven’t looked at the other things in your chart to tell you anything more.
Another thing is accusing Jesus of not giving a sign. I checked that verse David put and I agree in Matthew 12;38-40. There is nothing about Jesus telling them he promised to show up before their faces after resurrection. But just telling them about sign of Jonah. Then I explained you the the way Jesus used the word ;’generation’ well, you would insist it should refer to that 40-60 years period of life time ( generation of Jesus times) , but what if it ISN’T? Based on the context each time Jesus used this word it tells me it ISN’t! Even reading Matthew 12;41 “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.” Was all generation that means all the people living there to be condemned??? Would Jesus include all even those who accepted his teaching? Would all whom he called the meek and poor in the spirit be condemned because they belonged to the generation of HIS times??? It ISN’T. So it tell me it refers to the generation of evil doers.
Also, Eric, I read Matthew with growing astonishment. He twists Hebrew Scripture like a pretzel to fit his story and even makes things up. It’s extraordinary. If you’ve been following my conversations with others on this blog, you know what I refer to, but otherwise, I can give you examples if you’d like.
Dina,Ok, give me some of the ‘twists’ that astonished you so much in Matthew. I have no time to follow all 300 messages to see who said what and what you talked about before.
Eric
Eric, I will compile a short list (not an exhaustive one) later tonight or tomorrow, God willing. And after that I don’t know how interaction on the blog I will have time for, given my holiday preparation. I will do my best, however, and hope you will bear with me if it takes several days to respond.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I am not in a hurry, so take your time.
Eric
Thanks for understanding, Eric. I’ll start with a few, and when we finish discussing those, we can move on to some more.
All references are from the gospel of Matthew:
Chapter 1: The genealogy of Jesus doesn’t match up with 1 Chronicles 3.
1:23: Matthew mistranslates Isaiah 7:14, including the mistranslation “virgin” when it really says “young woman,” as well as quotes it out of context.
2:6: Matthew mistranslates Micah 5:1 to make it appear to say the opposite of what it says.
2:15: Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 out context, lopping off half the verse to fit his narrative.
2:17-18: Matthew misrepresents Jeremiah 31:14-16 to make it appear that Rachel is weeping for the slain babies in Herod’s massacre when in reality she is weeping for the Jewish exiles. The prophet then reassures her that the exiles will return.
2:23-24: Matthew quotes a non-existent prophecy from the Prophets. This is the one that is most astonishing to me. He actually made up a prophecy out of whole cloth. There is no prophecy that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene; in fact, the town of Nazareth is nowhere mentioned in Hebrew scripture.
Okay, that’s just in the first two chapters of Matthew. Perhaps we should focus on one at a time to avoid getting bogged down in a very complicated discussion.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, We can either give quick judgement that something is messed up or take a closer look to realize there is a logical explanation to the issue, so it doesn’t have to deny thuthfulness or reliability of the written message. So my answers will be quick, no point to complicate something where there is no problem;
I will start with ;”2:6: Matthew mistranslates Micah 5:1 to make it appear to say the opposite of what it says.”
My question; does this verse show Mathew mistranslating the verse or anything opposite?
Look at the verse .4 & 5 who is speaking;”And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.5 AND THEY SAID ( which is chief priests and scribes) unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, (…)
It is NOT Matthew himself but people saying simply in their words what Micah said and that ‘s what Matthew is reporting. I do it the same way many times ; citing the verse out of my memory not exactly word in word but keeping the message.
Does their answer really differ what the prophet said? ” And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. ” via Micah 5;2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; ” The same message passed on in both;
1) Bethlehem shown as the little in Judah,
2) Out of it will come the ruler of Judah
The only information the people didn’t mention was “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” because they were focusing on the birth place of Jesus to expose the fact he was born in Bethlehem. That doesn’t mean they were denying or rejecting any part of the words God said in Micah. Does it make sense?
Eric, let’s look at that again.
Let’s say Matthew quoted the Pharisees accurately (doubtful because the Pharisees knew their own Bible well enough to not misquote it like that). The point is that Matthew is trying to prove from this that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, so he seems to have agreed with this quote.
Now the problem is like this, (using your translation for consistency’s sake):
In Matthew, the quote is given as follows: “Thou, Bethlehem…ART NOT THE LEAST etc.”
Micah: “Thou, Bethlehem…THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE etc.”
Do you still say that the passage is saying much the same thing? Looks like the opposite to me.
Finally, if you look at this in context, the prophet is saying that the Messiah will come from the people of Bethlehem, the particular clan–not necessarily the city.
I emphasize the words that show this: “Bethlehem, Ephratah, YOU ARE TOO SMALL TO BE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH, but FROM YOU SOMEONE WILL EMERGE for Me to be a ruler over Israel; and his origins will be from early times, from days of old” (Tanach, Stone Edition).
Best wishes,
Dina
Dina, By whose words Matthew is trying to prove anything? You mean with the incorrect translation/quote of Micah in Matthew 2v.6 or with the answer of the people in v.4 which says ” in Bathlehem of Judeah”?
Lets imagine that you never heard where Jesus was born but heard the words ; “In Bethlehem of Judaea” the way the people responded , would you understand it as a city or people of Bethlehem?
Is the city excluded in words; “Bethlehem, Ephratah”?
Eric, I’m busy with holiday preparations and will get back to this after Passover, God willing.
Thanks for your patience,
Dina
Hi Eric.
I’ve been thinking of you and our debate. I’ve been thinking that our back and forth has helped me gain clarity, and I hope you can say the same. I was also thinking that although we may not change each other’s minds, perhaps something else will change that will also be worth our efforts.
In my conversations with Christians over the years, I’ve confronted a deep misunderstanding of the Jewish position. Usually that misunderstanding was accompanied by contempt for it as well.
My hope is that you are beginning to see that the Jewish position is strong enough to merit your respect, even as you disagree.
I hope that you are beginning to understand–even while you disagree–why Jews cannot accept Jesus as their Messiah.
The primary reason, in an argument with a Unitarian Christian such as you, is that Christians have changed the job description of the Messiah. According to Jewish tradition rooted in the Bible the Messiah will be a human-born Davidic king who will rule during a utopian era of universal knowledge of God, universal peace, the restoration of the Third Temple and the sacrificial system, the ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the vindication of the Jews in the eyes of the gentile nations, the exaltation of the nation of Israel as God’s true and loyal servant, punishment of Israel’s oppressors, and so on.
According to Christian tradition rooted in Christian scripture, the messiah suffers and dies to atone for the sins of all of mankind, and man achieves eternal salvation only through belief in and acceptance of this messiah.
Jews have no reason to accept this new job description.
Jews mostly do not read Christian scripture, as we do not read the sacred texts of any religion. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism–it’s all the same to us. But those who do read it, as I have started to do, find that its authors have distorted the Hebrew scriptures. Surely you can see that a plain reading of the text will confirm what I am saying, even as you find ways to interpret the text so as to harmonize it with the Jewish bible.
Even if you disagree, but can see that our position is strong, this effort will have been worthwhile.
I hope to follow up in the near future, God willing, with more on this thread pertaining to your last comment to me.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, I will disappoint you but the more I look into the OT the more I am convinced of Jesus being sent by God as a true servant. I can put away a NT and I will still see the need for the atonement in the Jewish OT scriptures , the need for High Priest that Jesus is before God.
Do you believe that God saved Israel once using Joseph?? I believe so. It is God who saved Jacob’s family but God used Joseph. Jacob’s sons were bad but God found the way to save the whole family. It is God who gave Joseph the ability to interpret dreams, He gave him wisdom to know how much food to collect for 7 years of drought, wisdom to be in charge, and through Joseph’s forgiving heart the whole family was saved from starvation as well the whole Egypt..
God used a man.
You said we changed the job description of the Messiah.
I would say we see there is more than only expecting what Jewish people expect of him.
You say that the Messiah will be a king who will rule during a utopian era of universal knowledge of God, universal peace.
We say he will be the source of that universal knowledge of God. Not just ruling during that time but God and the Messiah will be the source of that peace. When the Lord will be the king then the restoration of everything else promised will be possible.
So why not yet?
Starting from Genesis- I see there is a sin issue and it’s consequences that had to be dealt with. If death came to the world after disobeying God’s word, and one day there is no more death, I believe God used Jesus to reconcile the world into Himself.
You may insist that the nation is the suffering servant but Jesus was still there included and walked the same way. And because we ALL went astray like sheep(…)”, there is no exclusion, every nation went astray so every nation needs healing.
There is no way the universal peace can just happen on it’s own. People are actually getting worse and the whole world is going to face God’s judgement one day. I am sure you are familiar with that. Until God deals with those who oppose Him, there can’t be any peace.. God is giving to people time of grace to still turn to Him. Then there will be time when the nations will gather against Jerusalem and God will rescue His people and the Messiah will come to rule. Then everybody who stayed alive will be part of that time. Zechariah chapters 12-14 .
That time will be very unique. There will be resurrection of all the dead ones ( we read in Ezekiel) who served God so they can be a part of the Messianic kingdom. Then there will be still new people being born , living long but still dying . There will be people who once died and are back to life.
Eric, Christians changed the job description of the Messiah–and you are still not showing me how Hebrew Scripture supports this.
Where do you see that one must believe in and accept a messiah in order to attain eternal life?
You cannot answer this question. I am just trying to show you why, even while you disagree with our position, you can still respect it as being a strong one, and our objections as being fair ones.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, So we are back to the beginning.There is no such a thing like just ‘trust in the Messiah’ without trusting God about him.
Jesus said you could call him Lord Lord, but that didn’t mean anything if you didn’t care about doing the will of the Father in Heaven. Matthew 7;21
There is trust in God believing HE SENT him for us for our salvation so you can see that it is God who is a Redeemer.
Getting to the Promised Land wasn’t because of Moses himself but by trusting God and obeying the leader ( Moses) whom God chose for that purpose.
As far as trusting in Jesus words – In John 12;47-49 – Jesus explains;
“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”
You decide you want to trust God that He sent Jesus to listen to His words or not.
Why I believe Jesus is the Messiah? Jesus died and rose back to life and lives forever being now at the right hand of His Father in Heaven.
OT references to the Everlasting King;
Ps 21; 5-6 tells you about the King who will be EVERLASTING, ” Life he requested of You, You gave it to him. length of days forever and ever” and “conferred with majesty and splendor..
Ps 2 ;6 tells you about the king whom God HIMSELF anointed over Zion, v.9 who will be ruling with the iron rod.
Ps 110 v.1 Who is ‘the master’ David is talking about? ” The word of Hashem to my master ; Wait at my right , until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”?
The same king who is ‘sitting at the right hand of God’ He will be a Priest FOREVER because he is a king of righteousness. Not only a priest ( servant of God) but also a priest forever.
That is why I don’t believe in the Messiah who will die as a sinner. If he will live forever there is no sin in his life.
God gave a testimony of Jesus by raising him back to life. We may believe it is not true but scriptures are telling you about everlasting King.
Why OT Scriptures are telling you about that special Messiah to come? Notice there is no other king glorified and exalted so much after him (that is mentioned) and his kingdom will be sustained ” from now to eternity” Is 9;6
Daniel 7;13 ,(…) with the clouds of heaven, one like a man came , he came up to the One of Ancient Days (…) even the Artscroll English Tanach with Rabbinic comments , refer this verse to King Messiah.
Is 53 . There is no logic in referring the suffering of the innocent servant to the nation, as we ALL ( all nations) went astray and need healing. Israel is not listed as ‘an innocent servant’ in prophets and if the ‘righteous remnant’ ‘ committed no crime and is “with no deceit on his mouth” v.9 there is no logic in acknowledging guilt and no way to heal others.v10 .
The list can go and go so what do you call your ‘strong position’?
God has not been only talking about His salvation only relating to Israel as the salvation from the enemies in the Messianic kingdom. He has been talking about His salvation to all people who are his servants , those who take refuge in Him , salvation of their SOULS which means their LIVES. Ps 34;23 Nobody achieved salvation yet until he is saved from everlasting death and risen back to life.
Why we need Jesus now? He is our High Priest before God . Read whole chapter Hebrew 9.
You never answered why the High Priest in OT was entering into Holy of Holies never without blood . (Hebrew 9;7 explains you that.)
At the time of Israelities in Egypt, why was blood- a mark on a door a sign for a death angel to pass over that house and save the lives? I am sure angel would know who is Jewish who Egyptian. Blood was always a foreshadow of things that were to come which were done in Jesus.
Hi Eric.
You have set up a straw man and then proceeded to set him on fire. I did not argue with you about the eternal nature of the Messiah’s rule, nor did I ask you to provide Scriptural support for such an assertion. You have now inserted that into the argument and argued as if that was my position.
I challenged you to cite Scriptural support for the notion that belief in and acceptance of the Messiah is necessary for my own eternal salvation (I did not argue whether this includes trust in God or not; that’s not my point). This you have failed to do.
That Hebrew scripture is deafeningly silent on the foundation of Christian faith should trouble you.
Nevertheless, your proofs about an everlasting king who is sinless work against you. In Ezekiel 44 the prince who will rule forever brings a sin offering for himself. He is obviously someone who sins. This is a problem for all of your arguments about needing to be sinless in order to rule forever and so on.
You continue to quote from Christian scripture after I have shown you why the authors of Christian scripture cannot be trusted. Your response to this particular argument has been unsatisfactory and inadequate. You could not explain away the distortions I presented from Matthew based on the plain meaning of the text. Instead, you used apologetic gymnastics to try to harmonize Matthew with the Hebrew scriptures.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,Just a short note about the prince in Ezekiel. Even Jewish Tanach with Rabbinic thoughts and comments doesn’t say that the prince is the Messiah in 100%. They comment that it is either ; Kohen Gadol , the king Menachem cited by Rashi to 54;17 or the Messiah. Personally what I think -you read further- the word’ prince comes up many times in plural; 45;8, 45.9 , Then, in Ezekiel 46:16 we see that the prince may have “sons” to whom the prince may pass on an inheritance. There was nothing ever mentioned that the Messiah would have ‘sons’.
I will try to respond to your email later when I have more time. I have to work now .
Eric
Yes, Eric, but since you don’t accept rabbinical interpretations, then the question is, who else according to Christian theology could this prince be? What other prince will be the leader at the end of days, in Christian theology? I think you would like to wish this passage away; it’s troublesome for your faith. If you read it in context, there is a prince who will rule forever in chapter 37; this prince is singular; and if you want to say that “prince” can mean anyone, then why apply “prince of peace” in Isaiah to Jesus?
If you want this to be the Kohen Gadol, then what purpose will he serve, if Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices? Remember, I asked you what is the purpose of rebuilding the Temple and re-instituting the sacrificial system if Jesus was the final atoning sacrifice? You shrugged off this question by saying you don’t know all the answers. But this question must be answered because it is a huge theological thorn in your side.
Eric, I have asked you many tough but fair questions. You could not answer them. But you can’t admit that my position is strong.
That’s disappointing.
I look forward to hearing the rest of your response when you have more time.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
No, I am not having hard time with Ezekiel and the prince. You want to believe the Messiah will have sons , you can believe , the thing I was pointing to is that there are MORE THAN ONE prince mentioned in Ezekiel. 54;8-9. There is one in singular in chapter 37;24-25 – very possible it is the Messiah Then in 44.3 – singular one , then 46 ;6,16 singular but 45 ;8-9 plural -many princesses. So if there are more than one mentioned there is no guarantee the prince in chapter 44;3 must be about the Messiah. The Messiah is called a king and the prince in the prophets but there are many princes mentioned here. Ezekiel mainly describes the rules of serving in the new temple, who will do what and how and what other princes will be involved in the temple or how much land will belong to them. We really don’t know much more.
You asked me so who else then is the prince in Ezekiel 44. The rabbis don’t know for sure , I don’t know for sure either. I don’t say I don’t accept their explanation at all. When they say right things I am not in disagreement.
The prophecy is never that clear to know all the details in advance until l all things are fulfilled. Anybody I will try to put there will be just my speculation because there is no more information about that prince. So I am not suggesting anybody.
Second thing; why then the sacrifices in the Millennium kingdom if Jesus is considered the end of sacrifices?
Nothing has changed when it comes to the meaning of sacrificial system- I mean – the offered animals and anything else offered ( flour, money) were never to wipe off somebody’s guilt. They were the symbol and the lesson that sin always HAD A PRICE . That is why a killed bull or lamb could make the sinner perfect. The sacrifices were being repeated all the time as a reminder of something greater to come. We believe Christ took on himself our sins and willingly submitted to the Father and took punishment for us. being himself innocent. I believe so, you don’t have to if you don’t .
So why back to the sacrificial system? The same reason that it was in the past. It wasn’t accomplishing anything else than teaching that sin had a price and to offer God something special when you offered God something that had value to you, giving thanks and so.. As it could not wipe away a person’s sin , it won’t in the future. Besides there still will be people who won’t believe who will have to learn that approaching God requires holiness and that the sin has a price. We even have a reminder set of Christ ‘sacrifice’ for us which is to remember it in sharing bread and sharing wine. I there is no temple so we have that reminder. Wine- symbolizing his blood poured out for us. Bread symbolizing his body broken for us.
The statement that Christ is the end of sacrifices- means his ‘sacrifice’ – finally accomplished our redemption. It was the final one all the sacrifices were pointing to.
I mean it made it possible that the price for sin is paid off. That his sacrificed life pays for the consequences of sin ( eternal death ) so we can live forever. That one final price paid.
You asked me if we have to believe in the Messiah to have eternal life. Depends whom are you expecting… . If the Messiah was to be just another ‘president’ of Israel by whose ruling there will be peaceful time- then trust in such a men has nothing to do with anybody’s salvation . There is no need to trust in a ‘president’ in order to have peace with God.
But we see the messiah not only a ‘president’ type of peaceful times. We see that the he also brought us freedom from sin consequences ( eternal death.) That makes a difference. Believing him is trusting God that God made salvation possible by Jesus’ sacrifice’ It is also trusting God as he is passing on God’s message to us that we are given life instead of speculating of unknown what happens to us after we die.. So if I reject him I feel like I am also rejecting God and saying I don’t need your ‘cleansing’ from my sin. God said he would show us His salvation when we trust Him. psalm 23;34, ps 50 ;25
It is like having Moses. If I lived at his time and said ‘I don’t want to listen to your message Moses, I am not going to walk the way you say, I will wait here for God himself on that desert” – I am ignoring Moses’ directions from God, then it means I am also not listening to God.
Before Messiah was born people were putting trust in God and believing Him he was going to sent him. Coming to God was always by repenting and trusting Him and whomever He put in charge to listen to at different times , His messengers , prophets– was for our benefit- to know what is the will of God. So believing Jesus I know that God made our life free from eternal death and how He ‘cleansed’ us form sin.
Hi Eric,
I think your answer on the prince in Ezekiel is fine, and I don’t have a problem with it. But your answer on the re-institution of the sacrificial system makes no sense to me.
First, you have still not provided a source from Tanach supporting the Christian belief that only through acceptance of the Messiah as one’s lord and savior can one attain eternal life. Not a single source.
Second, it makes no sense to say that Jesus is the final atoning sacrifice and then to say that we still need the sacrificial system to atone for sin. I simply could not make sense of what you wrote. It’s not clear.
On the other hand, Hebrew scripture makes it perfectly clear how we can shape our spiritual destiny (Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18 and 33).
Finally, you compared Jesus to Moses. May I remind you that God established the credibility of Moses as His prophet to the eyes of the whole entire nation by speaking to him in front of everyone (Exodus 19:9). The Torah tells us that a prophet as great as Moses has never again arisen in Israel (Deuteronomy 34:10).
Christians contend that Jesus was greater even than Moses. Therefore, to establish his credibility, God should have done at least what He did with Moses: speak to him in front of all of Israel. Not only did he not do this, but Jesus also failed to fulfill the one sign he gave the Pharisees–that he would rise after three days and nights in the belly of the earth (and according to some gospels it wasn’t even a full three days and nights). The fact that Jesus failed to appear before the Pharisees is a problem. I believe we discussed this before. Forgive me; I can’t keep track of what I discussed with whom :).
You keep saying things like “this is what I believe, you believe what you want.” But belief MUST have a strong rational basis. We are responsible for the choices we make, and what greater responsibility comes from a decision upon which hinges the fate of our very souls? A decision of what kind of loyalty to our own Creator?
If we cannot clearly defend our faith, we must keep seeking for the truth, praying to our Father in heaven for His guidance all the while, and keeping our minds open.
May He lead us to the light of His truth.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, You said “, you have still not provided a source from Tanach supporting the Christian belief that only through acceptance of the Messiah as one’s lord and savior can one attain eternal life. ”
I tried to explain that so many times, so maybe once more maybe different way this time. Before Moses was born, God didn’t require people to listen to Moses when Moses didn’t exist, before any prophet or a judge or king was appointed , people weren’t required to listen to them ( because they didn’t exist) until they had a judge or a king or a prophet. The same is with the Messiah. When he comes God will want us to listen to him and respect him like you were doing to the chosen by God leaders in the past.
So there are no words about trust in the Messiah itself as guarantee for eternal life in Torah . But the are words to listen to the leaders God choses. Deut 18 ; 18 people were to listen to the prophet/ prophets of God ( the ones sent by Him) ” I will establish a prophet for them from among their brethren like you, and I will place my words in his mouth , he shall speak everything that I will command him (…)” Listening to them meant you listened to God. If people didn’t listen to Moses , they didn’t get to the Promised Land, but died in the desert.
If we believe God sent the Messiah also to bring the salvation, we trust Him in that.
Because Christians believe the Messiah already came to bring the salvation – by accepting his promise – we can know we have eternal life because he paid for us.
Because we believe that Is 50; 4-10, 52;13 and 53 are talking about Him , based on v. 5 and v.11 tells us that his wound are bringing us the healing. And v.11 ” that God’s righteous servant makes the many righteous’ or ‘ vindicates the Righteous One to multitudes.” I have already explained you that applying all this to the nation makes no sense to me for soooooo many reasons , no matter whose Jewish commentary I read. I agree with the nation as a servant and the sufferings and the future glory and restoration etc but here is clearly a specific person from the nation that brings the healing to ALL people . ‘ we all went astray like a sheep, including people of Israel” .
Notice; nobody who ever died gets resurrected until the Messiah comes back. Makes sense to me that nobody is back to life until there was ‘a death of a righteous ‘ that atoned for you. So our trust in the Messiah’s words ( for Christians -Jesus) is because we believe he came to bring the healing, bearing the sin of multitudes ( of us).
We accept Him as a Lord because we believe he is the Lord and King God chose to rule in the future . Accepting him now as a lord means I agree with what he is saying. I agree he brought the healing/ salvation so I respect him.
You mentioned Jesus ‘ testimony is not as reliable as Moses, because God ‘established’ Moses’ testimony before the entire nation. The difference is Jesus walked from town to town to speak , while Moses spoke to the nation that wasn’t spread in the towns. You said'” God should have done it the way like with Moses’ Well, God showed the other way. Will I argue? Interesting is that Jesus said he leaves the revelation about himself to his Father. He said ” “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him “. I believe God chose to reveal Jesus by speaking to peoples hearts . Not in front of the group but to their hearts.
Just because everybody heard Moses didn’t mean that his testimony make everybody trust God. Many gave up and died on the desert.
Regarding Jesus resurrection and the sign there was also no promise that Jesus would appear to pharisees- that you said he failed to show a sign. I once explained you that. And I remember somebody on that website wrote about that too. Matthew 12;38-42. All his life those pharisees- living in his time – wanted to kill him, they saw many other signs -his healing- why would he want to show up to them as the only thing they were looking for was to kill him? He said sign of Jonah, but that didn’t promise showing up in person to them. By the way, the people at the grave waiting for him saw him, why didn’t they wait as well?? But instead of it is written they set the guards to watch the grave.
Of course he was more than Moses, as not only a prophet but called Son of God with given authority to lay his life for our salvation and rule in the future. But I know you don’t believe that.
Hi Eric.
I hear your frustration with explaining something many times and me just not getting it. I understand because I feel that way too! But sometimes to achieve clarity we need to go round and round in circles. As we are forced to clarify our position, we gain deeper insight into the truth. So I appreciate your patience in explaining yet again what you hold to be true.
Deuteronomy tells us to listen to the prophets, and indeed not to stray to the right or to the left of what our leaders (not even prophets, necessarily) command us to do (Deuteronomy 17:11). Deuteronomy tells us also how to identify the true prophet from the false. And finally, Deuteronomy tells us–before any other prophet other than Moses ever even arrived on the scene–that no prophet as great as Moses has ever arisen in Israel (Deuteronomy 34:10).
Jesus fails the true prophet test because he encourages a worship that our fathers at Sinai did not know (Deuteronomy 13:6). He (or at least Paul) repealed the the Law of Moses, which God says is eternal (Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 27:21, 28:43; Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3; Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29), and he gave false prophecy, as in the sign to the Pharisees.
Now I know you’ve explained this last bit, about the sign to the Pharisees. But Eric, it doesn’t matter if he did other signs for them. It doesn’t matter if a couple of Pharisees were at his tomb at the resurrection (a vicious–very vicious–lie, if you stop and think about it for a moment). Nothing else that happened between Jesus and the Pharisees matters, if Jesus didn’t do as he said he would. He didn’t fulfill this one sign in front of the Pharisees, the only sign he actually promised them.
Your comments on Isaiah 53 show me that you don’t understand the Jewish position. I have posted links and videos on this; I don’t know if you’ve had time to listen to or read all of it. To clarify and summarize, I will have to write up something. That will take some time, and God willing, if I have more of it, I will write about that.
Congratulations on your family wedding!
Dina, By the words ‘ you believe what you believe ‘ I meant I won’t insist that you will see things like I see. But of course I am not writing it in order to kill my time, but because of the concern so others will understand God is giving us hope. I hope you won’t get too mad I am writing about things you didn’t ask. I think thety are important to mention.
There is no reason I would give up believing God that He sent His son Jesus so we could have eternal life with Him ( and to get to know him more- John 14). Somebody can believe in the imortal soul but the question is whether that soul would spend eternity with God or punished has no guarantee. There is no reason for me to believe Jesus was a sinner, there is no reason I would want to give up my trust that his ‘innocent’ death atones for me. His atonement’ I see as the averting of punishment, or the turning away of divine wrath by the payment of a ransom.
So how do I explain the sacrificial system in Milenium?
I usually do the observation of the entire subject to find the answers. First of all for some reason Jesus himself tells a men whom he healed to do the offering ‘ for his cleansing from leprosy’ . That is recorded in Mark 1;44 and Matthew 8;4, Luke 5;14. The law tells you what sacrifices did it require regarding leprosy.. I would think Jesus would be th e first person to say ; there is no need to do any offerings any more. Yet I see they serve the symbolic purpose and thanksgiving purpose. The sick with leprosy was ‘cleansed’ before his offering. Did it somehow ‘colide’ with what Jesus was going to accomplish? .No because Jesus’ death brough eternl life unlike the other sacrifices. That is one thing.
Another thing back to Ezekiel now; I don’t see that the millennial practices are the reinstitution of Jewish sacrificial system completly. First ; there is no mention of an ark of the covenant, golden lampstand, table of shewbread, and veil. The Passover and Feast of Tabernacles are observed, but Pentecost is omitted. While the five classes of sacrifices and offerings are cited, the central Levitical sacrifice, the Day of Atonement together with the sprinkling of the blood upon the mercy seat of the ark by the high priest, (which was the most vital element in the Levitical system) is missing. What type of atonement we see in Ezekiel? Is any of them offering eternal life like Jesus’ atonement? I don’t think so.
In Ezekiel 40-48, “atonement” is mentioned a total of 5 times, Ezekiel 43:20, 26 and 45:15,17, and 20. The mention of atonement in Ezekiel 43 speaks of the atonement being made for the altar many times . It isn’t made on behalf of people. Only the mention of “atonement” in chapter 45 is spoken of being made for “them” meaning the people of Israel. v. 15 also ‘to atone for the House of Israel’ My question is what about the rest of the world? Only mentioned sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving in other prophets. But no atonement available for other nations????
If these ‘atoning ritiuals were to wipe off the ‘ moral ‘ guilt and make a person ‘clean’ forever then the other nations would be deprived of that privilage? Second was ever an animal sacrifice in Leviticus literaly taking away somebody’s guilt? Wasn’t it by repentance always and broken heart that God was showing His mercy? Without a right heart an offered sacrifice wasn’t accepted by God. That’s why I see all the offerings as symbolic as thanksgivings as reminders rather as literal ‘cleaning’, not literaly ‘ taking a person’s guilt. The literal , ( we believe) trully redeeming was Jesus sacrifice setting you free from eternal death.
Another thing to consider is; in the Millenium kingdom there will be people who are mortal ( new people -sinners- being born ) and immortal onces ( those who were resurrected back to life from death Ezekiel 37, Is 26;19, ). I don’t think that once they have right to life again , they would die again. Jesus atonement makes sense in their case why they would have a priviledge to eternal life. If they already were once atoned for ( not by an animal ) but real ‘innocent substitute’ that took their death punishment like Jesus did, they can live forever like I believe the Messiah will be.
Another thought came to me;people’s long life in the millenium kingdom. Not everybody will believe in God ( is mentioned) so any symbolic rituals might be helpful.
Second , we don’t know whether the sacrifices will trelate to all people in the millenium; the new people born who will still die one day , whether the resurected ones will participate in the sacrificial system , I don’t know. There are so many things we don’t know about that time but I am sure there is a reason for everything that is mentioned in Ezekiel.
P.S.I have a wedding to today in the family so I need to go. I will finish later .
eric
Hi Eric.
I’m not familiar with the term “millennial kingdom.” If you are talking about the end of days–“acharit hayamim” in Hebrew–then that’s what I mean. It’s great that you read Ezekiel so carefully as to note what practices are missing from the description of the Third Temple service–but just because a particular practice isn’t missing doesn’t mean it won’t be practiced, since the Law is eternal and binding, all of it. If parts of the Law can’t be practiced because of our exiled status and lack of Temple, that will be corrected when the Temple is rebuilt. Forever in the Bible means forever.
You asked how gentiles achieve atonement without Jesus. The answer is simple. The same way that Jews do. Ezekiel 18 and 33 tell us how to do this, without sacrifices. The gentiles have a covenant with God, too. The covenant God forged with Noah applies to all of mankind. The story of Nineveh provides a good lesson to the gentiles on how to repent and obtain God’s forgiveness.
I therefore find unsatisfactory your answer to the question, “What is the purpose of the Third Temple and reinstitution of the sacrificial system if Jesus is the final atoning sacrifice?”
You wrote that during this end time, not everyone will believe in God. But that is not what Scripture teaches. Scripture tells us that at the end of days the knowledge of God will fill the world as the water covers the sea (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14). Universal knowledge of God is one of the signs of the messianic age.
Thanks for your patience,
Dina
Dina, I think we will be going back and forth on the things and never come to any conclusion. Jesus won’t be understood by Jewsih people untill they will understand the meaning of Day of Atonement they celebrated once a year ( described in Levit 16 ). I know it might sound funny for me to say that as you should understand your holidays more than me from just reading about them. But that Atonement type presented in Lev 16 is not unfamiliar to us because it relates to what we believe Jesus did.
When you explained me atonement for gentiles based on example of people in Nineveh, this I would call a repentance of people and forgiveness of God. But that wasn’t the atonement from Levit 16. That specific one included a replacement presented that takes the sins away . Th e whole ritual showed you symbolicly on animals involved that there was reversing of the punishment by providing substitute . Repentance wasn’t the only point that fixed everything. There was a replacement for sin presented that had to be offered in sacrificing an animal
( representing life offered that’s why you didn’t offer flour on that day) v. 5-9
There was a scapegoat symbolising the fact that the sins are put on the other being and carried away .
This type of atonemet ( sacrificing ) was performent only by High Priest.
You showed me many exaples in OT that people are forgiven by God after they repent. That is true because without repenting heart God can’t forgive.
But what God did by sending Jesus to die for us is not just to forgive us. It is to acomplish what Levit 16 was praciced about. To show you there is replacement punished for your sin. The sins are carried away on ‘someone’ they are placed on. That’s why Jesus didn’t have to die , but chose to be our replacement for our sins.
For me believing that we die because we die ( just because we get old or sick etc ) has no scriptual support. Scriptual support is to see death came after sin enetred the world ( Gen) Jeremiah 31 ;30 ( everyone dies for their own guilt) so there are consequences- we will be dying, but there is a freedom from that punishment as someones life -Jesus’ became a substitute so that we can have life back in Messianic Kindgom. That;’s why we believe in Jesus atoning death. Sorry I brought that again.
God forgave people in Ninevah after they repented . He would destroy the city like Sodom and Gomora if they didn’t. And Jesus is also a substitute for punishment for those who repented and turned to God in OT although they didn’t know him.
You said you don’t agree with me saying there will be people in messianic times who won’t know God.
The world will indeed be full of knowledge of God but that doesn’t mean all people will want to worship God. That’s what I should have said . You said Scriptures are saying something different. But what about Zehariah 14;17-19 ??? Some will resist to come to worship and will need “encouragement ” from the Lord in lack of rain or water.
The term Millenial Kingdom you asked about is th e words we describe Messianic Kindgom. Maybe later I wil write about it.
Hi Eric,
Finally, this comment will bring me up to date on responding to all your comments to me on various threads (I think).
You talked about Leviticus 16, and you seem to imply that now that we don’t have the Temple, we have no way to atone for our sins. Therefore, Jesus’s substitutionary sacrifice replaces one of the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.
Christians have been asking for forever, “How can you have atonement without the Temple?” They forget that there was a period in history that the Jews did not have a Temple, could not perform the Day of Atonement rituals, and this was centuries before the advent of Jesus. I refer to the period of the Babylonian exile, which occurred after the destruction of the First Temple.
King Solomon anticipated this in his prayer at the Temple Dedication. See 1 Kings 8:46-50.
God in the Torah emphatically rejects subtitutionary atonement. See Exodus 32:32-33; Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20.
Rabbi Blumenthal has written a brief article summing up the problems with the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 16. You can read it here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/lessons-from-leviticus-16/
You wrote that the belief that we die because we die has no scriptural support. I agree. Adam, by sinning, brought death into the world, and since there is no one who never sins, everyone dies. Here is where we disagree: Jews (and even most Christians) believe that death in this world is a separation of the immortal soul from the body. We believe in an afterlife during which time a person is rewarded or punished depending on his actions.
You wrote that the freedom from the punishment of death is Jesus’s atoning sacrifice which gives people their life back in the messianic age. This has no scriptural support.
Ezekiel 18 and 33 tell us that we will live and not die if we turn away from evil and do righteousness.
If you look at Zechariah 14 and read the whole chapter, it’s clear that one of the ways universal knowledge of God will be achieved is described here. In other words, this will happen first. So I don’t see this as a contradiction to the messianic promise that the knowledge of God will cover the earth as water covers the sea.
I will finish this comment by saying that I do not feel criticized in your emails. You have been kind and respectful throughout, and it’s a pleasure talking to you!
Dina, Finishing my response to your email from a week ago.
You quoted ; “How can you have atonement without the Temple?” They forget that there was a period in history that the Jews did not have a Temple, could not perform the Day of Atonement rituals, and this was centuries before the advent of Jesus.
Me; First of all- you can see the rituals of that time in itself weren’t the means by which sins were forgiven. You turn to God by turning from evil and decide to trust God – that’s what matters. Your temporary rituals were a lesson for something to come.
People were forgiven throughout a history after they repented. What Jesus accomplished was is to bring freedom from death. Nobody, neither David, Moses whoever was forgiven by God – wasn’t ever free from dying, not without a costly soul redemption ps 49;8 ,, and at Messiah’s coming the believers are called back to life.
you said; God in the Torah emphatically rejects substitution atonement.
Me; Yes, atonement sinner for sinner. Jesus was God’s Son without sin. Moses couldn’t , as he was guilty of his own sin, so is everybody. Also , if you believe in no substitution atonement why do you belive that God inflicted upon him ( Israel) the iniquity of us all??? Is 53;6 God inflicted the iniquity of us on you,, but couldn’t inflict it on His Son?
You said ” You wrote that the freedom from the punishment of death is Jesus’s atoning sacrifice which gives people their life back in the messianic age. This has no scriptural support. Ezekiel 18 and 33 tell us that we will live and not die if we turn away from evil and do righteousness.”
It depends what you mean by ‘ we will live and not die’? If you mean that you never experience a stage of real death because you live as a soul- that I would call without scriptural support. I already wrote about that in t e previous email.
What I agree on that verse in Ezekiel is; that we will live and not die everlasting death, if we turned back to God.
The verse tells you ‘ we will not die. You would not have then a time of dying in your life, but prolonged life into eternity. But since we die physically and are risen to life to be physically present again ( Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12;2 ) you see it talks NOT about a stage of soul existence after death.
This verse doesn’t mean there is an automatic right away- transfer to life. It all has to agree what God said in the other place in Daniel and Ezekiel ‘ s vision of dry bones back to life. There is a space time between death and resurrection. And resurrection is mentioned at coming of messiah, no sooner. That’s why we believe at the resurrection at Jesus’ coming- Messiah coming.
If you understand that death stage means NO life, like the word ‘death ‘ means like in the verses I wrote you previously , then you will see that being back to life means being finally free from the punishment of death ( since lack of life is not called a reward or stage in-between.)
I don’t really understand what you wanted to say by Zechariah 14 that it’s clear that one of the ways universal knowledge of God will be achieved is described here. Of course after messiah ‘ comes and evil doers are removed . people will know who God is, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be sin any more. They will still be dying for it.
Dina, Correction to my sentence. I am always loosing the ‘not’ s.
It is supposed be in my last email ; “That is why a killed bull or lamb could NOT make the sinner perfect.
Eric, if you want the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to be the Messiah, he is blessed by God to see his offspring (the word “seed” is used, which always means biological children and not metaphorical children in Hebrew).
I don’t accept that explanation, obviously. And I think it raises a lot of problems for you. But if you want it to be the Messiah, then you could say that this passage says the Messiah will have children.
Hi Eric,
I looked at the passage in Matthew again, and compared it to the one in Micah again. And reading Micah in context, it is clear that the ORIGINS of the Messiah will be from Bethlehem, that the Messiah will come from the people of Bethlehem, and not that the Messiah has to be born in Bethlehem, as I have previously explained.
As you know, King David was born in Bethlehem, and the Messiah will be his descendant.
As I have previously pointed out, Jesus does not descend from King David on his father’s side (tribal affiliation is determined through patrilineal descent; see Numbers Chapter 1 for example).
I have also pointed out that Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies contradict each other and both of them contradict the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3.
Going back to Matthew versus Micah, you have failed to adequately explain the misquote. You have also not answered me satisfactorily on the other prophecies cited by Matthew.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I feel like being beaten up almost reading your last emails. I am glad I am on a distance;-) By the way I am writing to show you why I believe in Jesus message that it is from God, not to make anybody convert, ok? So if I say something that doesn’t make sense to – just ignore it.
I have not had time yet to look into all the porblems in matthew you want to discus but I looked in that ‘being born in Bethlehem’; issue. I think what I meant in the question I asked you before was whether the words of the prophet Michah suggested only that the Messiah would come from ‘people of Bethlehem’ but not necessary be born in the city himself of that name. Right?
From what I remember you think that Matthew is suggesting the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem. Is that the problem? If the only thing that is mentioned is th e ‘people of Bethlehem’ does Bethlehem have to be excluded?
He had to be born somewhere, it happened there. Does the city exclude the ‘people of Bethlehem? What if it just happened there?.
Well I looked also in the other gospels which describe some other events in whchi it is mentioned Jesus was born in the actual city of Bethlehem. So it is not just Matthew’s suggestion . They all say he was born in that city.
Also back to Matthew – v5 -says other people responded and mentioned the place of his birth., not matthew himself.
Luke 2;1-7 also is mentioning the city because of census;
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (…)And everyone went to their own town to register.
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. ?
John 7;42 says that some people thought the Messiah woul come from Bethlehem where David was born. Looked like some people weren’t really sure of the place
I don’t see it as a problem.
Hi Eric.
I’m sorry you feel like I’m bashing you over the head! Please forgive me; I don’t mean to sound so harsh. You needn’t feel relieved to be at a distance from me. In real life I’m very easy to get along with, just ask my husband :)! I do have such a deep desire to obtain Christian respect and understanding for the Jewish position. And the way I do this is by pointing out what Jews see as gigantic flaws in the Christian position. If I am perhaps too blunt, I truly mean nothing personal by it.
I’ll get back to you on what you’ve written but I wanted to apologize first for my stinging tone.
You are a pleasure to talk to, as you are always respectful–something I can learn from you :).
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Eric, a reading of the plain text of Matthew 2 shows that the author believed that the Messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem. To support this “prophecy,” Micah is quoted, incorrectly.
Hebrew scripture does not hold that the Messiah must be born in any specific place, only that he is to be descended from the people associated with that place, as a reading of the plain text of Micah 5 shows.
It’s interesting that you mentioned the census in Luke, since the Roman historical record shows that is NOT how the Romans conducted any census. It would have been impractical, if not impossible, to record a census as described in Luke.
I’d like to point out again the problem with the genealogies. They contradict each other and the one in 1 Chronicles 3. Another problem is that one is 15 generations longer than another (a gap of approximately 300 years).
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, This one might be the most controversial “2:23-24: Matthew quotes a non-existent prophecy from the Prophets. (…) in fact, the town of Nazareth is nowhere mentioned in Hebrew scripture. I agree no town like that mentioned . But is there no other possible explanation regarding what Matthew said?
First, Matthew does not say ‘prophet,’ singular. He says ‘prophets,’ plural. And to ‘make up’ such a story you would have to be more creative than saying ‘ something was spoken by the prophets, because anybody can find that prophets weren’t mentioning the city Nazareth. So what could Matthew mean? Personally I would refer his saying ‘he will be called Nazarene’ to the despised character of Jesus or his insignificance at first and the fact that He was to be of humble origin , (i.e., Micah 5;1, Psalm 22, ; 69:10; Isaiah 11;1, 49:7; 50;6-7, 52;4; 53:3; Daniel 9;26)
In John 1:46 — Nathaniel said to Philip: “Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?” Phillip answered; Come and see. So, it could be a reference not to an actual location, but the maligned character of the Messiah even as Nazareth was maligned for housing the Roman garrison being a town of a very despised character..
Nazareth was also a lowly, poor and backward place not to believe it would ever produce any person of significance. At that time of 1800 people.Trying to understand the culture and times where all that happened and ‘translate ‘ it into our times- you think about a town in which anybody living there would be looked down on because of either being people living in the streets, doing drugs, crimes, having no work, in general poor conditions and nothing prospering.. Any town in US like that or a district? ”
Another thing why did enemies of Jesus branded him the “Nazarene,” and also his followers who didn’t necessary live in that city but were called that? Wasn’t it to imprint on them the ‘disguise’ by saying they are also called Nazarenes? No other reason i to be called so f you don’t come from that city but they put into it all the hate possible, extended also to his followers. More things that speak for that fact is the Talmud also calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes.Compare Acts 24:5, “sect of the Nazarene,” and Paul’s characterization.
Based on that I believe that when Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were “fulfilled,” his meaning is that the predictions of him were that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, and it was fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such.
Eric, our conversation boils down to this, basically:
Dina: Matthew says Jesus has to go to Nazareth in order to fulfill a prophecy that says “He shall be called a Nazarene,” but no such prophecy exists in Tanach, nor is the town of Nazareth mentioned.
Eric: True, but that’s not what he means.
How can we have an honest discussion if I point out a problem in the text and you tell me to ignore the plain meaning because that’s not what it means?
There are other problems with your logic, but I don’t think it’s important because this is the major problem.
Peace,
Dina
Dina, I just had a look at your chart “How many days, and how many nights, was Jesus in the tomb?”
4 gospels show you ; Jesus resurrected ( or at least an empty tomb) “on the first day of the week ” ( I guess Sunday?) Then you have to understand that according to John the crucifixion didn’t fallow right after at 12pm
( because of missing events like trial by Herod and releasing Barabbas, flogging and other beating times ). By the way where are these events fitting according to John in his report? I don’t see even a tiny space to fit it before 12pm. Do you???? Like I said John mainly focuses on the trial by Pilate; conversation Jesus-Pilate and not much more. And we know from other gospels that much more took place than only the trial by Pilate. If you are confused with that still believing that crucifixion took place on that day and right after 12pm , you will also see confusion with the number of days of Jesus being in the tomb. If that doesn’t make sense to you, I can’t explain it any more.
Dina, of course miracles don’t have to mean anything ( Deut 13) , even dreams don’t have to, so God says also in Jeremiah 29;19 ;”The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth.”
How can you tell about any prophet if his words are truth? Another place Deut 18;22 tells you; “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
First of if Jesus as a false prophet – according to you-shall die, then why did God raise him back to life? Second, he preached word of God, third; things he said about himself and events relating to history he said that would happen, came to pass.
You said Jesus pointed people to himself. You have to understand that words like ‘ believe in me’ are not to keep in mind his existence as even demons knew who he was saying;” you are the Son of the living God.” Luke 4;41
It is like people saying they believe in God. They may be aware of His existence but whether they trust and obey Him that is another story.
What we translate as ‘ believe’ relates to trusting in his words . He said his words were His Fathers’ words “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.”(John 12;49 ).
Where else was he taking people from God? He said; believe in God and believe in me, which is trust in God and trust me what I am saying ( my words, they are God’s words) John 14. He also said;” And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth” ( John 8;50 )
Where did you also take that from that he was taking people from obedience to God or the law?
He said ” Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5;17 He also said; not everybody who says Lord, Lord enters the Kingdom of heaven but the one who is doing the will of his Father in heaven.” There are many more examples. but I am going to another of your points.
You said something like;” if somebody commits adultery and doesn’t die, does it mean he didn’t commit adultery?” You seem not to understand what I was saying. Nobody dies right away after doing any sin, but I was saying that the fact that our life one day results in death is because of sin. You explained; an infant doesn’t eat so he dies, so it is not because of sin, but the thing is even when he eats and grows and finally is an 100 year old men, he will die, whether he eats or not. He might be lucky to live a bit longer but not forever. The question is why God allowed death? It was told to Adam and Eve that it will happen after they disobeyed Him (God). They didn’t die right away but one day they did.
About the redemption you said it relates to different things than Jewish people look to. But then I looked at it closely and realized it is not exactly so. We see redemption as the resurrection from the dead and why it is important? – it is needed to participate in the world at Messiah times. Let’s suppose it would still take 200 years before he comes , you and me are dead by that time, we need to be resurrected in order to participate in all these promised glorious future times when he will rule. Ezekiel tells you that at his coming those who were dead will be raised back to life. ( I am sure those who trusted and obeyed God.)That is our hope. You just don’t believe that redemption could ‘cost’ God something, that the payment for our sin had to be done. He wants our obedience and took care of our redemption as He requires less for our sin than we deserved.
You said ( Deut 30 ) we can chose our salvation. Of course God doesn’t decide for us but he gives us His requirements; to listen to Him and obey him in order to have life. I don’t limit his words only to the past 4000 years ago as I believe as he spoke through other prophets and also he speaks through Jesus words too.
You said I didn’t answer your question about why Jesus didn’t appear to the pharisees?
I thought I already gave you my answer to that. Second can I know everything why Jesus did so and so? I My answer was : he was doing what God told him to do. Whatever reason he had , he knows. Anyways pharisees didn’t believe in anything he was doing; they were witnessing his other miracles that nobody has even done before and they were complaining ,so even witnessing resurrection wouldn’t mean anything to them. Maybe that’s why he didn’t appear to them. But for some reason he appeared to Paul who was also a Pharisee. and then his life changed.
Anyways didn’t you already mention before, that even if resurrection was true it is not a reason for you to justify Jesus righteousness? Second, miracles don’t mean anything so why it should matter ? You said you don’t believe the conversation ever took place between Jesus and Pharisees so why do you want to know the answer about something that didn’t take place?
You know you mentioned to many points at once . I don’t have time to continue right now so remind me if I missed some of your questions, some other time I may go back to them. I still would like to discuss that’ immortal soul’ but some other time.
Sorry it is so long, you have to address less points next time.
Hi Eric and Dina,
Eric, in regards to your answer to Dina in your post above following this quote
“You said I didn’t answer your question about why Jesus didn’t appear to the pharisees?
I thought I already gave you my answer to that. Second can I know everything why Jesus did so and so? I My answer was :”
I do agree with you.
But I think Acts and the Gospel of Luke provide additional scriptural detail which basically confirms what you wrote.
Matthew 12: 39,40 reads:
39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
In fact the sign of Jonah WAS given and still IS given to an evil and adulterous generation just as Jesus promised.
But as to why he didn’t then at that time appear (as we know he will in the future) to all individuals, I think the most direct answer is found in the words of Peter in Acts and indirectly in the words of Jesus regarding the Rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke.
Peter says in Acts 10:40 – 43
40 but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
The story of the Rich man and Lazarus:
Luke 16:31
31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
David,
One cannot say that the sign WAS and IS given when it was not fulfilled at all. They asked for a sign. Jesus–in an insulting and rebellious manner–promised a sign. A sign isn’t the words. It is the performance of them. So, after three days, it was incumbent upon him to present himself and fulfill his word. When he failed to do that, he proved himself to be a false prophet.
It is disingenuous beyond belief to put it back on the Jews and say, “Well they wouldn’t have believed anyway.” Even if that is true, he had a responsibility to fulfill his own word. It would then be their responsibility to acknowledge that he fulfilled his word. But since he didn’t, one cannot rightly turn around and accuse them. He failed to present his evidence.
Imagine if I told you that I could generate an actual rabbit from a stuffed rabbit, that I could transform the non-living rabbit into a living one in only two hours. And we sit in my house or laboratory or what have you all afternoon with me pouring one substance after another over the faux bunny muttering incantations. Finally, after me failing to produce any results in the time specified, at midnight you decide to go home, declaring perhaps that I am a mad man. Two days later, I call you up and tell you that I did it. Have I proven anything to you? Of course not. Now I’ve had time to get an actual rabbit from the pet store. I might have had one all along but had no chance to exchange them due to your close observation. I’ve still not proven it. You will want me to do it all over again.
Imagine also that I refuse. I rebuke you for not believing. I call you a hypocrite for not believing me and say you’d never have believed the proof if I had shown it to you. This is beginning to sound like the story of “The Fox and the Sour Grapes” a bit isn’t it. If you remember, the fox declares the grapes that he could not reach to be most probably sour. This sounds like the evangelist: “They wouldn’t have believed anyway.” It would be unfair for me to malign your character. After all, I’m the one who failed to produce the results I promised.
This is the story of the Gospels, of course. Jesus failed to produce himself before those he promised the sign. Fifty days after Jesus was killed, not the three promised, Jesus’ followers proclaim that he rose from the dead. But of course, he was nowhere to be found. Instead, he had ascended to heaven ten days prior. So of course, we just have to take their word for it.
This is even worse than my rabbit trick. At least with my rabbit, I at some time produce one. It’s just dubious that it came about by the means I promised. The Gospels’ story is more like me telling you that I did produce a rabbit, but it died of congenital heart failure and I incinerated it. There is absolutely no proof to my claim, not even a store bought bunny. And of course there is absolutely no proof of the Gospels’ claims.
And yet the NT maligns those who do not believe their unproven claims. It makes the easy claim that they wouldn’t have believed anyway. It maligns them by saying that they did not believe the prophets. But we have shown time and time again that the prophets had nothing to say about Jesus. The NT constantly warps the meaning of Tanach to fit their agenda. It is easy to proclaim that Jesus fulfilled prophecies when one already believes it. It may even be comforting to malign those who do not believe it. But it isn’t just. And it’s too convenient to refuse the burden of proof while saying that one has already proven things with bizarre readings of scripture.
(I do not mean “bizarre” as a pejorative. When one takes Hosea 11.1, which is clearly about Israel–it even says in the verse that it’s about Israel–and applies it to Jesus coming out of Egypt, I know of no more suitable word than “bizarre”. It is a clear and obvious distortion of the Prophet, but none of that matters. One must ask after such considerations if it is not in fact the Christian who is ignoring proof, not those who do not believe their claims.)
It is ever the Church’s way to have it both ways. The Church wants to say that they’ve already given us all the proof we could ever need, but then admits that if they gave us proof, we wouldn’t believe them anyway. Somehow this contradiction gets them off the hook for producing no serious evidence to their claims. And so, one might feel justified in saying something like Jesus DID give the sign and IS STILL giving it, but this flies in the face of the facts. Jesus promised a sign that he never fulfilled. Putting it back on those to whom he never showed himself is a neat trick, but it holds no water. He is supposed to have showed Thomas who did not believe. He should have fulfilled his word to the Pharisees. The one who is supposed to have said, “Let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no” should have operated according to his own rules.
Jim
Eric and David,
I don’t have much to add to Jim’s well-reasoned argument, just this: it’s all too convenient that Jesus only performed miracles for those who already have faith, and that he appeared only to those who already were devoted to him.
Eric, you said you don’t have the answers to all the questions, but the fact that your scripture does not record Jesus appearing to the Pharisees is a big problem. Jesus did not keep his word to the Pharisees. How does this not trouble you?
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina,
You wrote:
“it’s all too convenient that Jesus only performed miracles for those who already have faith, and that he appeared only to those who already were devoted to him.”
Convenient or not, that’s the way it is. And there is no biblical basis in the Hebrew Scriptures for support of denying miracles or signs just because they are not performed to the whole Jewish nation or because only specific individuals are included.
The test for a prophet is in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
The question to paraphrase Deuteronomy is: Did the thing the prophet spoke of come true or not?
The question is NOT: Did ALL personally witness the thing come true?
Hi David.
According to your logic, then, you would have no reason not to take the claims of any would-be prophet seriously. So Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and even Eben Alexander of “Proof of Heaven” fame are all fair game.
Furthermore, you are wrong about my lack of Scriptural support. See Exodus 19:9 and Deuteronomy 4:35.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Jim,
You wrote:
“One cannot say that the sign WAS and IS given when it was not fulfilled at all.”
Therein lies the dispute. You believe the sign wasn’t given and I do. Your entire response is all based on what I believe to be a false assumption that the sign wasn’t given. So your reasoning is irrelevant to me. Of course you believe the opposite in regards to my post, that I have a false assumption that it WAS given. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise.
The difference for me is that the men who witnessed the sign fulfilled also believed whole heartedly in Moses and the prophets. They later came to understand (by Jesus opening their eyes to the scripture following his resurrection) that Moses and the prophets also testify to all that Jesus did and fulfilled including the sign of Jonah, AND what he is still doing AND what he will yet do.
David,
It’s not a matter of what one believes or doesn’t believe. Jesus promised a sign to the Pharisees. He did not present themselves to the Pharisees in fulfillment of that sign according to the testimony of your books. One cannot say then that he fulfilled the sign. He clearly didn’t. That is to say, we have no dispute over whether or not Jesus presented himself to the Pharisees to whom he promised the sign. Both of us agree that he didn’t. And therefore, whether or not you believe he was raised from the dead or not, he did not fulfill the sign. Even if Jesus was resurrected, he did not present himself to the Pharisees as promised.
For the rest of it, if you want to believe that he was resurrected regardless of the lack of proof, that is your business. But it is nonsense to ask others to abandon their commitment to God based on your smoke and mirrors. You declare my arguments irrelevant, but you made a charge against the Jewish people that they would not believe even if they’d been given the sign. That’s an unsubstantiated charge, and if you are going to make it, you should have a greater proof than that you believe it.
One suspects you didn’t read or understand my previous comment, as your response is no answer at all.
Jim
Jim,
You wrote:
“Jesus promised a sign to the Pharisees.”
No, not exactly. You are mistaken on that.
The “sign of Jonah” was promised to an “evil and corrupt generation” and NOT specifically or exclusively and individually to the Pharisees.
The sign of Jonah was in fact fulfilled to an “evil and corrupt generation” and still is.
Matthew 12: 39,40 reads:
39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
David,
Forgive me for saying so, but this is not a serious response. Some scribes and pharisees asked for a sign. His response was that an adulterous generation asks for a sign, and then he offers this one only. Granted his response was rude and rebellious, but it was to them. He wasn’t introducing a mythical other “adulterous generation” into the conversation. I can hardly believe you would attempt such an argument. It’s unworthy of you.
By the way a one time event by a certain date is not something he is still doing and will do. The resurrection isn’t continuous. It is a limited event meant to be done somewhere around 2,000 years ago. If he had died a week after resurrecting, but he had shown himself to the Pharisees, he’d have fulfilled the sign. Having been resurrected one morning 2,000 years ago is not still being fulfilled and will not continue to be fulfilled in the future. This part of your argument is mere absurdity.
Respectfully,
Jim
Eric, you keep saying that if Jesus was a false prophet, why did God raise him back to life? Assuming that happened (which you can only take on faith that it happened), Deuteronomy tells us that is no proof. The proof is if the prophet is pointing us to God, and it should be obvious to you that the pointing toward God must be according to the Law of Moses. Jesus abolished major laws, like the kosher laws and the Sabbath laws. Just because he says ” I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” doesn’t mean it is so–actions speak louder than words.
You also quoted from Deuteronomy 18 that if a prophet’s words don’t materialize, then we know for sure he was a false prophet. Well, Jesus failed to fulfill the one sign that he said he would give to the Pharisees. According to Duet. 18 that would make him a false prophet. That is besides his other false prophecies, like Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 (Christians are still waiting), or like Matthew 24:2 and Mark 13:2 (since not all of Jerusalem was destroyed; the Romans left many buildings standing as well as the Western Wall).
About “believe in me”: why did Jesus feel a need to say that? Not a single other prophet ever said such a thing, yet their books were included in our canon of scripture. Not a single prophet ever said to do something “for my sake.” NEVER. Not a single prophet EVER said that the only way to God was through him (and if that’s not pointing people to himself then I don’t know what is). The prophet was God’s mouthpiece, speaking for God and NEVER for himself. Jesus doesn’t say “so saith the Lord” and things like that. Indeed, God’s voice is largely absent from Christian scripture.
About the redemption, the resurrection is a by-product, not the main picture. You’re hung up on it. The Hebrew scriptures nowhere discuss this notion that redemption means being saved from the death that Adam and Eve brought to the world. Find me just one passage that supports this idea. Like I said, death isn’t final. We live on after we die, an idea you don’t subscribe to–but traditional Jews and the overwhelming majority of Christians do believe in.
Dina, My answer regarding the verses in Matthew 24;34 or Luke 21;32. Are you focused on the words ; ‘generation that won’t pass away till all these things would be fulfilled? If you read the whole chapter 24 till verse 44 you will see that for ‘All’ to be fulfilled in that generation- which Christ spoke about in Matthew 24- the time He refers to must be at the end of the world/age. When you study the whole context it becomes clear that this end time is what Jesus is referring to, not a period of 40-60-80 years. In v.30 he was also speaking about time of his second coming as a judge , which was definitely not within a generation in literal meaning. There is another time when Jesus used the word ‘generation’ which you can see refers to the spiritual one.
“O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Matthew 12;34
It is self evident that if this word meant that physical generation were all vipers who couldn’t escape the damnation of hell, then it would mean all, including the Apostles who themselves were part of that ‘time generation and all Jesus followers and other good people.’ So if generation of vipers did not mean everyone there, so it could not mean that physical time period or literal generation. But obviously, Jesus was talking about those who are children of Satan, these are the generation of vipers.
The same way – I believe- he referred to the meaning of his word ‘generation’ in Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
Besides in Luke 21;32 you have more details that are prophetic words regarding the last days about which Isaiah 13;10 , Zachariah 12;3 spoke. Then he speaks about redemption times for Jerusalem that you read about in Zachariah 12 , Luke 21 ;.27-28” And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Then you have his words in v.33 “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” So you know Jesus didn’t mean that all these words in Luke 21 and Matthew 24 were to be fulfilled in a short time of a period of literal generation. Then also compering it all in
Mk 13; 19 there are other prophetic words which relate to the last days about which Daniel spoke in chapter 12; 1. so it can’t be within a literal generation.
You can take it for yourself as my other speculation but that is how I see it .
You said’ not all the Jerusalem was destroyed. More or less but it it was destroyed . We weren’t given detail what will be left what not. Another thing and very possibly Jesus might be referring to future time of earthquake in Ezekiel 39;19-20 which we also find in Jesus words in book of revelation 11;13.
You said I am hung up on the resurrection matter. Also I will connect this subject a bit with the life after death we talked about. Without resurrection you don’t move any further. As far as me I want to have my hope with the base in God’s words. You have it in Daniel 12;2 and Ezekiel 38 and Isaiah 26;19.
You can believe in life after death in many ways. Whether it happens right away or at the resurrection time ,without having a consciousness of time passing by like in the sleep, long or short time might be felt the same way- as a blink of an eye. But the main thing is not about knowing whether there is life or not ( right away) but WHERE will you END UP. Daniel 12 says ;
“ And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. “
Those who woke up to everlasting life ; Isaiah 26;19 “But your dead will live, Lord;their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead. “
Then you can read Ezekiel 38 too, but anyways there are two things to consider; people who died are called DEAD ( not living souls) who will RISE to life, second based on Daniel some are not rising to life with God but to SHAME and everlasting contempt.
And Jesus was telling you the same and also giving you a reason for that privilege of everlasting life; “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. “ John 17 ;3 So the concept of living and dying and functioning as immortal souls doesn’t speak to me. Also Isaiah 25 ;8 tell you one day death will be ‘ swallowed up’ that means it is not yet.
Another thing about resurrection of Jesus- I will ask; where did Jesus promise the Pharisees that he would appear to them? And I agree what David added to my comment that even a dead one risen from the dead would not be a sign. There was situation where Jesus rose Lazarus back to life John 12;9-10 “ (…) they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death.” I am not surprised Jesus didn’t see any reason for coming to them any more. But the question is why did he appear to Saul ‘Pharisee ( called later Paul)? He simply knew Saul would respond and change .
So what Sabbatical law did Jesus abolish?? If you had a dog that fell in a hole in your backyard, would you wait till next day after Sabbath to take him out? I am giving an example about a dog, Jesus gave an example about a bull saying you would help a bull out. So how much more is a human important who came to him for a healing? Jesus was abolishing the man-made rules and regulations that had nothing to do with Godly life.
ok, about more of your points later, I need to go back to work.
Eric
Eric, if Jesus claimed to be divine, then I would reject him as a prophet of G-d. Why? Because the Torah tells me to!
Deuteronomy 13:2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
In the case of Jesus, he claimed that the sign or a wonder was that he would be killed and then resurrect himself three days later.
Deuteronomy 13:3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, “Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,”
In the case of Jesus, lets say that this sign or a wonder that Jesus prophesied about, hypothetically came true, and Jesus actually did rise from the dead on the third day after he was killed on the cross. Let’s also hypothetically assume that Jesus claimed to be “fully divine.” If Jesus truly made such a claim, then he is telling the Israelites to “go after another god which you have not known, and to worship him.”
Deuteronomy 13:4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
Obviously I do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened for obvious reasons…But even if it hypothetically did occur, I would still reject Jesus as being a true prophet, especially if he instructed us to acknowledge him as divine. Did Abraham pray to Jesus? Did Moses pray to Jesus? How about King David? Once again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that G-d instructed us to acknowledge Jesus as divine in the Tanach. As we both know, G-d never instructed us to do this. Thus, if Jesus indeed saw himself as divine, then he is simply “another god which we have not known.” Deuteronomy 13:2-4 makes it abundantly clear that even if the resurrection happened,Jesus cannot be divine…
Yehuda, Did Jesus anywhere say these words; ‘I am a divine person”??? He was referring to himself as Son of Man. Second he didn’t resurrect himself but God raised him from the dead, that is a big difference. If you are dead you have no force to do anything. Even Eliah and Elisha weren’t able to raise themselves to life. It is something only God Himself decides. I also don’t see Jesus suggesting to go and worship other gods as he was pointing to the Father in heaven and godly life He also gave us an example how to pray which starts ; “Father in heaven (…)” Matthew 6;9-15 he didn’t say to pray to him.
“You explained; an infant doesn’t eat so he dies, so it is not because of sin, but the thing is even when he eats and grows and finally is an 100 year old men, he will die, whether he eats or not.”
you don’t get it.
if an infant does not EAT he/she is guaranteed death. he did not die because of sin , an innocent died because there was no food.
if a poor mother in africa cannot feed the infant, then the infant would die.
“He might be lucky to live a bit longer but not forever. The question is why God allowed death?”
maybe because everthing other than god is MORTAL and god ALONE in immortal? if god willed he can cause innocent malakim to die, right?
“It was told to Adam and Eve that it will happen after they disobeyed Him (God). They didn’t die right away but one day they did.”
which divine justice did your god use when he saw an innocent infant die of infection?
and how does DISOBEDIANCE of one man mean that the GIVER and taker of life MUST take his OWN life to appease himself?
mrquestioner2013, The Lord warned Adam that the penalty for disobedience would be death—“you will surely die.” If that was a case also before rebellion , was God just repeating Himself? If that was nothing new , would He say these words?
Also based on Genesis 3;14-7 , Gen 3;17-19 disobedience brought ‘a curse ‘on all creation, including living creatures. That sentence followed Adam’s rebellion Genesis 3:17 . All of the “good” of the environment was withdrawn with God’s sentence or the words of God Himself are void. The thing that even an unfed infant dies is a result of God allowing death to all because of people’s sinful nature that will show up sooner or later. Even if you want to be better than Adam or Eve the words in Gen 3;17-19 are effecting us all . If there is a reason for death, there has to be a reason for everlasting life with no more death mentioned in Isaiah 25;8.
“The thing that even an unfed infant dies is a result of God allowing death to all because of people’s sinful nature that will show up sooner or later.”
so people’s sinful nature FORCES god to create FAILING organs belonging to unfed INNOCENT baby? god chooses for the baby to be human baby and creates FAILING organs because of FOOD or because of sinful nature of OTHERS?
“God allowing death”
so does this mean god CREATED death? if yes, then god let something created take his life? did the everliving , omnipotent and omniscient god let created death take his everliving life?
the EVERLIVING immortal DIETY let SOMETHING he is in control of take his LIFE?
mrquestioner2013, I don’t really understand your last sentence, but anyways do you believe that omnipotent and omniscient God couldn’t stop death? Could He create unfailing organs from the beginning so that we would not be effected by lack of food?? If yes, then why is He allowing it? There is a reason… I don’t think God is forced to do anything , He knows everything before anything happens. And I am sure He knew that our nature will be sinful even before He created us. We also know that by His grace we will be able to be raised back to life one day ; Isaiah 26;19 – so I guess no more failing organs.
Asking me if God created death it is like asking if God created evil because evil exists. He created angels to serving Him, some failed by rebelling and became evil. Would you then say, God created evil? You have to look at it that God is allowing death for a purpose rather than saying He is creating it. He has no pleasure in anybody’s death. Ps 116;15
You also have the words in Isaiah 25;8 that one day there won’t be death. If God will be able to keep us from it in the future then why is He allowing it now? You keep focusing on an unfed infant and it is God who designed our body so it responds to different things like He designed it for. If we don’t eat we get sick and later die. But what I was pointing to is that our dying or living does”t depend only on food because no matter how healthy you live you are not staying that way forever.
God creates EVERYTHING, Eric. Isaiah 45:7.
“Asking me if God created death it is like asking if God created evil because evil exists. He created angels to serving Him, some failed by rebelling and became evil. Would you then say, God created evil? You have to look at it that God is allowing death for a purpose rather than saying He is creating it. He has no pleasure in anybody’s death. Ps 116;15”
is DEATH another god besides god? does it have its OWN will and can WILL outside the will of god?
According to trinitarians, the second and third persons of the Trinity, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God (Heb. 1:8, Acts 5:3-4), although people often confuse the title “God” as referring only to the “Father”. And some say that even the Holy Spirit raised Jesus (Romans 8:11). And Jesus was also a man and therefore not God. As a man, there is no reason to exalt Jesus, since all the miracles, deeds, and words were from God. There is no reason to credit Jesus. And Jesus was not good and was only a sinner.
According to unitarians, there also was no reason to exalt Jesus because he was a mere puppet of God. There is no reason to credit Jesus with anything. Or, else Jesus and God are one and the same, an inseparable unity.
I don’t know what the gospels say on this, but I was wondering just now, whose power was Jesus operating, if at all, on while he was dead and was in hell before he was raised from the dead? Are there any scriptures that have Jesus saying what he was going through or do the gospel writers say specifically where and when they got this info? BTW, what part did God or the Holy Spirit play in getting the mother of God pregnant?
I’m not sure what you are trying to say in there being no reason to credit Jesus with anything. Does one credit Elizeusz for raising a boy from the dead or is it just an insignificant fact and we should ignore the man God worked in. Why do the scriptures speak of people bowing to Elizeusz, and yet he was only a man. Certainly there is no power that exists, and there is nothing that happens in this world except our Creator,G-d allows such. So then why should you receive any credit for anything you do in this life? Or are you just an insignificant fact that we can ignore?
The Messiah himself took no credit, and gave it all to Him. Yet G-d’s voice was heard by many, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.”. Has He said that about you? Have you given your life for any? Has God worked in you any miracles or wonders seen by large multitudes? Have you raised any from the dead? Healed many that were sick, seen by thousands? How do we know you are even a servant of the true G-d?
It is no secret that there are many sects within Christianity each with it’s differing views on certain details, just as it is no secret the same exists with Judaism. So I do not speak for all Christianity, and certainly there are many of our brethren that exalt Jesus higher than is proper. But He has been set as our King by G-d, not man, and G-d has exalted his kingdom for everyone’s sake, just as David was set as King over all Israel and G-d exalted his kingdom.
Jesus did nothing of himself. All he accomplished was because G-d worked through him, just as any prophet of old. It was by the power of the one who is Holy, that Spirit, whom we call G-d.
And G-d has no mother. So I’m not sure who you are referring to.
If it was God doing the miracles, why credit Jesus (and not a God) as the gospels do, especially John, and as Acts and most of the letters do, where a Jesus is exalted to a level equal to God. Bowing and worshipping is 2 different things; some bow to Kings and Judges and other people bow to a man as they bow to the sun-god or gods or sons of god. Or they bowed in worship to a copper snake on a stick. Some worshipped the ba’alim and some believed a god or God was in the power of the earth, the wind, or in the fire (as Nebuchanezzar “seen” “one as a son of his pagan god” in a fire.) But the prophet seen that God was not in the earth, nor was his spirit in a mighty wind, nor was he in the fire (or any burning bush). There is a difference between “insignificant facts” or acts (not verified as actually happening, although some take NT stories or parables literally as actual historical facts – and even although the “witnesses” are not even remotely credible) that some see in the NT as the deeds of God or else a “man-god” that they exalt far above Elijah, Ezekiel, Jonah, or Moses. You seem to be saying all is either insignicant or it is of divine nature. God is pleased with a son, although God is the one doing or the one responsible for the deeds. And what “great multitudes” heard God say “this is my son in whom I am well pleased??? It seemed not to impress the baptizer John that much (he sent his men later to see if the rumors were true & his men didn’t get a straight answer). The “great multitude” of Jews and the multitude of Roman soldier and gentile merchants in the Galilee or in Jerusalem weren’t all that impressed with “the son”. There are no written reports, no rumors that “spread like wildfire” in the weeks or months or years or decades or even centuries after “God killed Jesus so that God could save us, those sons of his “that he was not so pleased with”. Christian scholars believe that the earliest gospel that we have was written by an unknown, anonymous person (although it is credited to a “Mark” who they are not sure exactly who this Mark was) almost 40 or more years after “the crucifiction” (72-80 c.e.). And the earliest preserved record is 80 to 100 years or more after that (~150-200 c.e.). If Jesus existed at all, his followers were few in number about 100 years later (130 c.e.). Instead of taking the NT literally as history, people should first read the history as recorded by the earliest church leaders.
To most Christians (most does not mean all and it does not mean “sects”), Jesus was a God, in the flesh, incarnated. Jesus had a human father (very few Christians believe that) and he had a human mother (most people, whether they are a Christian or not, believe that). So, logically, naturally, if one believes Jesus was God or that he was a divine son of a God, then God has a mother. Of course, some people think God is a woman, just like many think God is or was a man. The Hebrew bible tells us that God had daughters, but few people know that. If we take the bible literally, the city Jerusalem was/is also a actual daughter of a God.
Yedidiah, I will come back to your email this week. Right now just a short question. You insist the God ( Christians believe) had to have a mother. How does it suppose to make sense? If God had a mother then who created the mother? Isn’t God the one who is creator of all???We say Jesus had a mother and Jesus was Son of God, and he had no biological father – that is what the gospels say- so whoever says he had a father is not taking it from the gospels.. His Father was the Father in heaven.
Jesus also said that our father was in heaven, so how was Jesus different from me or you? Jesus is God according to the gospels (not just by the belief by most Christians although many Christians disagree since they do not take every verse of the gospels literally). By definition, a son has a mother and a father, unless you are talking metaphorically. So, if Jesus is God, God had a mother. Who is to say God is not the creator-Mother of all? If God did not have a mother or creator, then who created God? If Jesus did not have a biologically father, than by definition he was not human “literally” and he was a lie or a fiction or else metaphorically, Jesus was the product of pagan non-Hebrew biblical religious ideas. Jesus could have been a regular prophet or even a failed messiah and be a human, but then Christianity would still be self-contradictory and it has little to offer, except to those who do not truly accept the God of the Hebrew Bible, the God of Israel.
Yedidiah,Do you have a problem to understand where God came from?? Is He a creator of all to you, or somebody who needed to be created?
Do you believe God created the universe and the first people Adam and Eve? If yes, do you know how He made Adam and Eve?
Show me where in the gospels it says Jesus is God?
I have no problem understanding God, but what I believe is not the issue, since what I am attempting to show is the illogical “reasoning” of others. Try to prove to Christians, in particular Christian Scholars, that Jesus is not God or that he was not divine. You might want to challenge them to a debate. Can God physically be a “father” to a man and yet not be a “father”? Can that God produce a “not-God son” yet God can still literally be a father to that son in the sense that most people understand by the word “father” or the way they or a dictionary might define “father” (in a non-metaphoric, non-poetic, non-symbolic way). Things can be understood or expressed implicitly and not just explicitly. Things written can be understood differently from those same words spoken (orally). As a test, take a sentence like “I didn’t say you stole the money” and say that sentence 6 different times, but each time strongly emphasizing a different word (as if you were trying to convince a person that YOU weren’t accusing them of a crime. By saying one thing but meaning another). For instance, saying “I didn’t SAY you stole the money”, is “not a lie(?)” if what you were thinking and what you did was “give a written sworn statement to the Police”. Yes, you didn’t SAY it, you wrote it.
So did Jesus SAY it or did the gospel author write explicitly “JESUS IS ….”. But NOWHERE in the Christian OT does it say Jesus was the Messiah or that Jesus was “prophesied” about in ANY WAY. So you might want to STOP quoting the OT or the Tanach as if it anywhere even HINTS about Jesus, much less says/writes anything about Jesus. So you may want to justify Jesus only by the NT (those parts that YOU don’t object you, despite what is literally written there (by people who were FAR closer to Jesus, far more reliable as either witnesses, disciples, apostles, or followers than you, born 1900 years later, could ever hope to be). You have the right to judge Paul??? Then, you go argue with him. You convince him (Christians today) that you know Jesus better. If Jesus did NOT object to his ministry, where is your justification to belittle Paul and either minimize or reject his ministry? Show them where Paul was what you say he was. I don’t believe Jesus is or was God, but the evidence that those who believe he was far exceeds your belief that he was not divine.
Yedidiah, I was asking you if you can tell how God made Adam and Eve. The fact was- if you remember – God didn’t need any mama and daddy in order to create Adam. Then if God just used Adam’s rib to create Eve, I don’t have a problem to see how Jesus was ” completly human” because God used only Mary for him to be born.
You asked ” Did God, to whom every knee shall bow, of Isa 45:18-45, relinquish power & glory to another (Jesus)?
My answer; God chose his anointed one ( Christ) to be a king so he will get all the glory that is owed to the king.
Ps 45.v.2. also tells you about Christ’s glory to come, that God has blessed him forever.
v.17. ” I will make your name remembered in all generations, therefore the nations will acknowledge you forever and ever.”
You asked; “Do you disagree with most Christians who read the NT and see “Jesus is God”
I don’t try to convince anybody about Jesus being God or not, I usually tell people how I see him, and I understand that because of Jesus portraying acurately God’s character in everything he did- he reflected God’s image.
And now what Jesus said about himself was that the Father was IN Him, not that he was a Father, also he used to say he was the son of men and son of God. The evil spirits he was casting out called him;; “you are the son of the living God”. God Himself said; he was his son in whom He was pleased.
Jesus always depended on His Father, he said he was doing things what he saw Father was doing, so when he said in John 14 ; “whoever have seen me me, have seen the Father- he wasn’t saying he was God the Father , but by everythinhg he was doing, and by his character- he portrayed to us what the Father in heaven really is like.
Also in everything he was doing , he was seeking his Father’s glory. ” And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.” John 8;5
You said Jesus arogantly made himself equal with God.
-Based on what you think so? Rather than this I would say he acurately reflected God’s image.
Phil 2’6 -7 tells you ‘ that Jesus “who, being in the image of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (…)”
yedidiah;
” If it was God doing the miracles, why credit Jesus (and not a God) as the gospels do, especially John, and as Acts and most of the letters do, where a Jesus is exalted to a level equal to God.”
Everything what Jesus said he credited to God; John 5;19
“Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever [a]the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner ”
God exalted Jesus for what he accomplished by his obedience. It is written that it is God who highly exalted him for the things Jesus did for us because he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Phil 2;8-11 That means he is also a Lord to Elijah, Ezekiel, Jonah, or Moses.
You said; why credit Jesus, you have to specify what you mean because God is credited in everything Jesus did . People in the gospels knew that Jesus was not doing things out of himself but because God was with him;
“Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” John 3;1-2
Letters, and Acts explain you what Jesus accomplished . None of the writings tell you that Jesus is credited for himself without God. We believe he is our Messiah King and we respect him for the authority God gave him, because He made him our Lord and Christ .
You mentioned the word’ worshiping’. For us to worship ‘ means to LISTEN and OBEY and HONOR somebody. So if we worship Jesus ( listen and obey his words and honor him) we also worship God , because we listen to his words which God gave him, we want to obey his words which are God’s words and we honor him for being our Lord and King. because God made him so exalting him and giving him that authority. Phil 2;8-11
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. ” Acts 2;36
People used to worship different things like nature; sun, wind, etc because they didn’t know the real God who created everything, so they were looking for power in them. But their made up gods had no power, they couldn’t speak, they couldn’t think, they couldn’t change anything and they couldn’t save people.
Some take parables literally as actual historical facts you said – I take them as lessons .
You said “You seem to be saying all is either insignificant or it is of divine nature. God is pleased with a son, although God is the one doing or the one responsible for the deeds. ”
– God is working through Jesus. If Jesus wasn’t obeying him, nothing would be accomplished and he wouldn’t have any power. So God is pleased with a son who does his will completely .
You said ” And what “great multitudes” heard God say “this is my son in whom I am well pleased???”
The same what great multitudes heard God speaking to Abraham or Moses at the burning bush? I don’t have a problem with that because the message is confirmed in the life of Jesus who showed God’s favor on him in every step.
You said ” It seemed not to impress the baptizer John that much….” I don’t know what you mean here by being impressed, John said about Jesus; “John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.(LIKE 3;16) How other way was he suppose to be impressed???
You said “God killed Jesus so that God could save us, those sons of his “that he was not so pleased with”.
-Correction; first; God didn’t kill Jesus to save us. second ; it is people who killed Jesus , third; God knew that it will happen and used that for the salvation -purpose, fourth; Jesus gave his life voluntarily , nobody forced him for that. “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 10;18
I will come back to your other questions tomorrow.
Eric
Eric on April 16: Why does Jesus say of himself (especially throughout John where Jesus is anything but humble) much of what is attributed to God in the Christian OT? Did God, to whom every knee shall bow, of Isa 45:18-45, relinquish power & glory to another (Jesus)? If it was God doing the miracles, why credit Jesus (and not God) as the gospels do, especially John, and as Acts and most of the letters do, where a Jesus is exalted to a level equal to God.” Do you disagree with most Christians who read the NT and see “Jesus is God” or else Jesus is in fact a liar and is “not who he says he is”? Trinitarians have no problem with John 5:19, because what person, righteous or not, can see whatever God “does” and they then “can do what God does too”? What person says that you can’t get to your father, God, unless you go through them? Some sort of minor god, some platonic/gnostic concept of word or gateway god, some type of bodyguard or pimp? Jesus arrogantly makes himself a god long before his “ascension”(and/or the gospel & NT authors, especially John & Paul make him such).
If the “father” of Jesus was God, could Jesus fail? What does it mean that he was exalted by “what he accomplished by his obedience” when he was “created to do nothing other than what he did”? What does it mean God was “pleased” with him and when did Jesus “pass the test”? If it was impossible for Jesus to fail, he was a “machine”, a “tool”, a program, a god (modeled after heathen and pagan poly-theistic gods and sons of god). Of course, Christians (who so often distort the Tanach) invented the idea that the “chief angel” and a “1/3rd of all the angels” created by God could fail and could rebel against God, so the half-man god Jesus could fail as well (and Eric, you used 2 verses below where you admit/show Jesus displeased God). Just because the unknown Roman author of Philemon makes absurd assertions because of his heresy or apostasy, why would Elijah, Ezekiel, Jonah, or Moses make Jesus a lord, when they already had One Lord who was God, the Lord over all, even over Jesus? Why are you trying to exalt Jesus over God? Why believe in that non-sense, absurdity, or blasphemy just because of what “was written” by some unknown NT author who did not know God or was too worldly to imagine a bigger God than his pagan mind could conceive of?
If we “LISTEN and OBEY and HONOR somebody” (perhaps like our parents), why do you assume that is “worship”? We can listen, obey, and honor without worship. And, yes, people can actually worship (as a god) stars, the sun, a human king, or Jesus, because they didn’t or don’t “know the real God who created everything, so they were looking for power” in those idols. But the idol is most not often the thing that is worshipped. It is the “spirit’ of their god that “fills the object or person (like Jesus)” that is worshipped. The gold calf wasn’t what was worshipped; it only represented the “God that brought them out of Egypt”. Made-up gods “can speak, can think, can change things, can save people” according to the believers of those gods and like you say “Jesus could do nothing on his own”, because as the Tanach says, God saves, and not his “son”, some “lamb”, some “messiah”, or some “Christ”.
You say “God is working through Jesus. If Jesus wasn’t obeying him, nothing would be accomplished”. I hope you didn’t mean God wouldn’t accomplished anything (except though a person).” If a God is working “though” someone or something, God is doing it, not the thing or person, unless you believe the thing or person can override God.
There was no “great multitude” that heard God speaking to Abraham or Moses at the burning bush, but the story of Jesus is heavily dependent on “witnesses”, “testimonies”, midrash & quotes from the writings of the others as his justification, his authority. The gospels are unreliable “witnesses” (or actually non-witnesses who rely upon hearsay, faulty information, midrash of older scripture, or upon their own imagination) which sometimes contradict themselves and each other and the writings of others. So there is no confirmation and no display of “God’s favor on him in every step” nor perhaps in any step. John the baptizer wasn’t impressed (read more). The lack of information and the lack of action “speaks” louder than the imagined stories of parables, sign, or miraculous deeds only a few bothered to write about. Most of the time Jesus wasn’t in a physical wilderness, but his deeds and words were virtually unseen or unheard by the world of people all around him.
Correction:. “God supposedly did kill Jesus so that God could “save us”, those sons of his “that he was not so pleased with”. That’s if you believe God had a plan and if you believe in a God that is all-knowing as well as all-powerful (and if you disbelieve in a God of Justice & Mercy, law & love) and God “gave his son for some purpose”. God gave, but it was Jesus that gave it, despite God already knowing “what would happen” & yet Jesus had power over God to “lay it down or to take it up again” on his own willingness because of the “commandment that he received from God”. That might make a little more sense if it was reworded, but it is un-Godly non-sense. The God of Israel does not submit to the ways of or model Himself after the pagan & heathen nations and their “mystery religions” and their dying-rising man-god plans of salvation. Jesus is the type of son of god that Nebuchanezzar seen in the fire, or that a centurion imagined Jesus was when Jesus died. The Jesus myth would be at home in Tarsus, or Rome, or Babylon, or Egypt, or in India, or with the Aztecs, or with Norse, etc, etc., but not in Jerusalem. Stealing verses out of the Tanach to create a story about Jesus doesn’t cover-up or conceal the paganism of Jesus (or Yeshua, as some try to obfuscate). In Isaiah, God asks, “Is my arm, then, too short to rescue, Have I not the power to save?” The NT answers, “not without Jesus” if we have our way.
Eric on April 19.
In Psalm 2:7-9, God is calling a human king, His Son. Jesus did not exist at that time nor did the concept of a messiah (the post-exilic idea of “the Moshiach”). It is the same thing in 2 Samuel 7:12-14. Using all capital letters for part of the verse doesn’t change reality nor does it change the theology found in the Tanach nor does it justify or validate the Christology in the NT. But you do, unwittingly, say something interesting. Jesus didn’t carry “our sins”, but instead the verses would show that Jesus committed iniquity and that is why he was “chastened with the rod of men”. Don’t erase “chastened for sins” & lie with “carried sins”.
According to some gospels (talking again about worshipping other than God), the devil (pagan, non-Hebraic idea) took him and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Surprise (?) that soon Jesus says that all the nations were given to him (before his death). Now think of Jesus & the NT and then go past 7:13 to Daniel 7:25-27, where we see “He will speak words against the Most High, and will harass the holy ones of the Most High. He will think of changing times and laws, and they will be delivered into his power for a time, times, and half a time. Then the court will sit and his dominion will be taken away, to be destroyed and abolished for all time. The kingship and dominion and grandeur belonging to all the kingdoms under Heaven will be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. Their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.” We can see where Jesus spoke against the Most High, he harassed the holy ones, he changed times and laws (especially in the Pauline letters), and “all was delivered to him and we are supposedly living in those times”, etc. Not everlasting, but temporary. But in the end it is the “people of the holy ones of the Most High” (not the “Christ”, but the people) who will receive the everlasting kingdom. The meek, not an “exalted & worshipped one”.
Yedidiah, You said ” What person says that you can’t get to your father, God, unless you go through them?”
You surely mean the words Jesus said that nobody comes to the Father except through me. These words are not talking about that you can’t pray to the Father but about Christ that it is through him we are redeemed back to the Father. He is our High Priest who can go into the very presence of God like the High Priest used to enter the Holy of Holies alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people .
Hebrew 9;11-15 says “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
v.24 says;”For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:.”
Psalm 110v.4 also says the Messiah will not only be a king but he will be a priest also. ” The Lord has sworn and will not relent ; You shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness.” A Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek who will be a greater priest than the Aaronic priests.
You wrote ” What does it mean that he was exalted by “what he accomplished by his obedience” when he was “created to do nothing other than what he did”?
-Jesus was not a robot created to do things automatically , he had his own will, he had a choice too, but he said ,
” (…) I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 5;30
“What he accomplished by his obedience”? His all life was doing everything to please God , I already explained that in Phil 2;6-8
“He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, (…) he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (…)”
You asked when did he “pass the test” or could he fail? I don’t know if he could fail or not. I am sure God knew he wouldn’t as he seeked his will all the time. He stargled and prayed really hard before his tourments knowing it wouldn’t be easy. I recomment watching the ‘Passion” to have a glimps of how was it like to go to death he went to.
We also know he was tempted like every man, he spent 40 days on a desert and overcame all temptations using always God’s word . He didn’t incline his ear to the temptor’s’ lies and he passed the test. The same all his life he never compromised God’s word but he lived it. He accomplished the will of God; “making himself an offering for guilt” “pouring out his soul to death”, “bearing the sin of the multitudes”, “bearing their punishment” . Is 53
I know you believe it all refers to the nation, I have already explained last time why it doesn’t make sense to believe that.
Yedidiah, I don’t know what is your idea about ‘worship’ . In the scriptures this word covers the meaning of the word ‘worship’ directed only to God and also respect, paying homage to men of a higher status , like kings. The translators usually translate the same Hebrew or Greek word as ‘ worship’ when it involves God and paying homage to special men. So when people say they worship Jesus , there is no other difference as paying homage, respect, and gratitude and honor as it was shown to the kings. Also looking in the old testament scriptures you see how ‘ worship’ was a part of culture and a way of showing respect and reverence.
It is clear why people fell down and worshipped Jesus while he walked on earth. People loved him and respected greatly. It is also clear why we “worship’ him which is pay homage, honor , respect him now – he has earned our love and our highest reverence as we believe he died to set us free and God has honored him by setting him at His own right hand above all other powers and authorities.
Ps 110;1 says; The word of Hashem to my master; wait at my right hand , until/while I make your enemies a stool for your feet.” These words were never fulfilled to any king.
I guess you don’t understand the words in that Psalm 110;1 The first Lord is Yahweh . The second word for the lord is adoni meaning ” master’ and it refers here to the Messiah. v.4 he will aslo be a priest, v.5 “The Lord is at your right , He crushes kings on the day of His anger.”
Continuing on ‘worship; – a special worship ( homage, allegiance, reverent love and devotion to be given only to God, is a posture of the heart towards God There is no unique word that represents that special worship. You can ‘worship’ God with your words whoever you want to but if your heart is far away it is not a worship. God doesn’t want it. It is no devotion to Him. Even Jesus said ; you shall worship your Lord God only, he wasn’t using a specific vocabulary how you should show your devotion to God because it is a matter of your heart.
You said ;” Jesus had power over God to “lay it down or to take it up again”
-These are your words, as it doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus had power over God. He was willing to lay his life down for us. And God acepted his offering ‘ his sacrifice’ for us.
You wrote ” In Isaiah, God asks, “Is my arm, then, too short to rescue, Have I not the power to save?” The NT answers, “not without Jesus” if we have our way. ”
– It depents what you mean here by being ‘saved’ ??? You know you can be saved from your enemies, from the sickness, from the everlasting death. Which one do you mean?
Of course God’s arm is not too short to save from anything but He also said in Levit 17;11 that ” for it is a blood that atones for the sin”. No High Priest who would come to Holy of Holies in His presence without ‘cleansing ‘ with blood. and would stay alive.
So we say. Yes the arm of God is not too short to save but it is your choice how you will come one day in the presence of God .
Our Messiah is our priest forever the one that is sitting now at the right hand of God ; Ps 110;4
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completelythose who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. Hebr 7;21-27
Yedidiah, you wrote so much so there is so much to respond to.
You wrote;
“In Psalm 2:7-9, God is calling a human king, His Son. Jesus did not exist at that time nor did the concept of a messiah (the post-exilic idea of “the Moshiach”)”.
-I am really surprised with your words. The Messiah didn’t have to be alive at that time like everybody the prophets write about ( people and their actions in the future ) and God exactly knows what they will be doing although they are not even born yet. Example Zeh 12.; 11-13, – these people they are not born yet either yet the are words about them.
I am also surprised you don’t recognize that psalm as a messianic. This psalm has been always believed to be about God and His Messiah . Verse 2 says that the rulers of the earth will gather together against God and His Anointed One ( Christ) . Their confederacy will not succeed , however and the Anointed One will end up ruling with an iron scepter and dashing his enemies to pieces like a clay pot.
“Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8]. — Soncino Talmud edition. ”
The same thing in 2 Samuel 7:12-14.
It clearly says – I can use low letters – no problem- God is giving a promise to David that
” when David lies down with his fathers ‘ which means David already dies God will raise up his offspring ( so none of his children) ( whose kingdom will be firm and as well his the throne will be firm. None of the kings made it firm until the Messiah comes to rule and makes it firm.
You responded ; ” Jesus didn’t carry “our sins”, but instead the verses would show that Jesus committed iniquity and that is why he was “chastened with the rod of men.”
– Then why didn’t he stay dead ??? If we believe he was chastened with the rod of men for committing iniquity , we also believe in what happened after . God raised him back to life.
Also according to Is 53 God’s servant commuted no crime there was no deceit in his mouth , yet he acknowledges guilt ( Isaiah doesn’t even say his guilt) , he dies ; “cut from the land of living, pouring his soul to death, counted among the wicked ” ” it is their iniquities that he will carry” , ” bearing the sin of the multitudes” , then is back to life as he will ‘ divide the mighty as spoils”. I don’t see it as the nation as we “ALL nations went astray”.
You said that ” the devil (pagan, non-Hebraic idea) took him and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Surprise (?) that soon Jesus says that all the nations were given to him (before his death). ”
-According to the gospels especially Luke 4 Jesus says this; ” Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ”
When does he say after these words that all the nations were given to him?
You said “We can see where Jesus spoke against the Most High” –
That is your idea also referring Daniel 7;25-27 to Jesus. I don’t see him ever speaking anything against the Most High. I am waiting for the list of Jesus’ words to prove it.
You said “But in the end it is the “people of the holy ones of the Most High” (not the “Christ”, but the people) who will receive the everlasting kingdom. The meek, not an “exalted & worshiped one”.
-You are forgetting that a kingdom needs a king, and without a king there is no kingdom. Of course the Messiah won’t have a kingdom for himself, kingdom consists of people who are under the rules of their king. So don’t exclude the king who at that time will rule with the iron rod.
Ps 2;9 ” Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron.” Also Is 11;1, Jeremiah 23;5
Yedidiah, and everybody,
You said the city of Jerusalem is called daughter of God. I don’t doubt it. The nation is called his son- very true.
This doesn’t exclude the fact that the people who are doing His will are called his sons and daughters as well. The Messiah is called God’s son.
Ps 2;7-9
” I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
2 Samuel 7;12-14
“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I WILL BE HIS FATHER ,AND HE SHALL BE MY SON. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. ”
Because Jesus carried our sins; all happened what was said; chased with a rod and the blows of the son of men.
What Jewish people take as the description of the suffering of their nation; Isaiah clearly tells you details what Jesus went through at his trial till death ; Is 50; 6
” I gave my back to the smites, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. ”
52;13-14
“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:”
Ps; 22 v.17-18 ‘ For dogs have surrounded me , a pack of evildoers has enclosed me , like a lion they attack my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones , they look on and gloat over me.” “They divide my garments among themselves, and cast lots for my clothing”
Ps 69;22 ” But they put gal in my meal , and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”
Jesus said he was coming back;
Daniel 7;13 ” I was watching in night visions and behold with the clouds of heaven , one like a man came, he came up to the One of Ancient Days, and they brought him before Him. He was given dominion, honor and kingship so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him, his dominion would be an everlasting dominion that would never pass, and his kingship would never be destroyed.” Stone Edition the Artscroll English Tanach, with insights from classic rabbinic thought. The Jewish comment about the one coming in clouds says; King Messiah.
Many of your newer translations are changing the meaning as relating to the entire nation, which -I don’t know- what it is doing there in the clouds. But v.13 is even spoken of in the Talmud where it is said that if Israel is worthy , the Messiah will come in the clouds of heaven, but if not, he will ride in on a donkey ( Zah 9;9) which in the scripture s there is nothing about that the way he is coming depends on people being worthy or not. His entrance to Jerusalem on a donkey already happened 2000 years ago. Matthew 21;9
Ps.110;1, ” The word of Hashem to my master;” wait at my right hand , until I make your enemies a stool for your feet” – You have an explanation why was Jesus resurrected and why he went back to His Father in Heaven and why he is given all authority ; at God’s right hand, until enemy is put under his feet.
Called the righteous one ; his bone was not broken unlike everybody’s else crucified with him, ; ps 34;20
” many are the mishaps of the righteous, but from them all Hashem rescues him. He guards all his bones, even one of them was not broken.”
Ps 78;1-4 teaching in parables ps 78;1-4 v
” Listen my people to my teaching (…) I will open my mouth with a parable (…) .
Question has even been any prophet teaching in parables like Jesus?? Don’t know of any.
The whole idea of the nation as a suffering servant in Is 53 has no logic. ( even looking at the stone edition, artscroll, tanach, thus avoiding dispute on mistranslation)
” we all strayed like a sheep each of us turning his own way” – looking at the history and everyday- life ; this includes all nations all people even Israel; sin of the nation is being mentioned all throughout the books of prophets. Is 50;1 Is 2 v5- Is 3. Jer 16;10-13. Habakkuk 1;12 Jer 30;15
Now v. 9 -your Tanach’ comment says- is referring to the remnant who is righteous, ‘ for committing no crime and with no deceit in his mouth” which has no logic with the comment on verse 53;10 and entire chapter that Israel’s suffering was a discipline of refinement to cleanse them from their sins. If the remnant is righteous , there is no need for refinement and cleansing from their sin and why it should acknowledge any guilt?
So the only point is to benefit others like you understand v.5. But you can’t benefit those who oppress you. They will die for their own crimes . Jer 31;30 (and by the way most oppressors from the past are already dead. The now-days oppressors if they don’t turn away from their sin they will die too for their crimes)
But those who find refuge in God will see his salvation. Ps 34;20
We can obtain God’s mercy individually if we repent , and turn away from our sin and start serving God , not because we suffered because of others.
v.5 ” (…) the chastisement upon him was for our benefit and through his wounds we are healed” We can only benefit from Jesus who carried on our sins and died for us and conquered death and through whom God gives us everlasting life and through whom He covered our sins.
How is everybody supposed to be healed by Israel’s suffering? When God will redeem the nation from the enemies and the Messiah comes to establish his kingdom , those who stayed alive will be serving God and will know Him. It has nothing to do with the suffering of the nation, but God who will deal with the wicked and save all the meek.
Is 13;3-6 , Zeph 3;8-20 , Zeph 3 v.12, Zeh 14;1-12
The sinful world is going to face God’s judgement one day , the great Day of the Lord,
( Is 2 ;10-22, Amos 5;18, Zeph 3;8-20, Is 26;21) no nation is healed right now , people are being healed if they personally come to God. Without their own repentance there is no healing.
“You also have the words in Isaiah 25;8 that one day there won’t be death. If God will be able to keep us from it in the future then why is He allowing it now? You keep focusing on an unfed infant and it is God who designed our body so it responds to different things like He designed it for. If we don’t eat we get sick and later die. But what I was pointing to is that our dying or living does”t depend only on food because no matter how healthy you live you are not staying that way forever.”
i think you still don’t get it. you think jesus was innocent and that’s why death couldn’t keep him (although round 1 did go to death ) , but innocent infants who know no sin die all the time.
just answer a simple yes/no to the following questions:
1. are infants INNOCENT?
2. did god CREATE the organs in the body of the innocent infant ?
3.is god in CONTROL of death?
4. no food would mean guaranteed DEATH for the innocent infant. body of the innocent would use up proteins inside it’s stomach, then it would start feeding on its own muscle. who is creating this process? god?
death? is death a CONCIOUS being, yes or no?
mrquestioner2013, You still didn’t answer my questions , they are together with my answers;
your question; do you believe that your god is like a doctor who tries to save the life of an innocent infant but there are EXTERNAL forces, with thier OWN will trying to take the infants life?
yes or no?
No, there are no external forces If God wants to do something He does and nobody can stop Him.
You didn’t answer me; If God is capable of everything then He is able to stop an infant from dying (whether innocent or not) but why isn’t He? ???
…………………………………………….
your question; is DEATH another god besides god? does it have its OWN will and can WILL outside the will of god?
Death and everything else works withing the will of God, there is no greater power then God. The rest of the question you can answer for yourself if death has a will… I am sure you know.
………………………………………………….
your q; do you believe that there are beings who can do things OUTSIDE the will of god?
god has a will and ANOTHER power can have its OWN SEPARATE independant WILL?
-You had my answer above, everything works withing God’s will, so answer is no.
…………………………………………………..
your other q; 1. are infants INNOCENT?
-Innocent of what?
2. did god CREATE the organs in the body of the innocent infant ?
-Yes,
My question; did He create the organs of all of us??? Do you believe God is able to create unfailing organs in all people?????
3.is god in CONTROL of death?
– If God is omnipotent then yes .
4. no food would mean guaranteed DEATH for the innocent infant. body of the innocent would use up proteins inside it’s stomach, then it would start feeding on its own muscle. who is creating this process? god?
death? is death a CONSCIOUS being, yes or no? You have my answer that everything works within God’s will. Answer for yourself; is death conscious being…
My question;Is God in control of everything???
Was Adam created to live forever?
Is Genesis 3; 16-19 relating ONLY to Adam? If no, why?
i quote:
What struck me at the time was if every event happened as recorded, how difficult it would have been to keep Jesus out of contemporary histories. As you know, most Christians are unaware regarding the social/economic situation of First Century Mediterranean countries. The child mortality due to illness; life expectancy due to illness, injury and famine; the sustenance living for the populace. And along comes a guy who can heal. Not just heal—but heal everything, including death itself. Who can provide food from a few bread crumbs. Who provides freely, without limit as to race, political affiliation, gender. Who requests no payment in return.
Kings would scramble to either win him over, or capture him, or eliminate him from competing rulers. (A fellow who can heal AND feed thousands? Think of eliminating both your medical staff and supply personnel in your army.) He could not sleep, eat, speak or move without constant hounding from people begging to heal, be fed, and so on. Worse, once he demonstrated he could heal from a distance, as it were, it would only multiple his popularity.
end quote
i want to talk about the first paragraph, the writer said,
“The child mortality due to illness; life expectancy due to illness, injury and famine; the sustenance living for the populace.”
the doc’s say that if some important chromosomes are missing, then this is lethal .
some missing chromosomes won’t help the body to fight off infections.
lets assume this was one of the problems in jc’s time
how do you portray your god?
adam eat a fruit and god decided to OMIT important chromosomes ?
do you see that death could be a mercy for a child who was born without important chromosomes ?
mrquestiones2013,
your q; how do you portray your god?
Me; I don’t know what answer are you expecting here in relation to the beginning of your email. First of all do you believe in God at all?
Your q; Adam eat a fruit and god decided to OMIT important chromosomes ?
Me; God can do whatever He wants to do without our involvement and notice . He created Adam and Even from the dust. More He created the whole universe out of nothing, He created all the atoms and using them He made them create more complex different structures that are building everything we function in. To your question whether God decided to omit important chromosomes or not- I don’t know. God is not explain g us every of His steps how and why He is doing things, and how the universe works why some kid is sick why the other is born healthy.
……………………………….
Your q;do you see that death could be a mercy for a child who was born without important chromosomes ?
Me; if the child was to suffer horribly all his life , for sure it is better for him not to be alive.
I’m sorry you were misinformed. Death couldn’t keep the Messiah because G-d raised him. G-d exalted him. G-d placed him as King.
Yet, I’m still waiting for you answer.. If G-d who is omnipotent, all powerful, then does He not have the ability to keep anyone from dying? And if He has such ability, does He enjoy and love death? Then why does He allow that infant who G-d himself could have brought ravens to feed, allowed that innocent creature to die?
“I’m sorry you were misinformed. Death couldn’t keep the Messiah because G-d raised him. G-d exalted him. G-d placed him as King.”
mq: so god chooses an innocent baby , who is FREE from sin, to be human , but sin of others is so great that god can’t give it (the baby) a second chance? he makes damn sure that his “exalted” and “king” messiah gets a second chance and live painless life forever?
what were the REASONS why god raised him? what do you christians say? “sinless messiah” ?
so why wasn’t your god fair and fill baby flesh with his spirit like he did for baby jesus?
how come baby jesus got a filling and not thousands of infants who died horrible deaths?
“Yet, I’m still waiting for you answer.. If G-d who is omnipotent, all powerful, then does He not have the ability to keep anyone from dying? And if He has such ability, does He enjoy and love death? Then why does He allow that infant who G-d himself could have brought ravens to feed, allowed that innocent creature to die?”
you tell me why your god with power and everything enjoys watching innocent and SINLESS infant die of hunger. tell me why your “messiah” gets a second chance to live a painless life and the poor infant die a horrible death? god who is in CONTROL of death, gives death and can STOP death made sure that the CREATED flesh of his “messiah” get a hunger free and pain free life , but INNONCENT children who KNOW no sin die of infections and hunger.
about adam:
your god didnt even CREATE a tall tree, he created an EASY to reach tree and put a tempter to speed up disobediance. why for one sin of DISOBEDIANCE in the garden god MADE death and made this DISEASE take the life of INNOCENT infant who knew NO sin?
i dont know about the jewish view and
i am not a jew(my view could be WRONG), but don’t jews believe that death is NOT an end and life goes on after death? don’t they believe that soul’s which did GOOD would have a PEACEFUL exit EVEN if the flesh APPEARED to suffer?
mrquestioner2013,
I am not relying on ‘soul-stories’ that the souls are living forever. God’s plan is to live forever in flesh.
God doesn’t say He enjoys anybody’s dying- so I don’t know where you took it from. Your own idea?
I also see you live in a conflict of your thoughts about God. On one hand you know God can stop death if He wants to as He is omnipotent, in His hands is life of everybody, He can give life and take it. On second hand you are having hard time to accept the fact He won’t stop a death of an innocent infant. I can’t give you the answer why God does what He does, He definitely has a reason for everything and for us is to trust Him. He is definitely smarter than us and wiser than us. I already wrote you our life is not ending with death but those who are doing God’s will are promised to be back to life. John 5;24
“I am not relying on ‘soul-stories’ that the souls are living forever. God’s plan is to live forever in flesh.”
1 Corinthians 15:35ff. Paul says that physical bodies rot away and are replaced with “spiritual” bodies.
paul was longing for ‘his current tent to be destroyed’ and for ‘being away from this body’ so he could finally be with his lord.
“God doesn’t say He enjoys anybody’s dying- so I don’t know where you took it from. Your own idea?”
no, jewish idea
Objection #9: How could one say that God is pleased with Israel’s suffering.
In verse 53:10 we see that God was pleased to cause suffering to the servant, and I quoted in part two from Deuteronomy where it says explicitly that God is joyful at the suffering. We see nowhere else where it is the case that God has joy in causing suffering I would like to point out we also have NO SOURCES where God has joy in the suffering of the Messiah.
http://judaismsanswer.com/Isaiah%2053%20Part%204%20-%20Objections.htm
“I also see you live in a conflict of your thoughts about God. On one hand you know God can stop death if He wants to as He is omnipotent, in His hands is life of everybody, He can give life and take it. On second hand you are having hard time to accept the fact He won’t stop a death of an innocent infant.”
what i am saying is that biologically, morally and logically death doesn’t have anything to do with sin.
” I can’t give you the answer why God does what He does, He definitely has a reason for everything and for us is to trust Him.”
infants don’t die because of sin.
that is a christian lie.
more questions:
WHO made DEATH?
if GOD willed it IN TO EXISTENCE , then he MADE it, right? everytime the BODY starves then god is the CREATOR of starvation, right?
lets assume that a INNOCENT infant is BORN with a FAULTY organ which WOULD DEFINATELY take his INNOCENT and sinless life. who made that faulty organ?
do you believe that there are beings who can do things OUTSIDE the will of god?
god has a will and ANOTHER power can have its OWN SEPARATE independant WILL?
do you believe that your god is like a doctor who tries to save the life of an innocent infant but there are EXTERNAL forces, with thier OWN will trying to take the infants life?
yes or no?
“Yet, I’m still waiting for you answer.. If G-d who is omnipotent, all powerful, then does He not have the ability to keep anyone from dying? And if He has such ability, does He enjoy and love death? Then why does He allow that infant who G-d himself could have brought ravens to feed, allowed that innocent creature to die?”
if an INNOCENT AND SINLESS INFANT is born with a LIFE threatening disease which guarantees death, then would death be a MERCY or a curse in this situation? tell me why your selfish god made baby jesus without disease and infection and gave life to his LIFELESS body in his mother’s womb and didn’t do the same for the diseased infant who knew no sin? how come baby jesus got a good fix?
mrquestiones2013,You asked me why “your selfish god made baby Jesus without disease(..)” You know the bible doesn’t tell us whether Jesus was ever free from any infection or sickness as a child. Second concerning the infant who dies- you can’t say he doesn’t get a second chance – the second chance is life at the resurrection. Those who trust God are promised life at Messiah’s coming. Ezekiel 37;12 , Daniel 12;2, 1 Tes 4;13-18 , John 5; 25-29 The fact God watched over Jesus life so he wouldn’t die as an infant is so that he would accomplish what God had him for. God sent Him to pay the debt for our sin, so we could have everlasting life . And his life wasn’t free from pain at all. Not free from hunger either. He died a cruel death on the cross. You are asking why God raised him back to life? Jesus didn’t sin in his life unlike Adam and us . Here you have all the reasons;
He is called ‘firstborn’ of all those who has fallen asleep. Whoever does the will of God , will live again, will be resurrected as Jesus was.
Acts 2;24″But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
Acts 13:34
God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’
Acts 17:31
For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
2 Corinthians 4:14
because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself.
” And his life wasn’t free from pain at all. Not free from hunger either. He died a cruel death on the cross.”
there are people who would prefer temporary suffering,crucifixion and few days dead than divine wrath in hell. i am sure millions would choose to suffer for a FEW days than choose eternal wrath in hell.
“You are asking why God raised him back to life? Jesus didn’t sin in his life unlike Adam and us . Here you have all the reasons;”
NEITHER did the human infant . neither did children.
i would say infants and children are innocent than your god considering that your god did a disgusting and unneighbourly thing when he addressed the non-gentile woman,
“it is NOT good/not proper/not beneficial to take the BREAD/miracle of the children and to CAST it to your ill little dog”
your god was a sinner mate.
according to thom STARK
i quote
2Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”
He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.”
“He is called ‘firstborn’ of all those who has fallen asleep. Whoever does the will of God , will live again, will be resurrected as Jesus was.”
you guys DIE horrible deaths today. seems like jesus did a “sacrifice” to cool of his daddy. the “sacrifice” ONLY cooled of his daddy and appeased him, it had no EFFECT on humanity.
mrquestioner,
What a choice are you presenting ;”here are people who would prefer temporary suffering,crucifixion and few days dead than divine wrath in hell”
me; if you chose to obey God and do His will, you don’t have to worry about hell.
I would not worry about an innocent infant . If He is innocent God can raise him back to life at the resurrection time.
You said Jesus ‘sacrifice had no effect on humanity. You don’t even know what you are talking about .I am happy with what it meant to me. You make your own choice.
You said he died to ‘cool down his daddy”. Would you say the same about the High Priest in Levit 16 who could enter the Holy of Holies only with blood?
God decides about everything , including how everything works in our body. Sin is not a person so it doesn’t decide anything. Sin is disobedience to God’s word.
Innocent infant or disabled kid didn’t have to scrude up anything. They may be free of sin but they will still die if there are physical conditions ( like serious sickness) that are not letting them stay alive any longer . There was disobedience of one person and since that time God is not sustaining our life to last forever but He will show His salvation to those who obey Him. ( in Gen 3;17-19 you read about the curse effecting the whole earth and including everybody).
By the way Adam is not just one scruding up. Whatever mistake we make it has an effect on others. You don’t feed an infant , he will die. But why didn’t you feed him? What stops you?
He had a genetically inherited disease? I am sure some of his great grandparents didn’t have the best health because they either ate unsuitable food or lived in not healthy conditions and were working too hard to make a living due to others’ selfish nature.
There was not enough food for everybody and they had to work hard to make a living? I am sure there was somebody who had plenty of food for himself ( a land lord) and had other work hard for him but he himself wasn’t sharing out of his goods.
There is not enough work for everybody a the family is poor? Who decides that there are mainly big businesses and supermarkets and local stores and small businesses have to die? Somebody selfish on top who buys it all.
The kid lives in Ethiopia and dies of starvation? There are the neighboring countries and can’t help supply the food? There is industry all over the world that ‘kills’ our environment so there are places where food is no longer growing, because they get either too hot or to cold.
You have a disabled kid born death and with missing leg or hand in town called Chernobyl?
Whose fault is it? Who messed up and let the whole radioactive fumes go to the air and contaminate everything causing so many defects? PEOPLE.! Mistake of others has its consequences on others! All goes like domino one effects the other.
Innocent will die and we all will die one day, because of our own sin or somebody else or because God decides so for different reasons. But God said He will be a King on the earth and rule and the conditions will change. There will be no infant who is dying too early. The righteous one will be resurrected . And finally there will be time when there is no more death.
I don’t agree with you about God ‘enjoying’ suffering and I don’t believe that God was pleased with Israels’ suffering and anybody’s suffering. Second I don’t believe this verse is talking about the whole nation but a person -Jesus as God’s servant who is doing God’s will who decides to give his life so we can have salvation. God delights in his obedience that he was willing to offer his life for us for our salvation. By his wounds I am healed and justified , not by the nation’ wounds.Their wounds are due to their own guilt. Is 50;1
The last thing; regarding 1 Cor 15;35
Our bodies replaced with spiritual bodies is not the same as existing as souls.
“He had a genetically inherited disease? I am sure some of his great grandparents didn’t have the best health because they either ate unsuitable food or lived in not healthy conditions and were working too hard to make a living due to others’ selfish nature.”
what kind BULLS is this? people DON’T have a choice where they are born.
how many people today CAN go to different parts of POOR countries and find out what foods people are eating and how healthy they are living? some people are forced to live of crap due to the conditions they are BORN in.
you asked earlier about why can’t a baby survive without food.
iask you about your god. since he is a perfect god without a belly why did he create a belly for adam? a belliless adam would have prevented adam from eating of the tree, right?
it would have prevented your pathetic god to make his son jesus and then “sacrifice” his phony flesh for a few days and then to have it RETURNED to him, right?
i am trying to help you see how silly the christian version is.
mrquestioner2013,
your q; “tell me why your selfish god made baby jesus without disease and infection and gave life to his LIFELESS body in his mother’s womb and didn’t do the same for the diseased infant who knew no sin? how come baby jesus got a good fix? ”
Ok, more about that…the fact that some kids are born with a disease, infection, etc is due the sin in our world. The world that God first created was perfect, free of any polution, all in perfect harmony until the men scruded up. I can give you only a picture based on Gen 3; 17 says; “Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. ” Then the rest of the verses 18-19 also apply to all people. You would wonder what somebody’s sin has to do with all of us? We just simply have the same nature what Adam, because we all disobeyed God at least once. A curse for Adam came after his first disobedience to God. v.23 tells ;”Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” Are the verses 17-19 applying to all people? I see they are and not only to Adam. So the whole earth is ‘cursed’ that involves;our body will age, we will be seseptible to sickness, so even ‘innocent ‘ infants will die too.
You wonder why an infant is born sick; and how it is related to our sinful world. an example is to read about how our food is contaminated, veggies and fruit grown on chemical fertilizers, then sprayed with pesticides, meat stuffed with hormons and antibiotics, aminals fed with modified corn , fish from water polluted with tixic metals, air polluted by variery of chemical fumes , the list can go on. Food is produced with the goal; the cheapest production as possible, to make as most money as possible using the cheapest way to support food, plants grown as quick as possible , everything preserved to last without spoiling as long as possible on the shelves, which is all against how God made it. God’s way may seem slower , requires more care and more effort to produce organic food but is serving our health not destroying it.
American population is considered the most unhealthy by the food we eat. Would you say then it is God’s fault we get sick? Not only infants are getting sick you are focusing on. A heatlh of an infant mainly depends of his mother’s diet, and the condition of environment they are in. Innocent or not innocent we are ALL Effected. I wouldn’t blame God for any sickness. The fact an innocent infant dies is due to the enviroment that is scruded up by people not by God.
“Ok, more about that…the fact that some kids are born with a disease, infection, etc is due the sin in our world.”
but this is not true. it is god who is the one who DETERMINES the patterns in genetic inheritance. a gene has no control. it doesn’t make sense to say sin DETERMINEs genetic inheritance.
we can understand genes as on /off system
it is god WHO says either “on” or “off”
if one CASE exists of chromosome abnormality REGARDLESS if the mother eat good, then that bombs your claim even more.
“Ok, more about that…the fact that some kids are born with a disease, infection, etc is due the sin in our world.”
this isn’t the truth. according to your beliefs, adam eat from an easy to reach tree , then god had no choice but to create a CHAIN reaction . adam pulled the trigger and poor god hands were tied. god, according to your beliefs , is unable to give disobediance a second chance so he has to create death . nobody knows how eating off a tree affects an infinite being.
your god makes adam’s flesh , places desires within that flesh and then finds out that it is a bad thing to create an easy to reach tree and place a tempter in the garden.
“The world that God first created was perfect, free of any polution, all in perfect harmony until the men scruded up. I can give you only a picture based on Gen 3; 17 says; “Cursed is the ground because of you;”
i just don’t get it. men “scruded” up and diety decides to make innocent infant who DIDN’T “scruded” up, yet innocent infant still dies in its infancy because grown ups “scruded” up?
“through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. ” Then the rest of the verses 18-19 also apply to all people. You would wonder what somebody’s sin has to do with all of us? We just simply have the same nature what Adam, ”
god CHOOSES that the human baby be a HUMAN , not the baby. the baby DIDN’T do any sin.
no child who dies young can be guilty of ANYTHING any human did. there is no transferring of sin.
“because we all disobeyed God at least once.”
here is some advice for your god. you know, before he made the infant in it’s mothers womb, why didn’t he fill his spirit in the infants flesh to BLOCK sinful thoughts ? why didn’t he do his best like he did for baby jesus’ flesh?
” A curse for Adam came after his first disobedience to God. v.23 tells ;”Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” Are the verses 17-19 applying to all people? I see they are and not only to Adam.
So the whole earth is ‘cursed’ that involves;our bdy will age, we will be seseptible to sickness, so even ‘innocent ‘ infants will die too.”
poor god, if only he created a tall tree.
“You wonder why an infant is born sick; and how it is related to our sinful world. an example is to read about how our food is contaminated, veggies and fruit grown on chemical fertilizers, then sprayed with pesticides, meat stuffed with hormons and antibiotics, ”
but one can BOMB on jesus too. he didn’t give any ADVICE on hand washing.
““Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)”
QUOTE:
he relevant verse is Mark 7:2 which reads in Greek:
kai idontes tinas tôn mathêtôn autou hoti koinais chersin tout estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous
Which translate literally as:
and / they were seeing / some / of his disciples / that / with defiled hands / that is, unwashed [hands] / they ate / their bread.
The key word “unwashed” is aniptos (likewise again in Mark 7:5). It means what it says: unwashed.
The phrase “in the way” is nowhere in the text. Even the next verse reads only:
For / the Pharisees / and / all the Jews / if they do not wash / their hands / by fist / they do not eat / holding fast / the tradition / of the elders / and / when [they come] / from the marketplace / if they do not / cleanse themselves / they do not eat / and / many / other things / there are / which they have received / to hold fast to: / washing / of cups / and / pots / and bronze vessels.
You will see no reference to the words your translation inserts. Those words simply aren’t there. The phrase “to the wrist” is a modern attempt to interpret “by fist” [dative of pugmê], the more direct meaning of which is that they wash their hands with their fists (i.e. the way we scrub our hands, enclosing one in the fist of the other), meaning they wash well. Note that the disciples are not said to have washed less well, but to not have washed at all.
Hence what is being described is simply washing their hands, which “some of the disciples” weren’t doing–their hands were “unwashed” (notably, the tradition Jesus goes on to denounce here included washing your cooking and drinking utensils, too, cf. Mark 7:4, another obvious vector for germs that Jesus was evidently unaware of).
1Then come unto Jesus do they from Jerusalem — scribes and Pharisees — saying, 2‘Wherefore do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they may eat bread.’ 3
And gathered together unto him are the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem, 2and having seen certain of his disciples with defiled hands — that is, unwashed — eating bread, they found fault
for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders, 4and, [coming] from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves…
5Then question him do the Pharisees and the scribes, ‘Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?’
15And Peter answering said to him…that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man
And Peter answering said to him, ‘Explain to us this simile.’ 16And Jesus said, ‘Are ye also yet without understanding? 17do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’
notice that only a religious issue is at stake and jesus SEES NO OTHER REASON for washing hands before meals?
notice that jesus could only SEE ritual within the practice and nothing else?
notice that he agrees that it is NOT IMPORTANT to wash ones hands? notice that the deciples with unclean hands would continue to eat with unclean hands because of jesus’ response to the pharisees? jesus gave them an escuse to keep thier hands dirty and continue to eat because according to jesus’ logic it is not IMPORTANT to clean hands before meals.
“Jesus never gave any good advice reflecting what is known now but was not known then. So Jesus should have been saying that it’s important to have clean hands to avoid contaminated or being contaminated, but not just to follow a ritual mindlessly.”
Everyone acknowledges this washing held a solely theological purpose for the Pharisees and as far as we can tell, for Jesus also. We all understand such washing was a sacred ritual for the Pharisees, so, saying that Carrier is arguing this washing was “merely a health concern on the Pharisees part” is a misrepresentation, a nonsensical claim to make about Carrier’s position, and a straw man. Carrier is arguing that we might expect the Pharisees to see washing as having only a theological significance since their knowledge was merely that of men, but that if Jesus had, in fact, possessed divine knowledge of the creation, washing in general should have held significance for Jesus wholly apart from the theological. Yet it did not. Why not? It was a perfect opportunity, a teachable moment if you will, for a Jesus who might have been divine to “reveal” to the disciples and mankind not only that “sexual immorality, stealing, etc.” were detrimental to a good life or a good society (to put it in context), but also to bestow upon them the divine knowledge that:
“Lo, my god created these single-celled organisms, the planty photosynthetic kinds, such as algae on the Third Day, and the more animally kinds such as viruses and protozoa on the Fifth Day, some of which, if you don’t wash them off, will —–king kill you! And so, even though the Pharisees are dead wrong about WHY you should wash your hands before you eat, they are, nonetheless, 100% correct about the fact you should indeed be washing your hands before eating!”
Carrier’s point is, if the xian god were benevolent and if Jesus had possessed divinity, it should have, and indeed would have been a health concern on Jesus’ part! The fact it was not suggests that either the xian god is not benevolent or else, contrary to what John 1:1-14 claims, Jesus did not know about germs and that he possessed no knowledge about what was supposedly the trinties own creation beyond that which was available to other regular, “non-divine” people at the time. Jesus had access to no better information than did the Pharisees, and finding fault with the theological aspect of washing, apparently saw no purpose in washing at all. Hence, reasoning narrowly from this passage it’s possible to think that Jesus might not have been benevolent, but more likely that he was simply not divine. Either way, Jesus is not who xian apologists such as yourself would have us believe he was, given that he existed.
end quote
” Not only infants are getting sick you are focusing on. ”
because INFANTS DON’T sin and this BOMBs christianity. INNOCENT infants who don’t KNOW sin DIE all the time. death CANNOT be due to sin. animals die, infants die. some inherited diseases which could have come from 4 fathers away take the infants life.
“A heatlh of an infant mainly depends of his mother’s diet, and the condition of environment they are in.
Innocent or not innocent we are ALL Effected. I wouldn’t blame God for any sickness. The fact an innocent infant dies is due to the enviroment that is scruded up by people not by God.”
feeding a new born with dangerous foods is bad
a mother who feeds her fetus with unsuitable food is doing bad.
but what has this got to do with genetically INHERITED disease like death and other diseases?
and if there is one case where an ‘switched on’ gene can help the infants reactions to foods and enviroment , then christianity got bombed again.
mrquestioner2013,
your ridiculous words “here is some advice for your god. you know, before he made the infant in it’s mothers womb, why didn’t he fill his spirit in the infants flesh to BLOCK sinful thoughts ? why didn’t he do his best like he did for baby jesus’ flesh?
my answer; Being filled with th e Spirit doesn’t make you free of sin . You still have a free will, and the spirit is not ‘paralazing’ you to stop you doing what you want to do. God doesn’t fill an infant with a spirit or anybody to stop a sinful nature. Filling with the spirit was to equip a person for the job God gave that person. Jesus was not filled with the spirit as an infant but as an adult at his baptism; Matthew 3;16
disabled and handicapped children who die very young cannot die because of someone else’s sin that is plain and utter bs. these humans are disabled to do sin ,they just dont have the ability to sin. christianity has no answer for this. god is the one who is designing the make up of these beings. he is the one ‘on/off ing’ chromosomes. christians are jeolous that sinless beings other than jesus entered the world.
mrquestiones2013,
your words;”christians are jeolous that sinless beings other than jesus entered the world.”
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Your emails are giving me a headache. Sorry I am not going to respond any more to the nonsense you are putting in.
P.S. Christianity is definitely not ‘bombed” by anything you said.
you said , ” “That is why a killed bull or lamb could NOT make the sinner perfect.”
honestly, do you EVER read your bible?
jesus, according to orthodox christianity, is co equal to the father. jesus said ,
32‘Every one, therefore, who shall confess in me before men, I also will confess in him before my Father who is in the heavens; 33and whoever shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in the heavens.
comment: notice that WHOEVER denies the 2nd person in trinity will be DENIED before the father. Notice that jesus MAKES NO condition. the UNIVERSAL command is not CONDITIONAL. denial of jesus means x is doomed when standing in front of the dad of jesus.
i quote,
“One is during the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, where Peter, James and John are the only ones he allows to come with him, and the other is the Transfiguration, where he only took Peter, James and John with him to the mountain. Both of these the major foreshadowings of what is to come – showing that jesus can conquer death, and having god himself endorse him as his own son. That makes their betrayals all somewhat WORSE than the rest of the disciples, as they should have known better because they had better evidence. ”
yes, peters DENIAL IS WORSE than the rest of the deciples.
your god is ‘just’ and he SHOULD have peter SEATED next to judas in the DEPTHS of hell.
peter said,
68 But Peter denied it. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said, and he went out into the entryway. Just then, a rooster crowed.[b]
69 When the servant girl saw him standing there, she began telling the others, “This man is definitely one of them!” 70 But Peter denied it again.
A little later some of the other bystanders confronted Peter and said, “You must be one of them, because you are a Galilean.”
71 Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know this man you’re talking about!” 72 And immediately the rooster crowed the second time.
so you see erik? THE liar and denier, asked to be cursed from whom? from the 1st person in trinity. peter DENIED his god, erick.
denying his god means denying the person who is coequal to the father
but what does jesus do erick? what does ‘just’ god do? instead of PUNISHING peter, he makes him the BIG fish in christianity.
where is the JUSTICE ,erik?
this LIAR who TOOK an oath, should be BURNING in hell according to both jesus and the father
even after getting filled at the great commision, i quote
“11When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
erik, i f your god can find LEE WAY for liars like peter, surely he should bend his justice a little and forgive sinners who do not accept jesus’ temporarily loaning of his flesh to his dad.
mrquestioner2013, I don’t know what is wrong with you but there is no logic how you relate my answers to your responses. Second as far as Peter- Peter indeed denied Jesus but then later he repented and Jesus forgave him. You don’t know God ‘s forgiveness- that explains everything…
if you look at my post again you will see that i was addressing this bs
“That is why a killed bull or lamb could NOT make the sinner perfect.”
go back and look at my post and see how it proves that jesus’ phony “at the weekend sacrifice” was nothing BUT phony and doesn’t make ANYTHING perfect.
so i guess you christians can always hide under the smokescreen bs , “later repented blah blah”
face the truth, peter was walking shoulder to shoulder and according to the nt “satan” aka peter witnessed all of jesus’ tricks/magic/miracles/whatever you want to call it and didn’t improve at all.
i am sure , in jesus’ secret meetings with his deciples, jesus was telling peter how animal olah offerings point to his violent brutal murder , but unfortunately poor peter LIED AND ASKED the first person in trinity to rain down a CURSE upon him. peter, IN FRONT OF men, DENIED jesus and at the same time asked to be CURSED . so jesus’ pointing out to peter that animal flesh offerings which contained 33 male, didn’t really convince peter.
the liar and according to jesus “satan” was accused of hypocrisy even after the great commision.
Hi Mr. Questioner,
I’m not the moderator, so perhaps it’s not my place to say this, but your disrespectful, mocking, sneering attitude troubles me. In my humble opinion, your comments fail to meet the standards of civil, respectful dialogue outlined in Rabbi Blumenthal’s Comment Policy (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/comment-policy/).
As heated as the debate becomes, let us all try to remember to love our fellow as ourselves, and as Hillel explains it, to refrain from doing to others what is hateful to ourselves.
Thank you,
Dina
” Peter indeed denied Jesus but then later he repented and Jesus forgave him. ”
hey erik,
look @ pete’s words
Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know this man you’re talking about!”
he’s asking to get blued and tatooed in this life eric. what else is a curse if not FORSAKEN buy god? and what does Yhwh say about THOSE he FORSOOK?
but it was easy for pete wasn’t it? liars like peter who TAKE false oaths can always hide under jesus’ skirt and say, “jesus received the curse instead of me”
nice repentance erik.
mrquestioner2013, I agree with Dina on that. The thing that makes hard to discuss anything with you seriously is your sarcastic language in all your emails, I was really surprised by your comments saying Jesus didn’t make exception of those who deny him, he said he will deny them before his Father in heaven. It is true but then you wish Peter to be really punished in hell for his betrayal, for his weakness failing to stand up with Jesus in the trouble time, yet you don’t see yourselves you are on the same path rejecting Jesus while knowing his words by quoting them. Then you say you don’t believe him, but take his words so seriously and get outraged.
Do you know God at all? Your previous suggestions given to God in other emails what He should have done better or not – tell me you are on neither side, whether it is Christianity or Judaism- you don’t know God at all,
“The sacrifices were being repeated all the time as a reminder of something greater to come. We believe Christ took on himself our sins and willingly submitted to the Father and took punishment for us. being himself innocent. I believe so, you don’t have to if you don’t .”
erik? don’t you know that in different parts of the world people have been giving up the flesh of thier children to appease and please thier gods? were those flesh sacrifices a reminder of ‘something greater to come’? i don’t see how 1 year female goat means 33 year old flesh god?
every time the jews were slicing the kneck of the animal, was your god thinking about 33 year old male nailed to a stick? please explain because you need to make sense out of your words.
erik WHAT HAS PEACE offerings and gratitude offerings got anything to do with 33 year old male human nailed to a stick?
GRATITUDE comes from the HEART
does that gratitude offerings symbolized the good in human nature?
mrquestioner2013, Don’t mix the Jewish sacrificial system with gentiles’ ” giving the flesh of thier children to appease and please their gods.” God has never ordered such a thing to happen.
Eric
This is in response to your comment from May 9
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/lessons-from-leviticus-16/
Eric,
In answer to your post here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/a-new-set-of-feelings/#comment-11465
You have made a significant error. You write that if the Jews understood the Day of Atonement, then they would understand the sacrifice of Jesus. And then, right after you show the contradiction in your own argument, because the only reason you understand the Yom Kippur the way you do is because you understand Jesus’ sacrifice. Which comes first? Does one understand Jesus because he understands Yom Kippur, or Yom Kippur because he understands Jesus. This is circular.
You are correct to write that it sounds “funny” for you to tell the Jewish people the meaning of their holidays. (I would say, “absurd”.) The people who were given the Torah, practiced the Torah, and studied the Torah are to be educated by people of whom none of the three are true. Of course, this error does not begin with you. It begins with Paul.
Paul writes that the law was a schoolmaster to teach us that we are all truly evil. And yet the people who learned that lesson from it did not have it. For the most part, his audience was comprised of non-Jews. However, those who devoted their lives to the Torah, who studied it religiously, they did not find Jesus in it. They did not find it impossible to keep. They did not find that it’s lesson was that they were hopelessly depraved. So it seems, that the Law was not the schoolmaster at all.
And of course, this is why the NT must harangue the Jews, particularly the scribes and the Pharisees. Those who knew and studied Torah were made the villains of the NT. In stark contrast to the Torah and Prophets where those criticized are those who violate Torah, the NT makes villains of those devoted to God rather than Jesus, devoted to His Law rather than the innovations of Jesus and Paul. Those who devoted themselves to the Torah should have been the ones to find Jesus in it. They should have recognized the types and shadows of the Torah, now walking among them. If the Torah was to instruct us to find Jesus, then those who knew it should have known him.
But instead, it is people with no Torah knowledge or only enough to be dangerous to themselves who found the “true lesson” of the Torah. Those ignorant of Yom Kippur were those who, only after believing in Jesus, suddenly found him in it. This is unfathomable. In what way could Paul call the Torah a teacher? The only people who could learn its lessons had to already believe in Jesus. He had to instruct them how to find himself in it, as he did with his own disciples. According to the Gospels, Jesus had to open up the Prophets to explain them to his followers. They wouldn’t have known it applied to him without him telling them.
You, like them, do not understand Jesus from the Torah. The Torah isn’t your schoolmaster. Jesus is your schoolmaster. And he and Paul, and the Church afterward, have imposed innovative ideas upon it, foreign ideas. They claim the Torah is their teacher, but really Jesus is their teacher. They have only misappropriated the Torah, forcing foreign meanings upon it, and labeling as hypocrites, teachers not to be trusted, those who devoted their lives to Torah.
It is also funny that you should appeal to Yom Kippur, because, of course, Jesus is not called the Yom Kippur goat. He is called the Passover lamb (by an argument so tenuous that it actually relies upon his unbroken legs, while ignoring the rest of the details regarding the Passover lamb). Yes, the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. Perhaps John meant to write “goat.”
You write too truly that your understanding of the Day of Atonement is predicated on your belief in Jesus. Those who first dedicated themselves to Torah and to the God Who gave it to them did not find Jesus in those pages. And they still don’t. Those who know little to nothing of the Torah, who only value it as a means to reaching Jesus, somehow find him on every page. The author of Hebrews finds Jesus everywhere. He is a god, a priest, and a sacrifice. If only Jesus were also a the practitioner of the Christian faith, he could close the loop and be the world’s only one-man religion, sacrificing himself for himself to himself. Then we could be done with his absurd claims and study the Torah for itself.
Jim
Jim, I do think this is clarifying. Thanks for this.
Dina, MAS Member (Mutual Admiration Society)
Jim and Dina, I tell you it is ZERO clarifying.
By saying -if Jews understood the Day of Atonement – I mean nowadays – You can reflect now on the past and see if that all was foreshadow of things that were to happen or just rituals of things for no purpose. You say just obedience- but there are crucial details involved telling you there is something more to that. That’s why you don’t come with a flour into th e Holy of Holies , neither anybody except a High Priest enters. That is not only about Atonement Day. All Jewish festivals, all sacrificial rituals carry the message. Even examples of people’s lives carry the message like Joseph’s, Aabraham’s first son worn so late, and many others. Also Jesus doesn’t have to be called a ‘goat’ but i the goat symbolized the fact that sins were placed on other being and carried away.
I will just let you stay in your conviction about any sacrificial ritual that was introduced by God as leading to nothing but just a ‘practice’ in itself without a purpose . Entering the Holy of Holies always with blood by a priest – no meaning whatsoever. To your notice Jim, it is exactly by Jesus’ work that you learn what was the point of all the rituals. The present is explained by the things God showed you in the past.
Even Jewish Tanach says that there is a fundamental principle in Torah ; Whatever happened to the patriarchs is a portent for the children, meaning that the events of their lives symbolized the future. That includes all things God ordered them to do.
You have a choice either believe Jesus ‘adjusted’ himself to all the events and patriarchs lives stories that were prophesied, or believe that these events were foreshadowing his coming and accomplishment of the work he did.
You can chose to believe in God who forgives but does not deal with the consequences of people’s evil. There is no penalty but living happily ever after , especially in another stage of souls . The list would go on.
Eric, I am shocked by what you have written because it shows that you are not able to restate the arguments of those you disagree with. Nothing you have written here represents anything I believe, and I daresay the same for Jim.
It is one thing to disagree with others. It is quite another to be unable to understand their arguments. I’m disappointed.
I’m going to be busy tomorrow and possibly the day after. When I have time, God willing, I will try to explain more clearly what Jim and I have argued.
To be fair to you, it is possible that some clarity has been lost in a debate that is carried in English, when that is not the language you are used to speaking and writing.
Eric,
You only prove my point, but before I get to that I must address something else. I did not say that one cannot learn anything but obedience from the details of the sacrifices. You manufactured that idea out of your imagination. Although I personally have not studied the sacrifices, I do know that you can read deep Jewish sources on the sacrifices. They do study the details. You have mischaracterized my argument, and you have mischaracterized the Jewish people. You have made both into a caricature.
As to how you prove my point: you argue that you can only understand the details of the sacrifices after Jesus. I’ll go a step further and say after belief in Jesus, because whether you mean that or not, that is the truth of the matter. The Torah does not tell us that these things are being given to prefigure the Messiah, not even one time. The fact that you think that not only does every sacrifice is a foreshadowing of Jesus should be very revealing to you. The Torah has not placed such emphasis on the Messiah. The whole of Tanach really says very little about him. Torah is almost completely silent regarding the Messiah. It certainly does not make him the center of the Torah. But you have done precisely that.
In fact, you don’t find him just in the sacrifices, as you yourself say. Almost every story is really pointing to Jesus in some way. And yet again, this is not the emphasis of Torah. You have, after the fact, found a way to interject a hint to Jesus on every page. But Torah does not demand this reading. In fact, it says so little about the Messiah, one can only conclude that the Messiah is not the center of Torah. Only Christianity has remade it so.
No better example can be the Passover lamb. John writes that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures regarding the Passover lamb, because he did not have his legs broken, just as the Passover lamb cannot have a broken bone. However, every other requirement of the Passover lamb is not met by Jesus. Ignoring the fact that he was human and not a lamb, just the fact that he was beaten would have disqualified him. Every other detail of the sacrifice is ignored by John and the Church. Finding one to seize upon, however, makes Jesus the Passover lamb. This is not logical. This is to close one’s eyes to the facts. This is the worst sort of fulfillment.
The fact that you find Jesus on every page is only because you read every page looking for Jesus, not because he can be derived naturally. Any similarity between a story or sacrifice and Jesus, not matter how small or tenuous, is seized upon to point to Jesus. All the other details are ignored. All the ways that the message of Jesus and the Church are contradicted are ignored. The Church does not read the Torah to find out what God has said. They read the Torah to find some indication of Jesus. And that is why you find him after the fact.
In just the way you have mischaracterized my arguments, the Church has mischaracterized both the Torah and the Jewish position. By and large, Christians are ignorant of Torah before they come to Jesus. And they do not come to Jesus because a lifetime of Torah study led them there. Instead, they come to Jesus, and then begin studying Torah reading it through the lenses of their new beliefs. Convinced that the Torah relates to Jesus, they shoehorn him into every text. They have turned the Torah into a caricature, blowing out of proportion minor details, and drawing the eye away from essentials.
Jim
Jim
These points cannot be made often enough. If people are interested n the god of Sinai they must return to his teachings.
P.S. I steal everything you write to
I love cut and paste, one day ill be a genius:)
Me too! Everything I know I learned from someone else.
Larry,
Thank you for your kind words.
Jim
Jim, just a question, Tell me if you believe the law given in Torah is unchangeable – I mean no principle given in Leviticus can be changed , both regarding the law and for breaking the law.
( especially chapt 20)
Second question; are you saved now by keeping the law or by grace?
thanks,
Eric
I do not wish to join in the conversation, but i googled lev 20 and the first sentence is law against human sacrifice. is this what your pointing to or did i google the wrong part?
LarryB,Yes, you are right; human sacrifice to gods is what God of Israel doesn’t wish to happen and hates – that’s what lev 20 starts with.
I am sure you brought that to point to Jesus. But he is not literal sacrifice in which people killed him offering him to their gods. Him being called a ‘sacrifice’ is a figure of speech. He willingly offered his life to die for us ( another words he ‘sacrificed ‘his life giving it up for others) .
You call something a ‘sacrifice’ when you give up something important for you for the sake of needs of others.
Is God’s law eternal also regarding the words in Deut 27;26??
Eric
Thanks. Unlike you I feel sorry for anyone who thinks their death will save the world. And if he thought he was a god that’s even worse, and my heart really goes out to him.
As far as deut 27/26 I do not believe your qualified to debate this since your background is Christianity. Sorry, he chose them and they accepted the responsibility to take his word to the world. Christian version of the Torah is different.
LarryB, come on! You mean I am not qualified to at least hear the answer to my question I posted? Then how am I supposed to know the truth?? If Christians don’t qualify to be advised from Torah , well, then how are you going to reach them??? You seem so concerned with the Torah different translation, but it is not me who goggled it online , I can quote you from the Jewish Tanach I have in front of me ( kindness of my sweet wife that provided it )
so here is goes
” accursed is one who will not uphold the words of this Torah , to perform them. And the entire people shall say, Amen.” the Artscroll English Tahach , Stone Edition
come on, try to answer; will God change His words He put in His law, the whole Torah, that also includes consequences for breaking the law- summarized in deut 27;26.???
Eric,
Why do you change the topic? Your question appears wholly irrelevant to me, unless I am missing something. If you would like to make an argument, please feel free to do so. I do feel like its only fair to warn you that the fact that you are changing the topic so abruptly will make it seem to those reading our exchange that you concede my argument.
For the moment, I’m going to skip ahead to the second question: am I saved now by keeping the law or by grace?
I deny the premise of the question. Saved from what? The question implies that the default position of humanity is to be under the wrath of God. I tell you that nothing could be farther from the truth. If one is wicked, he will be judged accordingly. If he is righteous, he will be judged according to that. This is made very clear in Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 33. And if you wonder how the wicked man can avoid such a judgment, it is made clear that he must repent. He must return to God. If he abandons his wicked ways, he will be accounted righteous. I am not “saved” by law or grace.
But of course, I have a responsibility to keep the law, in my case, as I’m not Jewish, the seven universal laws, initially given to Noah and re-ratified (as it were) at Sinai. I admit, that at one time in my life I was in serious violation of the Law. I worshipped a man as a god. I trusted him for my salvation. But there is good news. I investigated my faith and discovered it was false. After further investigation, I discovered that the Torah is true, and I have adhered myself to God rather than a man. I turned my face toward the Truth and I adhere to God. I have repented of worshipping Jesus. And nobody had to die by way of atonement for my sin.
Jim
Jim, no problem, no offense.
Just quickly about your words; “I am not “saved” by law or grace. ” Would you say’ you are not justified by law or grace?” neither of them? – that’s why I asked about the other word to see if that would make a difference in your statement. If I understand ; are you disqualifying both?
If I look at Ez 18;33 ; turning away from evil into good and God forgivess you wouldn’t call it ‘ justified ‘by grace? You can actually call it justificution by works too , as now you are doing good works what take God’s anger from you. I call it justified by both; grace and works. I was just wondering what changed in your view about the way- you believe – are justified after you gave up Christianity.
But anyways what you showed me in Ez 18;33 -I believe it is forgivenss. What is celebrated on Yom Kippur – there something more. I am saying that to clarify why I still ‘keep’ Jesus in my beliefs. I am simply not giving up on atonement God provided. ( I believe in Jesus) I fully agree what some rabbi said; I am stealing his words;
“Yom Kippur is not only about being forgiven by G-d. Forgiveness you can get all year round; Yom Kippur is primarily about atonement. Big difference. Forgiveness means that after I make my apology, I’m off the hook. Atonement means that I am engaged in hard work to restore the relationship to its original state.
The word for atonement in Hebrew is kaparah, which also means “wiping up.” If I spill my grape juice on your carpet, I can say sorry and be forgiven. But the stain is still there. Atonement only comes when I get the carpet cleaners to come clean your carpet.”
I can believe I am forgiven but the consequences are not fixed like our death for sin unless we are atoned for. There is no verse in Torah more important than the others- as far as you asked , while I mentioned Levit 20 or deut 27;26 – were simple examples to show that the broken law had consequences resulting in our condemnation . If God’s word is eternal and He is God of justice , and I am forgiven , there has to be a substitute that carries my consequences, my condemnation. Example practiced on Yom Kippur was placing the sins on a goat that carried them away. Also lev 17;11 about that the atonement is in the blood – I believe the principle didn’t change.
Let’s take David’s crime as an example; he contributes to man being killed, in order to take his wife., He repents , God forgivess, but there is a loss of life. Would you accept “the never mind David ” picture of God or rather see God’ forgiveness PLUS His justice that is not compromised? I guess we would surely not care as long as we are forgiven we are happy. But examples in OT tells you there is both; grace and justice.
You mentioned that Christians see now Jesus on so many pages of OT .
Let’s say I am ‘discarding’ all pictures in which I saw Him in the OT ( because he was just a Christian idea there) but one picture remains – next to God’s forgiveness- there is God’s justice so the need for ( sin-offering substitute for my sin). I want to remove that picture of justice- well it is my choice- I will see God of ‘never mind’ without justice.
Eric,
As long as we are playing “Bible Bingo”, I wonder if you have read Deuteronomy 30.
That seems to answer whatever point you are making to Larry. However, since you seem reluctant to come out and say it, I may be mistaken.
Jim
Jim, Could you clarify your words ….” (…) however, since you seem reluctant to come out and say it,” Say it what?? You seem so quick to judge, you barely posted these words but I am reluctant …never mind. I skip commenting . My question posted to somebody else shouldn’t be your concern and the questions I asked you were to see YOUR point of view , this way I see why you are thinking about things the way you do , but I didn’t expect such an outrage caused by my ‘change of topic so abruptly’. Wow! That makes this conversation so ‘uncomfortable’. I don’t see the way I can continue as I would have to ask more questions… but since they might be irrelevant to you again- the discussion won’t go anywhere. One thing only ; If the word ‘being saved’ seems not relevant either to you , see if ‘ justified’ was a better one. Would you say you are justified either by works or grace, or neither of them?
If that bothers you too much, skip the message and have a good day,
Eric
you are qualified to ask and get an answer. I am not qualified to give an answer. May I suggest the rabbi, dina, jim? All christians qualify to learn from the torah they usually dont listen though prefering to insert their own beliefs. If you still believe Jesus is your lord and savior, god himself or is the messiah, after all this time you still havent learned much. Thats just one mans opinion.
LarryB,, sorry I am so ‘unteachable’ I still believe Jesus is the Messiah , the Lord and the savior God provided. I simply won’t give up my atonement God has offered – I believe in Jesus.
I know I sound hopeless to you;-)
take care, eric
Forgive me for jumping in, Eric. But you wrote that you simply won’t give up your belief regarding Jesus and so on. Does that mean, no matter what? Does that mean that you do not require a standard of evidence that might make you change your mind?
This is not a challenge. I just want to be clear where you stand.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina,
So far I have enough evidence that I need Jesus and his atonement. I brought that subject in my last email to Jim and you and me discussed so many points already about it. You know I get the same frustration seeing you not learning , as you think about me. But I will discuss that later.
I waited to show you the words you wrote once to somebody ( it took me a while to find that email) it was to Paul, but the message was so shocking that I had to bring it up. If I misunderstood it somehow let me know; also I didn’t want to overwhelm you with too many messages as you still didn’t respond to the previous messages, but whenever you find time , you may have a look at that;
” We believe that God rewards goodness. Anyone who lives a basically moral life and tries to do the right thing has earned a place in heaven.”
ok, that’s the first thing that is shocking… you are really believing in a place in heaven knowing God’s promise for you Jewish people is to live in the land He will give you promised to Abraham?
Even me as Christian I am looking forward to the Messiah coming and resurrection in the physical body and life on earth in his messianic kingdom , not life in heaven…, Sermon on the mount of Jesus talked about that too, about who will inherit the earth, not heaven.
( I gave you so many examples from OT about after life, I don’t know if you still consider your view as convincing)
next;
“This applies to all people of all faiths, whether they be pagans or atheists or monotheists or anything else. It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.”
That is even worse;-) What about the God of Israel who is a jealous God and doesn’t want any gods before Him, and you are including atheists ( who don’t really want to have anything to do with God? That makes me sweat…, then Hindu praying to their hand -made up gods from wood…and you are excepting that too???
Then why to worry so much about us Christians , if we do good but believe ( according to Jews in a wrong Messiah), so it should not matter if it is the goodness that counts?
Why anybody should know God of Israel? To my understanding He wants us to put our trust only in Him as God.
” (…) If a person honestly and sincerely believes in the wrong god but lives his life trying to do good, then a just and merciful God will consider that.” You are twisting my brain with these words!
I am looking forward to your email, maybe I don’t get something here ..but that really doesn’t sound good if it is like I read it.
Hi Eric,
I’m sorry that I haven’t responded yet to your messages. There are a lot of them, so it’s going to take me some time. I’ll just ask you this:
As I wrote to Paul, let’s say a man buys a microwave with faulty wiring–but he doesn’t know it. His son uses the microwave and it blows up in his face, killing him. Is the man responsible for his son’s death, meaning, should he be charged with negligent homicide?
Thanks for your patience,
Dina
Eric, the reason I asked about evidence is this: If you believe your search for truth is over, there is the danger that you might subconsciously close your mind to new evidence when it is presented. That is why I believe it’s important to have a standard of evidence against which you measure the truth of an argument.
See, once your mind is closed to hearing others’ arguments, it’s pointless to engage in debate. I do not know if that is the case with you; I just think it’s something worth thinking about. I am gaining a lot of clarity from our discussions as I learn to sharpen my arguments and see where I need to learn more about our respective positions.
Your dismay about the Jewish idea of God’s justice and mercy does not surprise me. As a Christian used to the idea of a vindictive and wrathful God (who is ironically presented as a God of love), you must be jarred by the idea of the loving and merciful God of Israel.
I didn’t hear back from you on the question of the microwave, but I’m going to assume that you would not want to press a charge of negligent homicide against the father for unknowingly buying a microwave with faulty wiring that killed his son. That would be unjust. How can you punish someone for not knowing something? Are we more just than God? How can God punish someone for not knowing something?
If someone never heard of God, or if someone from a young age was indoctrinated into an idolatrous belief system, yet he lives a good and moral life, how is it just, loving, and merciful to punish him? Yet your god would do that. I’m sorry to offend you with these words, but from a Jewish perspective such a god is petty, vindictive, and cruel. That is so unfair. And God cannot be unfair.
You asked, “Then why to worry so much about us Christians , if we do good but believe?” The answer is that we in fact do not worry about you Christians. We are perfectly happy for you to stay Christians and for Muslims to stay Muslims. Jews do not proselytize. We do not seek to convert anyone. We do not go on missions to “spread the good news.” The only reason this website exists is because Christians aggressively target Jews for conversion. This website (and correct me if I’m wrong, Rabbi Blumenthal) is intended to reach JEWS (not Christians) who have been misled by missionaries–this website tries to reach these Jews to teach them the truth of Judaism as opposed to Christianity. As it happens, sometimes Christians like you stumble on this site and get drawn into the debates.
And if a gentile embraces the truth of the Torah, then so much the better!
Of course God wants us to worship Him and Him alone. But God is also the One Who gives us our abilities and places us in our circumstances. Surely He understands our challenges, having given them to us. Therefore, we do not presume to know who gets rewarded or punished in the afterlife.
I don’t know why you are shocked that I believe in an afterlife. I have previously mentioned that Jews believe in the afterlife, where we get punished or rewarded for how we lived our lives in this world. We also believe that God will bring us back to the Holy Land. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, I am not frustrated with you, Eric. Your sincerity is so apparent, even if I think it is misguided, I cannot be annoyed with you! Even when I find your arguments dishonest, I do not think for a second that you are being intentionally dishonest. And I hope you feel the same about my arguments.
Dina, I am not saying I am closed for any arguments against. There is lots of clarity on many things while going deeper into the searched subject , but so far I haven’t found anything to support no need for the mission God sent Jesus for., and the things he accomplished. I mean our redemption from the eternal death. While answering your question I get a chance to study more on a subject to see if I am missing something. But I am not loosing the ground.
As far as these words; ” As a Christian used to the idea of a vindictive and wrathful God (who is ironically presented as a God of love), you must be jarred by the idea of the loving and merciful God of Israel. ” I am completly against that statement as a not true judgement at all. The fact of having Jesus dying in our place is enough to see God as super merciful and loving God , because He didn’t impose on us what we deserved. If only His Son could die in our place He is reaching to us through him. Where is the cruelty????
You see God loving and merciful, we see Him loving, merciful but also righteous.
Would you handle it easy , if M. Luther happened to repent , asked God for forgiveness with a crying heart and God would say; never mind Martin, we will forget everything. God is loving so what? I am sure you would be craving for just, wanting for him what he deserved. In His justice God chose to punish Jesus for what we did wrong. He got a cruel death penalty although he didn’t have to die.
I was thinking about what your microvawe story might be suggesting and I had a right guess before you wrote it. I am not saying they will be punished for what they didn’t know. Jesus said’ If I had not come and spoken to them [the world], they would not be guilty of sin;(…)” I don’t have an answer for every case. God is definitelly just and knows how to deal with everybody.
Even the nature gives a testimony of God Creator. If there is no message by people , the message is in His creation.
Also a story of Abraham came to my mind. Did anybody tell him that the idol worship was wrong? God loved that change of him noticing that hand-created idols are not God. Another story from th e history in OT ; are the kids of th e volks more guilty that they were born among the parents that are evil and adol -worshippers? Yet, God told to wipe them off; all kids , women, animals. That sounded pretty cruel. Didn’t it??? Animals too, were being killed , just because they were there. I have no answer to that. But there is also another picture that God gives people a chance to change and repent. Ninevah is an example.
As far as th e ‘ afterlife’ it depends what it is meant. For many it is heaven that they go right after death. If I believe in a resurrection , that means life back on earth.
More later, I still have some emails to go.
Hi Eric,
Mainstream Christian belief (and you may disagree, but you would be a minority) is that nothing that you do matters if you do not accept Jesus as your lord and savior. Even if you lead an exemplary moral life, if you do not have faith in Jesus, you are eternally damned.
Therefore, according to this belief, the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust are eternally damned. The persecutors of the Jews, from the Crusaders and on, who fervently believed in Jesus and fervently accepted him as their lord and savior, are eternally saved. But the Jews who were massacred or burned at the stake–eternal damnation for them. (Remember, I don’t accept your argument about real and fake Christians. There are good Christians and bad Christians, but not real and fake ones.)
If someone like me knows about Christianity but does good deeds and worships God, yet believes that Christianity equals idolatry–that person according to Christian doctrine is eternally damned.
To us Jews, this is a shockingly cruel and vindictive doctrine.
The God of Israel tells us that our spiritual destiny is in our own hands, by doing good and turning away from evil (Ezekiel 18 and 33). Our actions matter. Sure, our faithfulness matters too, but God is just and merciful, and so He will judge each person according to the circumstances and abilities that God Himself gave him. Therefore, we do not believe that a person is automatically denied a place in the World to Come (that’s the Jewish term) just because he is a pagan or an atheist or a Christian or anything else.
Now that’s grace for you.
Dina, My answer to ” Even if you lead an exemplary moral life, if you do not have faith in Jesus, you are eternally damned. ”
It is not only about having faith in Jesus. Faith in Him indicates I have faith in God because I believe God He sent a redeemer so I trust God .
So more proper statement is to say that leading moral life but having NO faith and NO trust in God means you are not justified ( so you are damned) as according to the law you are guilty ( if that’s the only thing you rely on). How can an athiest be granted life again if he doesn’t want to trust God and he doesn’t care about Him? Just the fact he will die one day means he didn’t fulfill the law. He becomes like Adam and dies for his sin. And the only thing that could rescue ( save ) him is trust in God which is missing and he is not accepting. Do you see any example in HS that God would admire and have fellowship with someone who doesn’t want to listen to Him?
You know that conclusion of yours is really wrong saying ” the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust are eternally damned. The persecutors of the Jews, from the Crusaders and on, who fervently believed in Jesus and fervently accepted him as their lord and savior, are eternally saved” .
First I will start with the crusaders. I would never believe they really accepted Jesus as their Lord . If somebody is your lord you do what he says and Jesus never said to kill;
Luke 9;52-56
” When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to ]make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”
Crucaders might claim they accepted Jesus as their Lord but Jesus might tell them the following;
Matthew 7;22-23
“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ ”
Many Christians might believe that nothing matters what you do, but Jesus said true believers will be recognised by their actions. It is different to make mistakes we all do and then repent , we all fail but having desire to do evil all your life and enjoying it is not justifying you at all.
Now about Jews murdered in the Holocoust. That would be really wrong to make any conclusion about who was damned who not. God knows their hearts and knows what hides behind unbelief , if there is repentance or not, whether they ever heard who Jesus really was and understood it – so I am not giving a judging statement saying they are damned. God will take care of judging. We are responsible for ourselves.
Eric, I find your answer on the Jews murdered in the Holocaust unsatisfactory.
You wrote that maybe they did hear of Jesus and accepted him before they died, or maybe they never knew of him, so they’re not responsible. Therefore, you can’t make that judgement about their eternal life.
Well, that’s my point exactly. Let’s say they knew about Jesus–and how could they not? They lived among Christians. They had lived among Christians for centuries by the time of the Holocaust. We Jews consider it an insult to their memory to say maybe they accepted Jesus before they died. They most certainly did not! But I also think Christians say this because it’s so hard to believe that six million people murdered for no reason other than the circumstances of their birth, who led good and decent and moral lives for the most part, are eternally damned.
But according to your theology, if they didn’t accept Jesus–which they didn’t–then they don’t get eternal life. Can you understand why I think that a God who would do that to His firstborn son (Exodus 4:22) is a cruel God? In fact, we believe it’s harsh and vindictive, unloving, cruel, and unkind to deny eternal life to anyone who leads a decent moral life according to his conscience.
You asked me, “How can an athiest be granted life again if he doesn’t want to trust God and he doesn’t care about Him? …Do you see any example in HS that God would admire and have fellowship with someone who doesn’t want to listen to Him?”
I’m not talking about people who know there is a God and refuse to listen to Him. I’m talking about people who are making an honest mistake about God, yet lead lives of goodness. There are people who don’t believe in God who do that. There are Jews who believe in God who do that. There are Christians who believe in God who do that. There are Muslims who believe in God who do that. There are Hindus who believe in many gods who do that.
None of these people are actively refusing to listen to God or actively rebelling against God. Therefore, if God is loving, merciful, kind, and just, He will take this into account when He judges them. The Christian god has only one criterion for granting eternal life: belief in Jesus. That divides the world–theologically speaking only–into good people, those who believe in Jesus, and bad people, those who don’t believe in Jesus. (I know you don’t think non-Christians are all bad; I’m speaking in theological terms.)
Finally, I don’t believe your distinction of real and fake Christians. The Crusaders fervently believed in Jesus. They fervently believed they were carrying out his will by killing “unbelievers.” To say they lacked faith, which is the only criterion needed for eternal life, makes no sense.
Finally, the Bible never talks about the need to be rescued from Adam’s sin. In fact, immediately after the sin of Adam, God tells Cain he can conquer sin (Genesis 4:7). The Christian doctrine of needing a sinless human death to “rescue” us from “eternal death” has nothing to do with the Torah. Nothing at all.
Wait, one more point. You mentioned sacrifice as meaning giving up something precious for God. Actually, the Hebrew word for sacrifice does not mean this. The Hebrew word korban comes from the root k-r-b, which means to draw close, meaning that a korban draws us closer to God. Sacrifice means what the Torah tells us it means, an outward expression of inward repentance, and it could be an animal or flour offering. That inward repentance is what draws us to God.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, Regarding the words ” I don’t believe your distinction of real and fake Christians.”
Fake or real we can call them good or bad people. True or imitators. I call ‘ fake ‘ those who don’t understand what they are doing , except they are applying scriptures to their evil desires. They are misusing the scriptures and God’s words fitting their own politics. R C was more political institution than moral one. It was all about power and having others under control. You can take almost every philosophy and make a hate doctrine if you really want to use it for your purposes. That’s what the RC and Crucaders were doing. By the way do you know that the idea of killing ‘unbeliebvers; is actually from the old testament? No-one of Jesus teachings ever tells you to kill unbelievers. How many verses I have already put about that. Unbelievers were definitelly those who were killing Jesus. Even among that cruelty of bitting him with whips with metal hooks and crucifiction he was not cursing them but forgave them. That would be a hard lesson for us to follow as the natural thing for people is to look for revenge rather than forgiving.
So where is the idea of killing unbelievers coming from? Was Paul or any of the authors of NT books doing that as an example? I admit Paul was killing untill he believed himself and realised what he was doing. ” Holy wars’ that is where the Crucaders were supporting their believes that unbelievers have right to be put to death. They were doing it in the name of God. That is what I call’ they had no clue who God really is. Of course we add to that their misunderstood words from NT and you find new philosophy that supports your evil actions. By the way – because they were using OT to support their evil ‘holy wars’ I don’t find OT as a hate – teaching scriptures.
It doesn’t matter that ‘The Crusaders fervently believed in Jesus.” What does it mean they believed in Him? They believed the fact that such a men existed? That doesn’t mean anything. The thing Jesus wanted was trusting him not believing he exists. I can say I believe in the sun. I really do. I believe that it is there in the space and it is shining. What does it change?? What spiritual thing I am gaining by saying that? Nothing! See we can say we believe in anything we want to , it doesn’t mean anything until we decide to put trust in that’ thing’ or a ‘person’ .
Just believing that Moses existed didn’t make the Israelities go to Promiseed land.
You say ” the Bible never talks about the need to be rescued from Adam’s sin.”
It is God who will take care of that if we trust Him. Don’t you call the fact ” to be rescued” that you don’t have to stay dead for ever? Do you believe that Adam’s death was meant temporary ??? What about the verses Gen 3;22-24?? Do they tell you Adam’s death was to be temporary?
You said ” after the sin of Adam, God tells Cain he can conquer sin (Genesis 4:7).” So did Cain conquer the sin? As far as I know he died as well. His failure brought him death like everybody’s .
You said ” The Christian doctrine of needing a sinless human death to “rescue” us from “eternal death” has nothing to do with the Torah. ” But it says atonement is in the blood and God’s words are eternal.
Yes, I mentioned sacrifice as meaning giving up something precious for God. I didn’t say that God wants just sacrifice without our repentance. There is no such thing. God sent His son who offered his life for us, but without our repentance that doesn’t make us ok with God. Many know of Jesus but never repented. They know of Jesus like I know that there are stars in the sky. If I don”t realise I am doing wrong and won’t turn away from it, my knowledge of Jesus existance doesn’t draw me near to God. It is when I realised that he suffered because of my sin, that maked me repent and turn to God.
Hi Eric.
When I say the Crusaders believed in Jesus, I mean they believed he died for their sins and they accepted him as their lord and savior. They were fanatics for Jesus. They sold everything they had and left their families to do what they believed he wanted them to do.
It says nowhere in the Bible that conquering sin means conquering death. It says nowhere in the Bible that the death that Adam brought into the world was anything but natural, physical death.
It says atonement is in the blood, but not that atonement is impossible without it.
Please find scriptural support for the notion that biblical sacrifice means giving up something precious for God.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, when Abraham was asked to offer ( sacrifice) his only Isaac to God, wasn’t that a test for him whether he would offer to God something what has the most value to him?
This was a personal test for Abraham to see how far he would go in his obedience to God, but the actual lesson, you will recall, was that we don’t sacrifice our precious children, as emphasized when God told him to stay his hand.
Dina, as far as reason for sacrifices, I won’t focus only on Abraham, that was just one example of obedience , I should have written it all; in every situation when the offering to God was made it was required to be spotless, without a damage without a fault, another words; the best of your quality. So if you had a flock , you were to pick up the best one, if you were poor , the flour was of a value to you, so all that indicated you offered something special to you, not something that you don’t need and it doesn’t matter you get rid of it. Offering something of the best quality showed your heart, whether you did it without a regret ( oh, no that is my best lamb I have to slaughter) or not ( and you were glad you gave something that has value). But anyways that was not the only one thing to focus on, the offerings were also expressing your obedience; God said to do it and you did without asking why does He need it. Also another reason is a foreshadow of things to come ( which you won’t agree with me) a lesson or memorial that atonement is in the blood
that Christ one day will bear sins of many.
Back to Is 53 I don’t think you have to start new thread in order to put your explanation. All what we are talking about is to show whether the need for Jesus is scriptural or not.
I don’t have to have Jewish perspective of Is 53 – even trying to put a nation there – it just doesn’t make sense to me. I put detailed questions about why the comments on the verses are contradicting each other and also that not all Jews are in agreement to interpretation of Is 53 as referring to the nation.
There is a new way to say Christians see Jesus everywhere. And it is interesting but I don’t have to look hard to see that there actually came a man who did everything as it has been written about him. I will skip the fact of his one- parent birth, but focus only on the way he lived and his death and back to life which is 53 clearly states. I don’t believe anyone can just come and adjust all details written to himself, especially at the time of his suffering and dying on the cross and quoting psalms while soldiers are doing things to him which are written in psalms and prophets. Then if even having these abilities and faking everything,- I don’t believe God would bring such person back to life.
Death and life is the thing that only God has control on so He would not give it to play with to whoever. Another thing if it is a second person that just wrote a story how do we explain other books written with personal testimonies of encounter with Jesus and transformed lives? The same second person writing volume 2 and 3 and more? I don’t believe it.
The idea of offering God blemish-free animals, the best of your flock, and so on, is to show God respect. It would be disrespectful to offer God inferior stock.
As for Isaiah 53, you too easily dismiss the Jewish perspective. I would really like to get to that topic one day.
Dina, You show respect by offering something that has value to you. No different what I was talking about. I will go back to emails some time this week. Busy now.
Eric, I do see a distinction, but I’m willing to let that one go. I don’t want to get caught up in distractions.
Take your time, I’m not in a rush.
Dina, You said; the Torah tells us how WE can rescue OURSELVES from the death that sin brings.
How can you rescue yourself if you still die one day? To say we can rescue ourselves would mean you would have no reason to die at all but live forever because you turned back from wickedness. Yet God is not saying that. What the verses are promising is that God can grant you life but won’t you still experience physical death as a result of our sins? No? I doubt it. God will grant you eternal life ( raise you back to life) but it is still after you first died. Sin brings consequences. God is not compromising sin and if sin brought death He is raising us back to life because the price of sin was paid off ( and not by ourselves) . Not a brand- new concept introduced by Christians. ” We have all strayed like sheep , each of us turning his own way , and God inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all” v.6 That is clearly shown in Is 53 which you claim is about the nation which doesn’t make any sense.. Please go ahead and explain all the contradicting verses- commentaries in your Tanach about servant in Is 53 ( I wrote you recently). That is really a strange coincidence that one man ( Jesus) came and fulfilled the words written there and came back to life . Like I said before, God is not letting people play with the power of death and life. We are not resurrecting each other because nobody got that gift of that miracle to play with.
Yes, our responsibility is to repent and turn away from sin if we want life. But that doesn’t mean God didn’t have to take care of the payment for our wickedness. Is 53 tells you He did. Claiming that there is no need for Jesus is believing that there are no consequences of sin at all.
Another thing regarding the message in the verses in Ezekiel and call for repentance. Jesus didn’t bring a contradicting teaching to repentance . John the Baptist before him was calling for repentance . Jesus was calling for repentance and turning away from sins. And the reason he came was to carry the consequences of our wickedness from which we are forgiven after we repented and turned away from . His call was not to stay in your sins, do whatever and just believe that he exists. His call was to do the will of the Father in heaven. All the people mentioned in the gospels who came to him responded to that message; many women who lived adulterous life , tax collectors who used to cheat and steal, the criminal on the cross who repented in his last hours of life, Saul who used to kill Christians, and many others. These people were looked down upon by their society as they were obvious sinners yet they repented. They didn’t just believe in Jesus. They repented!
Paul was calling for repentance ; “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord ” Acts 3;19
and in verses 20-23 goes;
” and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people. ”
Jesus proved with his life that God lived in him and that He was His son and God confirmed Jesus righteousness and truthfulness by raising him back to life.
Eric, I don’t have time to finish reading the whole comment right now, just want to quickly comment on your first paragraph. You say that we can’t rescue ourselves from death because we will all die a physical death anyway; we won’t live forever. That’s why, you say, we need Jesus to rescue us from death.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. What am I missing?
You did not explain away all the verses that say that we will live if we do such and such; it says it so many times.
Dina, once again back to that email. Maybe that will be more clear;
All about God’s forgiveness is like that example story; there was a reach father who had many sons but all of them went astray their own way .The father used to call them many times before “come back to me sons , you can still come back to my house if you turn back from all wickedness. I will give you place to live etc. I will provide you a good life. But the sons preferred immoral free street- life doing drugs, breaking to other people houses, stealing getting in lots of debt, doing whatever pleasures them etc. But at the end then they realized they were broke and remembered their father;s words and finally decided to turn back to him and since then lived a moral life and started to appreciate their father again for his love that they neglected before. Father forgave them , welcomed them in his house , provided them with everything they needed and treated them as his sons again. They were forgiven. But they didn’t realize he also paid all the debt for them until later when the fact came true. Some of them were thankful and appreciative to their father for their debts being paid , the others thought they didn’t have any debt and didn’t care that there was any need for that.
So we can be like either the sons who believed their father in what he did for us or the ones who think there was no need to pay for anything.
That is the same with Jesus. God forgave us but He used His son who would die for our commuted sins in the past.
So what do I believe ?Yes, we can choose life if we decide to follow God. But that life is not because of our accomplishments. The reason we can live again is because His son paid with his blood for our sins committed in the past. That why I say Jesus was needed. Still back to is 53.
Another observation from Genesis and all the verses you listed;
1- God is saying to you to chooses life but He is NOT preventing you from physical death. He is offering you life AFTER RESURRECTION , not anything sooner! Lets compare death to going jail. You are forgiven, but why do you still go to jail? Why do you still die? Why do you have right to be set free one day ( resurrected and have life)? I know it is because of Jesus who carried your sins and paid for them.. Is 53.
That’s why we are resurrected no sooner but at Messiah’ s coming. Is there anybody alive who ever died ????? Even those who chose life based on the verses you listed – they are still dead.
It is said that God reconciled the world to Himself through Jesus His son. That’s why he is needed.
Back to your verses; in which I still see the need for Jesus ;
Deut 30;19 It is said in that verse that we choose life by loving our Lord God and by listening to His voice.
Listening to His voice means to listen also to His son that He sent. If I am to love God I will also love His son.
Ez 18;27 …he shall live of the righteousness he did …. That means he chose finally to listen to God and doing what God says . And listening to God means to me I can’t ignore the one He sent. The verse doesn’t exclude that Jesus didn’t pay for the person’s sins committed in the past.
Ez 18
… all transgressions won’t be remembered against him …. It doesn’t mean they weren’t paid for.
Ez 18;30-31 ..turn back… Still means coming to God and listening to Him. You just don’t turn back from evil life and ignore what God says. Each time God sent a prophet you were to listen to him as His messenger
Ez 33;10-11 .call to repent. Points you the same way like Ez 18;30-31 Points you to come to God and turning away from your wicked life back to good life including trusting God .and listening to Him. And I believe Him that He sent His son for us.
Eric, the whole analogy to the father paying his son’s debt, so God used Jesus to pay our debt, is non-Scriptural. By non-Scriptural, I mean it has nothing to do with Hebrew Scripture. It’s really very simple. God tells us what to do if we sin–if we repent and do good, then we get to live. Then you say, that means resurrection. This is obvious because we all die. Therefore you say we need Jesus to save us from death.
This makes no sense. Jesus doesn’t save you from physical death either. You believe that by accepting him you will be resurrected. But the Torah doesn’t say we will be resurrected by accepting Jesus–it teaches that we will live if we turn away from bad and do good (whatever living and dying means to you, since in none of the passages we discussed, from Adam to here, is anything more than life and death discussed; certainly, in none of these passages is resurrection mentioned). So I don’t see how you have answered these passages at all. In fact, I will add another one:
Isaiah 1:16-18: “Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow. Come now, let us debate, says the Lord. If your sins prove to be like crimson, they will become white as snow; if they prove to be as red as crimson dye, they shall become as wool.”
Isaiah 1:18 teaches us that if we repent (which means turning away from evil and doing good), then God will erase our sins as if they had never been. No additional sacrifices or debts to be paid are mentioned.
I have provided overwhelming evidence from Tanach that our spiritual destiny (and our hope for life–physical, eternal, resurrected–however you want to define it, since the Torah certainly does not) lies entirely in our own hands through the free will that God has granted us. You have responded with statements of faith based on teachings from Christian scripture.
We need to have a discussion about Isaiah 53. Let’s start by figuring out who is the narrator by reading it in context. Start with 52:13 and tell me who think is speaking in verses 1-10. Please explain how the context supports your answer.
Thanks,
Dina
Sorry, I meant to write, “and tell me who you think,” not “and tell me who think.”
Dina, You said ” God tells us what to do if we sin–if we repent and do good, then we get to live. Then you say, that means resurrection. ” My question do you simply believe you don’t experience physical death or that means you live as an everlasting soul?? Maybe I misunderstood your sentence here. As far as me of course I understand these words ” ..you will live” as resurrection not a soul prolonged life. Again back to verses where resurrection is mentioned or victory over death;
Is 26;19,
” May your dead come to life , may my corpses arise. AWAKE and shout for joy, you who REST In THE DIRT.”
Then Isaiah 25; 8 ( talks about time when death will be eliminated forever)
and Ezek 37;12-14″ Thus said the Lord Elohim; Behold I am OPENING YOUR GRAVES and RAISING YOU UP from your graves (…) then you will know that I am Hashem, when I open your graves and when I raise you up from your graves, My people. and when I put my spirit into you and YOU COME TO LIFE and i set you on your soil.”
You said ” Jesus doesn’t save you from physical death either. ” No, but he is the reason God will resurrect us back to life is because our sins are ‘wiped away by his blood’.
You don’t see how I have answered your passages so maybe if I answer other points you mentioned will help to see my point of view.
About this ; “You believe that by accepting him you will be resurrected.” Our ‘accepting him’ simply means we accept God , it is like accepting Moses leadership in the past that you got to the Promised land. It means you chose to listen to God and believe that He put Jesus in charge. But if you don’t believe God put him in charge you see it as two different things christans are doing to have life.
You said ” But the Torah doesn’t say we will be resurrected by accepting Jesus” Jesus wasn’t given yet at that time. But he was predicted that he would carry our sins . Is 53 God has always required repentance ( turning away from evil and do good) and listening to Him. In every time of history people were to listen to Him, at Abraham’s time they were required to listen to Him although there was no Moses law given yet, then at Moses time law was given so they were required to listen and obey th e law and Moses’ directions on the desert, at Isaiah ‘times there came Isaiah’s words to listen to what the prophet was saying and repenting and trusting God about the promised future restoration, th e same in other prophet’s times, if you trusted God you had hope in the words God was saying by His prophets and with Jesus being sent I believe I also am to listen to his words that God gave him and have hope that He gives me.
.
I don’t know if I understand your words corectly here ” … from Adam to here, is anything more than life and death discussed; certainly, in none of these passages is resurrection mentioned .” I already showed you verses where resurrection is mentioned. Do you think there are two different ways that follow after death because with Adam’ life and others resurrection wasn’t mentioned in Gen? Do you think people in Ezek 37; 13-14 or Is 26;19 are subject to different conditions regarding their eternal destiny?
The resurrection and desrtuction of death is mentioned for the FIRST time in book of Isaiah , so would that be a reason not to apply it to people born before Isaiah? Also the way God was going to deal with our sin is mentioned there. Because Moses wasn’t given that information to share it doesn’t mean it is not true ( I mean resurrection and the fact of our sins wiped away the way Is 53 shows).
Isaiah 1:16-18: the same words relate to whoever wants to claim he is a Christians; Jesus said be holy as I am holy.
These words are not to be put aside, Jesus is the way God wiped away our sins.
You said ” Isaiah 1:18 teaches us that if we repent (which means turning away from evil and doing good), then God will erase our sins as if they had never been. No additional sacrifices or debts to be paid are mentioned.”
They are not mentioned but you practiced them for a reason and I wouldn’t believe that the only reason was to show respect to God because then blood wouldn’t be needed both in sacrifices nor at the Atonement day including all the blood cleansing rituals.
No debt was to be paid by us, God said He requires less for our sins that we deserve and the way He wiped our sins is shown in Isaiah 53. Why would Jesus say these words and submitted himself willingly to death ” this is my blood that is poured for many for remission of sins” and then was brought back to life?
If somebody crazy decided to be a hero , he would definitelly NOT be risen back to life.
I will go back to Is 53 maybe tomorrow , and that would be good if you tried to answer my questions I placed before relating to the comments in Tanach about the verses I spoke.
Eric, you have completely misunderstood my argument, so I will try to explain again in hopes that this time I will clarify.
I think we both agree that since Adam’s sin, everyone dies.
The point of disagreement between us is, I believe, what kind of death is being talked about here? The text doesn’t tell us if it means the natural physical death that occurs at the end of the human lifespan, resurrection, or an afterlife. Since the text doesn’t do this, it is fair to take it at its plain meaning–natural death.
We both believe that at the end of days the dead will be resurrected. You did not need to bring scriptures to prove this point as if I don’t believe it. Surely you know that I accept that.
The point of disagreement between us is how we earn the reward of resurrection. According to God’s words in the Tanach, we earn it by turning away from evil and doing good (repentance). According to Christian doctrine, you need to believe in Jesus and accept him as your lord and savior in order to be resurrected.
When I wrote that from Adam to here resurrection is not mentioned, I meant that the verses that tell us what to do in order to live do not mention resurrection. They do not mention what kind of life/death we are talking about. I did not mean that there will be no resurrection, God forbid. Belief in the resurrection of the dead is one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith outlined by Maimonides.
You wrote, “You said ‘But the Torah doesn’t say we will be resurrected by accepting Jesus” Jesus wasn’t given yet at that time. But he was predicted that he would carry our sins . Is 53.”
What I meant is that the Torah doesn’t say we will be resurrected by accepting a messiah who will be the literal son of God and whom you must accept as your lord and savior. The Torah does tell us what we must do in order to live and not die. It spells it out so very clearly. If accepting a messiah as you define it is so important to save us, why doesn’t the Torah say that EVEN ONCE?”
Your pointing to Jesus’s resurrection proves nothing. Firstly, I do not believe it ever happened. I have shown you good reason why the “New Testament” is not a credible document. I’m sorry we dropped that discussion. It was a good one. Secondly, even if it had happened, anyone who comes along and gives a sign WHICH COMES TO PASS, and then based on that tells us to change our worship is a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). If Jesus resurrected himself a thousand times in front of all the Pharisees it would have made no difference. They would have seen him as being sent by God to test them to see how much they love and obey God.
You keep bringing up Isaiah 53. It’s crystal clear to you that this is a prophecy about Jesus. So let’s talk about it. Can you explain to me, based on the context, who is the narrator in the first ten verses?
Dina, As far as Adam’s sin and death of course I take it as a natural death what God meant , what other death there could be?
I am glad we at least both agree on the fact that at the end of days the dead will be resurrected.
You just believe it will happen without anybody’s contribution but just by obeying God , we believe it is because of obeying God and thanks to Jesus sent by God who was willing to carry our sins away.
You said ” The point of disagreement between us is how we earn the reward of resurrection. According to God’s words in the Tanach, we earn it by turning away from evil and doing good (repentance). ” Does your doing good exclude trusting and listening to God? I am sure it does NOT exlude the fact that God wants us to listen to Him and trust Him.
If turning away from evil and doing good just one day change and one day decission or rather it should continue all your life? Was rejecting Moses in old times considered doing good or bad? Was listening to the leader God put in charge considered a good thing or bad one? The same we see when it comes to Jesus, which is trusting God that He sent him for a reason.
So saying that we ( christians) need to believe in Jesus and accept him as our lord and savior in order to be resurrected doesn’t mean introduction of a contra – theology but it means trusting God about Jesus because He gave the testimony about him that He put him in charge of leading us.
You said ” Torah doesn’t say we will be resurrected by accepting a messiah who will be the literal son of God and whom you must accept as your lord and savior. ”
We will be resurrected if we lived for God which includes our turning from evil and listening to God and doing what He says. Along the way in the history God was putting many different people in charge and they were to be listened to. If Abraham lived in Moses times he would have to listen to Moses. If Adam lived in Isaiah’s times God would want him to listen to prophet’s words and trust them. If I believe Jesus is from God then of course the right thing is to listen to him and accept him. But what does it mean to accept him? That means I believe he is the one whom God promised , I believe his testimony is true, that his words are true and they are from God and through him God is comunicating with us. That means I am listening to God because I am listening to the one He put in charge. It is not leaving God and trusting whoever.
You said ” If accepting a messiah as you define it is so important to save us, why doesn’t the Torah say that EVEN ONCE?”” Because it is to God that you listen to and whoever He puts in charge to listen to. Since Jesus is the last prophet God sent I am listening to the words that he brought from God. And God’s message was that it is through Jesus’ obedience and his life offered that our eternal life is possible. Bact to Is 53 that I will explain at the end of email.
It is interesting what you said ” If Jesus resurrected himself a thousand times in front of all the Pharisees it would have made no difference. They would have seen him as being sent by God to test them to see how much they love and obey God.”
Well, that explains everything. It looks like you simply can decide which prophet suits you which doesn’t. The one who doesn’t he can easily be considered to be sent to test you. But before you were bringing the strong argumant against Jesus for not keeping his words because he didn’t show up before pharesees, but now you say that wouldn’t matter anyways. I am sure Jesus knew what he was doing.
I have never noticed that Jesus came and changed anybody’s worship as he himself was ways giving all the glory to God. If God didn’t allow a miracle to happen , Jesus wouldn’t perform any as his power was from his Father in heaven.
But for you admitting you don’t believe it all happened, because there are some things in NT you can’t understand that need more insight and study that all 4 gospels corelate although wtitten by 4 different people, how would you explain that Jesus’ message actually brings thousands of sinners all over the world to repentance and listening to God . I personally even know people with terrible criminal past who turned the whole 180 ‘ toward righteous life and are praising God for His mercy and forgiveness. If God is using Jesus for that to bring people to Himself it means he is His servant , not from the opposite force.
Ok, now you asked me about Is 53 I don’t know why you didn’t respond first to my questions I asked which should be explanatory even without waiting for my answer.
You want me to explain to you , based on the context, who is the narrator in the first ten verses?
Ok, I will start with Is 52. in which you have God speaking . Then the narrator is changing . Starting chapter 53 you have the audience addresed in plural ” who would believe what WE have heard. ” . Chapter 4 speaks also in plural ” it was OUR ills that he bore and OUR pains that he carried (…) and WE had regarded him ( …) he was pained because of OUR rebelious sins(…) oppreses through OUR iniquities ….( …) for OUR benefit….(…) WE are healed. Continuing verse 6 WE have ALL strayed like sheep (…) God inflicted upon him iniquity of US ALL (…) that was MY people’s sin.
My question; Is Israel an exeption comapring with other nations in the world regarding these t words; “WE have ALL strayed like sheep(…)
To me no nation is an exception. The narrator is speaking in the name of all nations. Looking more at the commentary benieth in Tahach Stone edition regarding verses in Is 53;
v.13 it says it all reffers to the righteous remnant . So how righteous is’ the righteous’ to stick with the words in v9 ‘ to be with no deceit in his mouts and commiting no crime’ and then how that righteous one is fulfiling the words in v.10 which the comments puts as following; that the necessecity of punishment / sufferings it was rather a discipline of refinement to cleans them from their sins. How did the righteous servant need cleansing for sin , when th e fact is the servant is definitelly sated as pure and righteous “with no deceit and commiting no crime” Contadiction!
v. 4 ( comment) now the nations realising that Israel suffered because of the nations who were mean ( their sin) while they thought that before it was God who coused them to suffer yet v. 10 ( comentary ) says it was a God’s discipline, discipline of refinement to cleanse them from their sins. Contradiction!
Also v.6 ” Hashem inflicted upon him iniguity of us all’ – it says it is God who allowed that suffereing.
Then v. 5 explains that God’s discipline ( brought suffering ) was to our benefit ( the nations’) who were th e reason God brought sufferiung upon his a people. v.4 . So it benefited the oppressors. Clear conclusion is we ( the nations) were mean and coused you to suffer , God used this to discipline the righteous remnant… and it still cames out to the benefit of the nations that they are healed because they oppesed Israel That makes no sense.
Second , everybody is responsible for himself , if you don’t repent and turn away from your sin, you are not forgiven by God , so no healing possible because some nation suffered. If someone is not willing to turn from his wicked ways – nobody’s suffereing would benefit him, nobody’s wound’s would heal him.
Also God doesn’t need to cause the nation to suffer for the sake of suffering to exalt it later Blessing was always promised for obedience . Also ‘carrying the nations’ sin” doesn’t fit here at all.
Also Here is the link with some comments how the other rabbies understand Is 53 pretty different than yours ,
http://www.gotquestions.org/suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html
Hi Eric,
This is a lot of information to respond to all at once, so I’m picking two points, and more will follow later, God willing.
I’d like to explain why Jesus’s miracles are meaningless to believing Jews (I don’t use the word “believing” the way Christians use it) and why, at the same time, it is significant that he didn’t fulfill his sign to the Pharisees.
Deuteronomy gives us two ways to identify the false prophet.
One is in Chapter 13. Here, we are taught that if a prophet gives a sign and it comes to pass, but that prophet tells us to change our worship, then he is being sent by God to test us and we must not follow him. (I’ll address the fact that Jesus came to change our worship.) That is why all of Jesus’s miracles, including his alleged resurrection, do not impress Jews.
The other is in Chapter 18, verse 22. If a prophet gives a sign that does not come to pass, then we can know for sure that he is a false prophet. That is why it is significant that Jesus’s one and only sign to the Pharisees remained unfulfilled.
In other words, Jesus failed the true-prophet test on both counts.
You say Jesus did not change our worship. Jesus proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is a type of worship, a new concept in worshiping God, that our fathers did not know. This is changing the the nature of our worship.
Furthermore, Jesus changed many of the laws of Moses; I have given examples of that in the past. No prophet following Moses had the authority to add or subtract. Therefore, if anyone came to the Jewish people and told them to change the law in any way, he was automatically rejected.
Therefore, your contention that you earn resurrection by obeying God through obeying Jesus doesn’t work, because you are following a false prophet.
My second point is not a point, really, but a question. I want to make sure I understand what you wrote about the narrator in Isaiah 53. If I understood you correctly, the narrator of the first ten verses represents all the kings of all the nations of the world, including the Jewish people. Is that right?
Last, please forgive me for not answering your questions. We had so many interactions that I do not know remember which questions you are referring to.
Thanks,
Dina
Eric, I’m not trying to dodge your accusations that the Artscroll Tanach has a contradictory explanation of Isaiah 53. I’d like to get to it, but first I’d like to explore how you and I read this passage and understand it.
As for the Talmudic passages in the link you sent, I recommend you read the latest post by Rabbi Blumenthal which addresses how Christians use the Talmud in their arguments with Jews. I also recommend you search the article called “Contra Brown” on this website under the heading “What Did the Rabbis Say?” This section addresses those Talmudic passages that refer to Isaiah 53.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I am away on vacation till the 7th so I will go back to your emails next week. That will give you plenty of time to answer my questions I posted in my last email. Quickly about the narrator of the first 10 verses ; based on the way of being addressed in plural” our’ “we” and peoples state “who went astray , who admit they are sinners ( and we all are) I wouldn’t say they are kings necessary ( it does not say that) but it could be one person speaking in the name of all people ( nations) or figuratively all nations speaking.
Enjoy your vacation! I think I answered everything except the Isaiah 53 stuff because I’m breaking it down into smaller bites. It’s more manageable for me that way. I’ll be discussing the narrator first, but I want to make sure I’m understanding you to say that the narrator represents all the nations of the world, including Israel, yes?
Dina, I am still waiting for your answers to Is 53. I am not sure how many details we covered from the last conversation , I have to refresh on the emails after a break . As far as the Tanach commentary – it is really not needed for me ( I mean the commentary) to see how you interpret Is 53 as even skipping the commentary I would come to the same conclusion based on th e words in the text of Isaiah and s ask the same questions I posted in my last email that I am waiting for your explanation. If the most people are relying on these commentaries it looks like they don’t really know what they are believing.
And again you asked me about the narrator- I have already answered you that the ‘plural’ way of being addressed refers to all nations( all people in the world including Israel) all who will admit they are sinners .
Thanks, Eric. Forgive me for taking so long to respond. I have not forgotten about you! I’ve saved all your emails that I have not responded to. I got distracted by a conversation with Concerned Reader and also I am busy this week (and possibly next)–at least, busier than usual. So I ask for your patience.
Hope you had a nice vacation,
Dina
Hi Eric.
I focused on the narrator because that is part of the context, and the context is key to understanding this passage.
Before I continue, I have an appeal to make. I ask you to try to understand the Jewish perspective even as you disagree with and reject it. I do understand the Christian understanding of this passage. Christians understand that the nations of the world, especially Israel, rejected Jesus. They sinned, and because they sinned, he suffered. He bore their sins, he poured his soul unto death for their sins, so that they were healed and saved from sin/death. At the end of days, Israel will realize her mistake (and accept Jesus or be punished). Do I have that right?
Now I would like to present you with questions that are raised if the nations are the narrator and the Suffering Servant is Jesus. If the narrator is Israel, a different set of questions arises. I will deal with Israel as the narrator below.
Isaiah 52:13-15: Here the prophet tells us that the kings will be rendered speechless with shock and the nations will exclaim their astonishment. They will be shocked by the exaltation of the servant in verse 13. If the narrator represents the nations of the world, why will they be shocked by the exaltation of Jesus? Aren’t they expecting it? Isn’t Jesus the last person that the Germans, Brits, Americans, Poles, Greeks, Italians, and so on will be surprised by his second coming?
If the nations are talking, when did they ever say that Jesus’s appearance was “too marred to be a man’s and his visage to be human” (verse 14)? Has Jesus been portrayed as subhuman and marred-looking by the nations of the world?
Isaiah 53:3: The events of Jesus’s life took place in the land of Israel. So there would have been no opportunity for the many nations, even had they so desired, to despise and isolate Jesus. Did the many nations despise and hide their faces from Jesus?
53:4: This one makes sense according to the narrator. The nations believed that God inflicted Jesus with illnesses (not really illnesses, but suffering) in order to bear their ills, to suffer for their sins. Same for verses 5 and 6.
Verses 7-12: These verses raise questions if Jesus is the subject, but I am trying to focus on the narrator’s perspective only. I will leave the subject of the passage for another time.
Here are questions if Israel is the narrator.
Isaiah 52:13-15: If Israel is the narrator, then it makes sense that they will be shocked by Jesus’s exaltation. Alone among the world’s nations, Israel expects her messiah to most definitely not be Jesus. So if the Messiah comes and he’s Jesus, Israel will be shocked speechless. The problem with this scenario is that verse 15 identifies the narrator as the many kings and nations (“so will the many nations exclaim about him and kings will shut their mouths”).
Verse 14: Did the Jews ever consider Jesus to be subhumanly ugly, as described in this verse (“his appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human”)? There is no indication of that in the gospels.
Verse 3: It doesn’t make sense to say that the Jews despised and isolated Jesus in his lifetime. Most of the world’s Jews were outside of Israel and never heard of him. According to the gospels, Jesus spoke in the synagogues a lot, and in many of these instances he drew huge and admiring crowds. According to the gospels, Jesus was hugely popular. Just a small group of Scribes and Pharisees went after him–and not his whole life. Just for a short while.
Verse 4: “But in truth, it was our ills that he bore.” If the narrator is the nations, then this prophecy came true. A huge percentage of the world believes this about Jesus. But if the narrator is Israel, this prophecy has yet to come true, as the vast, overwhelming majority of Jews do not believe this about Jesus. So if the narrator is the nations, including Israel, how do you resolve a prophecy that happened already but also didn’t happen yet at the same time?
“But we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted.” Did the Jews of Jesus’s time period see him this way? Not even the Pharisees say these things about Jesus in the gospels.
What I wrote about in Verse 4 applies through Verse 7. The remaining verses raise questions about the subject that I would like to explore later.
If Israel is the narrator, according to this passage she will be humbled by the revelation that Jesus is the exalted one. This contradicts the prophecies that Israel will be vindicated in the eyes of the nations at the end of days. Then the nations will realize that all along, Israel was the one who preserved the true knowledge of God (I’ve already given these sources).
When we look at the passage from the perspective of the narrator and assuming the subject is Jesus, then do the questions I have raised make sense, and how would you answer them?
Eric, now I will tackle Jesus as the subject. I know this is a lot at once. Respond to whichever comment you want to first, if you want to at all. Take your time.
As I already pointed out, the context seems to eliminate Jesus as the candidate for its subject because he is the last person who will shock the whole world by his coming.
However, if it isn’t Jesus who is exalted at the end of days, then the whole world will be shocked indeed.
Questions about how the following verses apply to Jesus:
52:14: When was Jesus ever considered to be subhumanly ugly?
53:2: This seems to contradict the gospels that say that Jesus increased in wisdom and in human and divine favor (Luke 2:52, for example).
Verse 3: Here we learn that the subject was a man of pains accustomed to illness. This doesn’t sound like a few hours’ suffering on the cross. In fact, Jesus is never described as having suffered until the very end of his life. We also learn that he was greatly despised, but the gospels describe him as being hugely popular.
Verse 7: Was Jesus like a lamb led to his slaughter who did not open his mouth? We have conflicting accounts in the gospels, with some having him talk or at least plead his case.
Verse 8: “For he had been removed from the land of the living.” In the Hebrew Bible, the land of the living is a reference to Israel. Jesus was not removed from Israel.
“For HE had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon THEM that was my people’s sin.” Curiously, the verse changes from singular to plural. Is Jesus a plural figure?
Verse 9: The subject is buried with the wicked and executed with the rich. In Jesus’s case, the opposite occurred according to the gospels: he was executed with the wicked and buried with the wealthy.
“He submitted himself to his grave like the wicked men; and the wealthy to his deaths.” Grave is singular; deaths is plural. How many deaths did Jesus submit himself to?
Verse 10: The Lord desired to oppress him and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt etc.” If Jesus was sinless, why would he need to acknowledge guilt?
“He would see offspring and live long days.” Jesus did not have children and died young.
“For he bore the sin of the multitudes and prayed for the wicked.” Did Jesus pray for the scribes and Pharisees that he so openly reviled?
If Jesus is not the Suffering Servant and Israel is not the narrator, according to the Jewish perspective, who are they? The context is very clear about this, but that is a subject for another time. We have enough to discuss to keep us busy for a while!
Peace,
Dina
Dina, Thanks for answering. This is a lot of details you mentioned so I will try to address all of them – some time this week . I am mostly away with the kids ) I just need to ask one questions. Let’s skip for a moment the Christian perspective, who is narrator of Is 53 according to you?
Do you mean Israel or the nations without Israel or somebody else?
Eric, you are asking the wrong question. The question is not who is the narrator according to me, but who is the narrator according to Isaiah. The context at the end of Isaiah 52 makes it clear that the narrator is the kings and nations (“so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths,” Verse 15).
The nation of Israel is not included among the nations. We are a nation that dwells apart (Numbers 23:9).
Have fun with the kids!
Dina, Yes, I understand the Jewish perspective – I will mention it on th e way, there will be a lot to explain about each point so I will go ahead to your questions. As far as Christian perspective , what it means by words ‘we are healed’ means our spirit is healed by restored relationship with God and through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice we are saved from everlasting death. At the end of days, there will be lots of Jews who will recognise Jesus as their Messiah. Punished will be those who deliberately rejected God and never submitted to Him both among Jews and gentiles. ( Zah 13;9) At the time of deliverance lot of Jewish people will realise who the Messiah is. ( Zah 12; 9-13 ) Mourning over ‘ him’ is in singular ( not refering to mourning over stabbed people mourning ‘over them’ lamo) and during national tragedy people usually unite in mourning, nobody goes to cry separately, you mourn separately if something relates to you if you cry over your own mistakes. Second , at the time of deliverance ( Zah 12) you would rather expect joy than separated mourning.
Ok, back to the questions, I am afraid I will streach everything too much.
About Isaiah 52:13-15: you said ” Here the prophet tells us that the kings will be rendered speechless with shock (…)why will they be shocked by the exaltation of Jesus?
You have to consider that nations consist both of believers and unbelievers. Majority of people nowdays don’t want to have much to do with God and live for themselves. For them subject of real Jesus, real Messiah coming back and establishing Messianic kingdom is unrealistic future. I believe many will be shocked by Jesus coming like he said. In the last days- it is predicted -people will go even farther from God , only putting trust in the things of this world. I personalty spoke to many who claim being Christians and they don’t even believe in resurrection.
Only believers can’t be shocked as they are expecting Jesus’ coming back. Second, believers won’t be shocked either by exaltation of Israel as it is NO SECRET in Isaiah that God promised to redeem and rebuilt Israel. It is not a hidden fact for anybody . Only unbelievers can be shocked by EVERYTHING that will happen because of GOD’S INTERVENTION as they don’t see God in this world. Christians are not denying that Israel will be redeemed and exalted in the future. The OT scriptures are talkning about both also exalted Messiah for what he accomplished. It is not only Is 53 that speaks of Messiah’ exaltation.
If the nations are talking, when did they ever say that Jesus’s appearance was “too marred to be a man’s and his visage to be human” (verse 14)?
Me; It is not that Jesus is portrayed as subhuman and marred-looking by the nations of the world, but the words relate to him while he was tortured and people were crying over him seeing him on the way to crucifiction in his miserable state. Romans used wips with metal hooks that completly chopped your skin. You wouldn’t resemble a person cut all over dripping with so much blood .
The gospels are not mentioning the physical appearance at all that there was something unusuall in it, they don’t mention he looked disformed or so that people would be running away at the sight of him. Also Is 53 ;2 simply says he wasn’t attractively looking person to draw people to himself by his appearance. It wasn’t God’s intention to attract people because of seeing a handsom man, as people usually are drawn to physical ‘ good look.’
Second, if you want to see Israel ‘too marred to be a human” there are many more nations that would be in worst condition like in Africa, with starvation and wars and plagues without ever living in civilized conditions ever. Israel although spead out among the nations was usually prospering and from Polish history of 1000 years of hosting Jews they were regarded as wise , smart people prospering in their business.
Isaiah 53:3: The events of Jesus’s life took place in the land of Israel. So there would have been no opportunity for the many nations, even had they so desired, to despise and isolate Jesus. Did the many nations despise and hide their faces from Jesus?
Me; wow, most people are despising Jesus now , cursing his name, and did so in the last 2000 years. It is not only about those who witnessed his life and lived 2000 years ago. His message is actual and available till nowdays, his life recorded in the gospels and everybody has an acces to the bible. People prefer to reject Jesus because coming to him means to addmit you are a sinner and needed God’s forgiveness. But people prefer to practice self-righteousness.
You said “53:4: This one makes sense according to the narrator. The nations believed that God inflicted Jesus with illnesses (not really illnesses, but suffering) in order to bear their ills, to suffer for their sins. Same for verses 5 and 6.
Me; It refers to Gentile nations as a narrator but I don’t see here a reason to exclude Israel. ” We have all strayed like sheep…” Is Israel free from that??? You know I could bring you plenty of exaples from Isaiah that he isn’t. How do you explain that???
About your ‘ Israel is the narrator.
Isaiah 52:13-15: you say ” If Israel is the narrator, then it makes sense that they will be shocked by Jesus’s exaltation. The problem with this scenario is that verse 15 identifies the narrator as the many kings and nations ”
Me;I don’t have a problem if I include Israel with the many nations as narrator. So far I have not found a reason to exclude her.
About Verse 14: I explained above relating to v. 4 all about his physical appearance. If I include Israel with the nations as narrator then it is clearly speaking about Jesus. If I exclude Israel, why would we be surprised by something God said in the scriptures that will happen ? Israel as a state is existing now and it is prospering, nations are doing business with Israel why all of a sudden they would be so speachless? I would rather be speachless if I saw somebody coming who was killed and came in the glory, although knowing it already ( that will happen) I would be impressede seeing it happening.
About Verse 3: you said’ “It doesn’t make sense to say that the Jews despised and isolated Jesus in his lifetime. Most of the world’s Jews were outside of Israel and never heard of him. (…)Jesus was hugely popular. ”
I explained earlier that most people are despising Jesus . People hear about Jesus now. If narrator is all nations plus Israel it makes more sense . Don’t Jews reject Jesus nowdays? The world has bilions of people so it doesn’t mean all billions (except Jews) are believing Jesus. He was popular while walking on earth, but still not all people went after him, there were still people rejecting him. Gospels give plenty examples of it. Second rejecting him doesn’t relate to ONLY HIS LIFE PERIOD ON EARTH. You can reject his teaching and him NOW. Don’t many do?
Verse 4: “But in truth, it was our ills that he bore.” To me if the narrator is the nations plus Israel it still makes sense because the narration ‘ our ‘ doesn’t mean all 100% of Gernans, Poles, Brits or 100% of Israel etc. It makes sense if the narrator ( any nation plus Israel are those who IDENTIFY with this verse – as being sinners ), realise Jesus was the one sent by God to carry their sins. There are plenty Messianic Jews who believe Jesus carred their sins, there were plenty who believed while Jesus was on earth. This verse doesn’t tell you that EVERY single individual in every nation had to addmit that so we can say that the prophecy is fulfilled . Unbelieves won’t admitt anything neither Jews nor Gentiles. An unbeliever won’t say Jesus bore his sins, but Messianic Jews would admitt, Christians would admitt so.
You said “But we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted.” Did the Jews of Jesus’s time period see him this way?
Me; Of coure yes! Read the gospels! . His family though he was out of his mind. He was rejected by many although he was telling them of God’s forgiveness. He was moving from town to town and some didn’t want him at all. People seeing him crucified thought he was type of guilty of some crime that is why he was being led to death. Most people think nowdays that God afflicted him because he sent him for that purpose to die for us, but the truth is he wouldn’t have to go to death if it wasn’t for our sins.
Verse 4 applies through Verse 7. You are skipping because it raise questions about the subject. Looking at Jewish perspective this would require explaining how the nations are supposed to be healed by Israel’s suffering. And also why Israel would be excluded to be among those “we’ who have all staryed like sheep…?
You said ; “If Israel is the narrator, according to this passage she will be humbled by the revelation that Jesus is the exalted one. This contradicts the prophecies that Israel will be vindicated in the eyes of the nations at the end of days. ”
Me; Since when being humbled and being vindicated and redeemed have to exclude each other? Let’s say we are expecting Angel X to deliever us , and it turns out it is Angel Y that showes up to deal with the enemy and redeems us. You can realise God sent the redeemer you didn’t expect but redemption will still take place.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for taking the time, I know you’re busy. I won’t have time to get to this till next week, but I did have one quick question. You wrote that Jesus’s family thought he was out of his mind. By family, do you mean parents and siblings?
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, of course he had his biological brothers and sisters. John 7;3-5 Matthew 12; 46-50 , Matthew 13;54, Luke 8;19 , John 2;12 It is recorded that his mother and one brother James believed finally that he was the Messiah.
Dina, Back to Jesus as the subject.
You are giving the argument for eliminating Jesus that he seems the last person who will shock the whole world by his coming. I have already explained that in the previous email that I don’t see it that way, because it is not a secret that israel will be redeemed and prosper to shock the nations. More shocking will be for unbelievers to see dispised person they are cursing now coming in glory from heaven and being set by God as prince ruler in Israel and over the whole world . Also when He is coming those believers who died are raised back to life – that might be shocking too to all unbelievers/ those who don’t know much about God and don;t even believe in resurrection.
You said “if it isn’t Jesus who is exalted at the end of days, then the whole world will be shocked indeed.” The word ‘shocked ‘ in Isaiah is mentioned as a positive reaction to something great happening ( being in amazemant), not being shocked and being disappinted. So I wouldn’t agree with that conclusion of yours here.
Your questions about how the following verses apply to Jesus:
52:14: When was Jesus ever considered to be subhumanly ugly? I have already explained in the previous email.
You are saying in 53:2: “This seems to contradict the gospels that say that Jesus increased in wisdom and in human and divine favor (Luke 2:52, for example). ”
Me; since when physical appearance has something to do with not being able to grow in wisedom and divive favour???
Verse 3: Here we learn that the subject was a man of pains accustomed to illness. This doesn’t sound like a few hours’ suffering on the cross. (…) the gospels describe him as being hugely popular.”
Me; He was still rejected by many and constantly opposed and even rejected by his family. Do things like rejection by people you love NOT hurt? Second, his suffereing isn’t limited to just a few hours on the cross. Being tortured for 2 days and hanging on the cross for 6 hours is a piece of cake? Adding the fact that anticipating torturing coming on you makes you already sick in advance.
Verse 7: Was Jesus like a lamb led to his slaughter who did not open his mouth?
You said “We have conflicting accounts in the gospels, with some having him talk or at least plead his case.”
Me; Oh my …, that is teribble conclusion. Let’s say Israel is the subject. Can’t we bring th e same conflicting accounts to disqualify Israel? Do you believe that Jews who were being led to death didn’t say a single word??? They were silent not pleading for mercy to his oppressors, they didn’t say a word?
So this verse can’t be about ‘ not talking fact’ in general but the fact that when the servant ( Jesus) was led to death he DIDN’T OPPOSE IT , he didn’t plead for his life or beg for freedom or asked for marcy and letting him go, because he knew it had to happen. He said to his disciples that if he wanted His Father in Heaven would sent legions of angels for his defense, but he said the scriptures had to be fulfilled so he had to go to death.
Verse 8: “For he had been removed from the land of the living.”
You say “In the Hebrew Bible, the land of the living is a reference to Israel. Jesus was not removed from Israel.”
Me; It may have his reference to Israel ( but Israel God called people not the land) so how would the people be removed from the people? So it doesn’t make too much sense to have the subject as Israel. Second it is not excluded that ‘being cut off from ‘the land of living’ may be pointing to the state of losing life as it is carelating with other verses that talk about the servant’s death and being in a grave and pouring out his soul to death. That clearly points to LOSS OF LIFE..
V. 8 says(…) “an affliction upon THEM that was my people’s sin.”
You say ” Curiously, the verse changes from singular to plural. Is Jesus a plural figure?”
Me; Both Christian and Jewish translations render ‘lamo’ as singular in certain other instances. It is clear from Isaiah 44:15, Psalm 11:7 and Job 27:23 that ‘lamo’ in Hebrew sometimes denotes the singular case.Both the Syraic and Ethiopic translations of the Jewish Scriptures render ‘lamo’ in Isaiah 53:8 in the singular. And these predate even the Christian era. This is the only place the Stone Edition is using plural in v.8 while everything else about the subject is in singular.
You say Verse 9: The subject is buried with the wicked and executed with the rich.
Me; In Stone edition It says he ( the servant) submitted himself to his grave like wicked man and wealthy to his execussions or ‘ his grave was set among the wicked and with the rich in his death ( Tanakh th e new JPS translation. )
Ok, let say the subject is the Israel. Did the oppressed Jews submitt themselves like the wicked ones? They weren’t dying because of being wicked or they didn’t have to admit they were wicked! Or according to the other Jewish translation; ‘ his grave was set among the wicked. What wicked ones?? Many Jews were buried together with other Jews and their grave had nothing to do with any wicked ones. Another thing; words ” with the rich in his death” I read online all the commentaries use here the fact of Jews being robbed of their wealth, but Isiaiah 53 ;9 doesn’t indicate that it is all about the wealth being taken away from them. Neither they were executed weatlthy. Then it would rather say they were poor in their execussions after being robbed , not wealthy.
v.9 in Stone edition might be confusing to interpret so I will compare it with JPS ( now lets see Jesus as subject)
” Being submitted wealthy to his execussions” doesn’t indicate here that he had to be executed with the rich. ( Tanakh JPS is more clear;; he was with rich in his death) The fact was he died among the wicked, and his body would be damped with the wicked, but eventually he was buried in a rich tomb.
Can we say that Israel was with rich in his death or executed with the rich? This interpretation doesn’t fit even Israel as a subject.
You say” Grave is singular; deaths is plural. Actually execussions is plural in Stone Edition but why not ‘ death’ in JPS which is singular ?. Also why grave is not in plural if it was about many people? Also if subject is addressed in singular ( even if it was representing Israel) , it would still require a singular object that Israel is relating to. That is what JPS did and makes more sense. Anyways – going back to Jesus as subject – it is known that Jesus submitted himself to dying for many people. He experienced death for all of them.
Verse 10: The Lord desired to oppress him and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt etc.”
You ask'” If Jesus was sinless, why would he need to acknowledge guilt?”
Me; Because he was to our SUBSTITUTION for sins. He was to take our sins on himself as if it was him being guilty not us. Asking the same question while puting Israel as subject would raise unexplainable questions; why would innocent remnant (Israel) need to accknowledge guilt??? Knowing that he suffered unjustly as people were inflicting suffereing to them because of them just being Jews. How would you even think the suffering person would have to acknowledge any guilt? Second why would Lord desire to oppress you???? As far as Jesus as subject – God knew he was the only innocent and sinless person to serve as substitution for our death penelty WE ALL deserved. But Israel???
“He would see offspring and live long days.” You conclude”Jesus did not have children and died young.”
Me; Offspring means children of God , all who will come to God and are living for him are becoming God’s children. He will see them as we will be resurrected.
They will indeed live long as they are granted everlasting life. They will be resurrected to it like Jesus.
Now if israel was a subject; the condition is to accknowledge guilt. So how do you explain that? The Jews who were killed had no way to see their offspring ( children) not even because they accknowledged guilt. So let’s say offspring is the new generation but still those who were killed can’t see it. They may see it at the resurrection but there is still a question ; why to acknowledge guilt for that reason????? Was the suffering servant innocent or not???
“For he bore the sin of the multitudes and prayed for the wicked.”
You say” Did Jesus pray for the scribes and Pharisees that he so openly reviled?’
Me; We know he was teaching to pray for those who persecute you, then definitelly if he was teaching it , he was also practicing it. Gospels don’t list us who specifically he was praying for but that he was praying every night and morning’.
There is also meassage to consider’ he bore the sins of the multitudes” Since it is obvious to me that Jesus bore our sins being our substitution for guilt, I can’t imagine Israel here. You still didn’t discuss verses 4-6 .
So far the discussed subject and narration speak more to me for Jesus to be the servant . I let you finish the verses 4-6 from your Jewish perspective.
Hi Eric,
Again, I’ll get to this God willing next week, when I hope to have more time to explain the Jewish perspective. I had first wanted you to explain how the Christian interpretation fits with who the narrator is, so thanks for doing so.
I would also like to express my regret that you do not speak Hebrew. Certain things would be immediately clear to you that would save us a lot of time. For example, you cited verses that did not even contain the word “lamo” in them; I looked them up in Hebrew. The one verse that did, in Isaiah, is definitely plural.
You asked why so many translations use singular when the Stone Edition uses plural: so much of the nuances and shades of meaning get lost in translation. I’m sure you experience this a lot. You want to say something to someone and you have the exact words in Polish, but it isn’t quite right in English. Do you know what I mean?
The word “mosav” מותיו in Hebrew means “his deaths” or “his executions” in plural. The singular form, which is not used in this passage, is “moso מותו.” (I used the modern Hebrew spelling here rather than the Biblical spelling, but it is pronounced the same way and means the same thing.)
Dina, I didn’t check the other verses in Isaiah but I will focus on the fact that examples of plurality used relating to simgular is not an exception in Is 53. I have another hebrew bible that comapares the translation with original text and it lists ‘deaths’ in this verse in plural. I am talking about example in Ezekiel 28: 8-10 where a singular being addressed and threatened to die deaths (plural) especially verse 8 ;
(8) They shall bring THEE down to the pit/grave; and thou shalt die THE DEATHS of the slain, in the heart of the seas…. (10) Thou shalt die the DEATHS of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.’
Regarding the expression
‘He (…) submitted himself to his execussions” the fact that it is not ‘their executions’ would speaks for singular object being refrerred to rather than plural.
I regret I don’t know hebrew but do you agree the most common translation of the Hebrew word lamo is either ‘to them’ or ‘for them’? The Jerusalem Bible, an accepted Jewish translation , renders Isaiah 53:8 as follows ( in plural) :
By oppression and false judgment was he taken away; and of his generation who considered? For he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people for whom the stroke was due.
Even though this translates lamo as plural, the verse is easily applieded to singular.
But anyways I don’t make one final conclusion that plural used in Isaiah 53 decides for the whole chapter ( whether I consider this translation in plural or your Stone edition that makes it look pointing to singular object-Israel). Plural used there that Jewish people make assumption based on it is only a drop in the ocean, as the whole mission described of suffering servant has no explanation how does it get fulfilled by the nation, whereas Jesus indeed did what the words say. You mentioned also the fact that you don’t mix with the nations and are making conclusion based on Is 52 last verses that context excludes you from being the narrator Is 53. Did I get it right? But from the history we know that people of Israel failed in being God’s witnesses and most of Isaiah talks about it so I don’t see a reason how can you exclude Israel from the words” we all like sheep went astray…” Also very important question’ how do you fulfill the words of v 4-6??
Also the character of the servant as innocent and sinless how does it fit with the nation? And the other point ‘ acknowledging guilt but not being among’ those who went astray like sheep..” how does it fit together??? There is more that just focus on plural and context. The whole mission has to have explanation.
but take your time, Eric
Hi Eric,
First I would like to show you how the context supports the Jewish position that the narrator is the nations of the world (excluding the Jewish people) and that the servant is the righteous remnant of Israel.
Then I would like to show you how this fits into the passage itself, as you raised many questions regarding that.
This will take some time.
Thanks as always for your patience,
Dina
Dina, I carry this topic also on another post Isaiah 53, Micah7 so maybe some of your ideas how you would respond to my questions are being answered .
eric
Hi Eric.
For now, I’m going to focus only on context, even if my conclusions don’t seem to fit with Isaiah 53–I’ll get to that after establishing the context.
I read Isaiah chapters 40-55. If you read the chapters surrounding Isaiah 53, you will see that the prophet, addressing the nation of Israel, repeats certain themes, namely that we are punished in exile for our sins, but our enemies overdid it (oppressed us for things we hadn’t done). God will punish our enemies and vindicate us and exalt us. The world will be shocked by our physical and political salvation and through this tremendous event they will come to knowledge of God.
The prophet castigates us for the sin of idolatry and pokes fun at the very idea of turning away from God and worshiping idols.
That is the context.
In these chapters, Isaiah uses the words “my servant” several times. Once, “my servant” refers to Isaiah, repeating God’s words to him. In other words, God addresses Isaiah as His servant (as in chapter 49). More often, though, the servant is explicitly identified as Israel. Not a singular entity, but a corporate entity–this is shown by the frequent swinging back and forth between singular and plural forms, common in biblical Hebrew (this cannot be translated into English, as “you” in English is both singular and plural).
Identification of the servant as Israel: 41:8-9; 43:1,10; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4. In chapter 40 there is one reference that could be messianic, or it could be referring to Cyrus, who in these chapters is referred to as God’s messiah (anointed one).
The context gives us no reason to believe that while along the servant is Israel, the identification suddenly switches to the messiah in chapter 53, and specifically Jesus. In fact, that just makes no sense according to the context. You think it doesn’t make sense to say that according to the specific passage. I hope to clarify in the future why it does make sense.
Since God, through the prophet, is addressing His servant Israel, it becomes clear that at the end of chapter 52 when the nations of the world are mentioned and described as being shocked, Israel is not included.
Thus far, the context. I hope to follow next week with more explanations.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I just responded to that comment on the other post about isaiah 53 Micah 7 . Would you like to continue it on this post on the other? For me it doesn’t matter, I just didn’t notice that your last message was in this one.
eric
Dina, correction, it should be “IS turning away from evil and doing good just -one day change-….
instead of I put ” if turning away….
Dina, You said ” It says nowhere in the Bible that conquering sin means conquering death. It says nowhere in the Bible that the death that Adam brought into the world was anything but natural, physical death.” So what type of death you mean Adam brought?
About the sin; If Adam’s sin brought death, that means sin is responsible for that. I didn’t say we are to conquer sin so that we can conquer death. We are conquering sin when we don’t follow evil desires. But iIs there anybody that can live completely sinless life? Only Jesus was so that God raised him back to life. ( of course I know you don;t believe it) .
As far as Crusaders, where did they take the idea of holy wars and killing unbelievers? Definitely it was not Jesus who told them to do that. I showed you the verse in Matthew 7;22-23 that people can do lots of things in his name and still deceiving themselves as they don’t really follow what Jesus said. He said he didn’t come to destroy people’s souls.
I read the book I will try to share my opinion about it some other day.
Eric, according to a plain reading of the text, Adam was supposed to live forever. Because he sinned, he brought the concept of a lifespan into the world. Adam’s sin caused humans to lose the ability to live forever, to have to work hard for their bread, and so on. Not everyone’s every little sin causes them to die, to have to work hard for their bread, and so on. Why are you picking on the death part of the curse? You could just as well say that Jesus should have died to save woman from the curse of labor pains or to save man from eating by the sweat of his brow.
Just because Adam’s specific sin brought death doesn’t mean any sin brings death. You are forcing a christological meaning where none exists.
As for the Crusaders, see Matthew 10:34.
Isn’t it interesting that the Jews who were commanded to kill, did no more than God commanded, and once that was over, did not persecute or oppress other peoples, whereas Christians who were not commanded to kill, engaged in wholesale persecution not just of Jews but anyone whom they deemed heretics? This irony seems lost on Christians who are quick to point out all the commandments to kill every man, woman, and child in Hebrew scripture and to proudly show how much more peaceful and loving Christian scripture is because there are no commandments to kill.
The definition of Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as his lord and savior. And to say that the Crusaders did not accept Jesus as their lord and savior because it just can’t be–well, that’s just absurd.
Thanks for taking the time to read the book. I suspect you came away with a different impression than I did :).
All the best,
Dina
Dina, Dina, I have no time to focus on all points today but shortly about the sin and death; I agree Adam was to live forever, but just one disobedience brought him death. I wonder – based on what do you think – the same rule wouldn’t apply to any other human being? So I don’t get your saying ” not everyone’s little sin causes them to die…” I wonder what is your concept why we die and that ‘ it doesn’t mean that any sin brings death.” Very interesting but not scriptural at all.
Why all the ordinary good people are not living forever?
If you understand that reason for death is that we ones sinned , you will see why God used a sinless man to get us out of the consequences of sin. Scriptures don’t mention any other reason for our dying.
I don’t know why we are not free from all the curse, that would be great, but we live in a sinful world where many take advantage of others, work gets hard to be found and we have to work hard but actually Jesus brought freedom from that as in the Messianic times we will be free from it. Even now we are not free from death until we are resurrected back to life like Jesus was.
The subject about Crusaders I will leave for later when I have more time to discuss the book, ok?
Eric, listen. The language of the Torah, the First Five Books, is simple and clear. Its teachings are simple and clear. God tells us exactly what He wants from us and leaves no room for doubt.
For example, God tells us exactly Whom we are to worship and what constitutes idolatry. He tells us to rest on the seventh day. He tells us which animals we may eat and which animals we may not eat.
He tells us that Adam’s sin brought death into the world. He tells us we can conquer sin.
You asked how we are supposed to be saved from death. The Torah and the Prophets tell us how.
I am taking the time to type it all out so you can really see what I mean.
Deuteronomy 30:19: I have placed LIFE AND DEATH before you, blessing and curse–CHOOSE LIFE, SO THAT YOU WILL LIVE, you and your offspring. 20…To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice and to cleave to Him, FOR HE IS YOUR LIFE and the length of your days.
Ezekiel 18:21: As for the wicked man, if he repents from all his sins that he committed, and he observes all My decrees and practices justice and righteousness, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE, HE SHALL NOT DIE. 22. All his transgressions that he committed will not be remembered against him; HE SHALL LIVE BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT HE DID. 23. Do I desire the death of the wicked man?–the word of the Lord God. Is it not rather his return from his wicked ways, THAT HE MIGHT LIVE?
Ezekiel 18:27: And if the wicked man turns away from the wickedness that he did and performs justice and righteousness, HE WILL CAUSE HIS SOUL TO LIVE. 28. Because he contemplated and repented from his transgressions that he did HE SHALL SURELY LIVE; HE SHALL NOT DIE.
Ezekiel 18:30-31:…Why should you die, O House of Israel? For I do not desire the death of the one who should die–the word of the Lord God. TURN BACK AND LIVE!
Ezekiel 33:10-11: Thus have you spoken, saying, “SINCE OUR SINS AND OUR INIQUITIES ARE UPON US AND WE ARE WASTING AWAY BECAUSE OF THEM, HOW CAN WE LIVE?” Say to them, “As I live–the word of the Lord God [I swear] THAT I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED ONE, BUT RATHER THE WICKED ONE’S RETURN FROM HIS WAY, THAT HE MAY LIVE. REPENT, REPENT FROM YOUR EVIL WAYS! WHY SHOULD YOU DIE, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?”
Ezekiel 33:15-16: The wicked person returns a pledge, repays for his theft, follows the life-giving decrees…HE WILL SURELY LIVE; HE WILL NOT DIE…he has practiced justice and righteousness, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. 19. If a wicked person turns back from his wickedness and acts with justice and righteousness, HE SHALL LIVE.
So Eric, the Torah tells us how WE can rescue OURSELVES from the death that sin brings; the Torah emphasizes this over and over and over again. But the Torah never teaches us that we need a sinless being to die in order to rescue us from death.Christian scripture introduced this brand-new concept, completely foreign to the Jewish people and to their Torah.
To support this idea, you take verses out of context and interpret them to fit your theology. There is not a single teaching in the Torah that is so clear as the ones I presented above that teach your idea of death and rescue and all of that.
If you can find one passage that states in language as clear and simple as the above passages that we need to be rescued from death because no matter how righteous we are, we will sin, so we need a sinless messiah to suffer and die to save us from death, then you will have a leg to stand on.
Eric,
There is no outrage on my part. I’m sorry that I offended you. I will recant my position so that you do not feel inhibited in our discussion.
First, to your alteration of the question from “saved” to “justified”. If you read over my answer to how I am saved, you will find that nothing changes by changing the word to “justified”. I would not say that the category “justified” is one that fits the human condition according to Torah. Basically, anything I wrote regarding the term “saved” applies to the word “justified”. Righteous people are counted as righteous, unrighteous as unrighteous. Feel free to ask for clarification if need be.
Second, I hold that the Torah is unchangeable, yes. Is there a reason you chose this particular chapter? Would I say “especially chapt 20”? Not “especially” as having a significance less or greater than the rest of the Torah, no.
Again, sorry to have offended you,
Jim
Eric
unteachable is your word. If I thought you were, or hopeless, I think that would make me a hypocrite. I believe you are a serious person looking for the truth. It’s also why I do not think you need atonement, That and other reasons that have been discussed here. I may look stuck on stupid because I cannot give up the need to go to the source for the same understanding you search for your self. The Torah was given to the Jewish people, most people will have to go to them for the deeper understandings, they have been searching for centuries. Imagine the computer industry utter failure without people taking advantage of the previous knowledge already gained. There would be no industry, nothing would connect. It seems only in matters of faith and politics, people keep reinventing the wheel.
LarryB,
You believe we have to go to Jewish people for deeper understanding. Do you doubt a non- Jew is incapable to read the Torah ? I don’t think so. If God’s revelation was only oral – and there was no other source written , then no problem, but I don’t believe it is hard to reach a book in which I can read about how the true God dealt with people , what He promised and based on His word learn who He is and what He is like and what is He expecting from us. I tell you we realize God’s revelation comes from Jews. They were the first ones who received it and they were the first ones to whom their Messiah came with God’s good news. The message about salvation of God comes from the Jews
They were the first ones to go and tell the world about their Messiah. And they did. I know you call them Christians so they don’t count. But for them the words of God are not closing in Zechariah
They recognized the one, whom God promised to send and they rejoiced to see him. But there were those who didn’t and aren’t nowadays either to know him. You have Jews who recognized their Messiah, and they accepted God’s atonement in Yeshua’s blood, and you have those who are still waiting for somebody else to come , those who don’t need atonement. Which ones do you go to?
I prayed to God and he showed me which ones to go to. And I trust their words are true and God confirmed it as the one who was killed and rose back to life is now living forever. I have peace about it in my heart and confirmation of him in God’s word both OT and NT.
You are trying to do good works and keep the law, I tell you those who want to please God , they don’t look for breaking it. God is not far away from anybody who is looking for Him honestly.
Sorry to stick my nose in, Eric and Larry, but Larry is right. The Torah is God’s communication to the Jewish people. The nation of Israel is the target audience. Telling a Jew how to understand the Torah is like me telling you how to understand your wife’s love letters. If you want a proper understanding of the Torah, you need to go to the Jewish people.
Indeed, one day you will be one of ten men who will grab onto the robe of one Jew and beg him to teach you God’s truth (Zechariah 8:23).
Dina, Where are my words about HOW the Jew should understand the Torah?? Why are you people read something that isn’t there?? I am talking about myself to which Jews I went to understand God. And I chose those who tell the world the good news about their Messiah Yeshua. You expect somebody else , it is your choice.
Now wait a minute, Eric. Something does not add up here.
Jews who believe in Jesus learned their understanding of the Torah and their belief in Jesus from Christians and NOT from their Jewish parents. There is no difference in learning Christian beliefs between a Jewish Christian and a gentile Christian. Come on, you know there isn’t.
You did not get your understanding of the Torah from God’s chosen witnesses but from those who abandoned Him and His Torah.
Besides, why did you choose to learn the Torah from Christian Jews who learned the Torah from Christians? How do you know which Jews the prophet is talking about when he says that the gentiles will come to the Jews to learn God’s truth?
Dina, I didn’t say I am learning from Messianic Jews, but the Jews who were eye- witnessing Jesus 2000 years ago and understood the purpose of his death.
How do you understand that the redemption of our soul is TOO COSTLY ? Ps 49;8 If by our ‘being sorry’ God says ‘ your forgiven, never mind’?
Can you explain how you as a nation carries a mission of suffering and healing by their wounds and one of those born among you ( Yeshua) is disqualified to carry it? ( you know I am talking about Is 53)
Hi Eric.
As you must surely know, the original followers of Jesus are long dead. You can’t go to them for the truth because the dead do not speak. So at the end of days, which Jew’s robe will you grab onto and beg to teach you? What is the difference between learning about Jesus from a Jewish Christian or a gentile Christian? (You did not answer this question.) How do you know which Jews the prophet is speaking of–how did you decide? (You also did not answer this one.)
As for Psalm 49, read the whole chapter in context. Read Isaiah 53 in the context of its surrounding chapters as well.
Dina, catching up on the previous emails, You said ” Jews who believe in Jesus learned their understanding of the Torah and their belief in Jesus from Christians and NOT from their Jewish parents. ”
Objection; before the name Christian was introduced , Jews were Jews , both the believing that Jesus is God’s son and those who didn’t . I am talking about Jews eye-witnessing Jesus. These are the ones we are learning from , from their words,, from their witness. Just because their words got put in a book called NT and they got a new title -Christians, we loose the sight we are learning from Jews. Of course there is no difference in learning Christian beliefs between a Jewish Christian and a gentile Christian I was refering to sources of the beliefs- the first Jews who recognised their Messiah.
You call it we got the understanding from those who abandoned Him and His Torah. I didn’t see any of them abandon God . Call is as you want to . It might be Larry who said that. I am kind of responding based on your emails together.
You asked ” How do you know which Jews the prophet is talking about when he says that the gentiles will come to the Jews to learn God’s truth?
It is the Jews living later during Messianic times. The ones God will be with and live among . There is a picture in Zehariah and Isaiah about how the redemption will look like and it tells you who will be left.
Yes, the original followers of Jesus are long dead. I can’t go to them for the truth because the dead do not speak. But I can go to their written account like you go to Moses who is dead too
( even longer than the others) but you read from his account. This is what they say;
“But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you MUST listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’
“Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.” Acts 3;18-26
The was a question ;”At the end of days, which Jew’s robe will you grab onto and beg to teach you?” me; I won;t have to grab anybody’s robe. By the time Messianic times come I might be already dead. So If I am resurected back to life that is an evidence I had to know God in my past and He justified me , if he gave me a new life back. The wicked and unrighteous are not coming back to life in the messianic times.
Th e gentiles that this verse ( about a robe) it is talking about are those who still will be born in the Messianic kindgom. There will be nations amond them new people being born and all of them will be learning who God is.
You said ” As for Psalm 49, read the whole chapter in context. Read Isaiah 53 in the context of its surrounding chapters as well. ” I tell you each time I quote some verse it is not that I haven’t seen the context. Th e context of Is 53 with surrounding chapters I will want to discuss later as it wil be quite long. Ps 49 still says the soul’s redemption is too costly. Jesus is not disqualified for paying for us as he didn’t have to pay for his own sin. He was Son of God, sent by Him.
Eric
I know where your coming from, you have most of your life tied up in your beliefs. That would be a tough habit to break. As to your prayers, millions of people from various religions have had the same experience you had, but got a different answer. How do you explain that? You can’t. But you can take comfort in the fact that if god trusted the Jewish people you can to.
Eric
One more thing, if salvation comes from the jews like you said.
And the “Torah + New Testment = Christianity”. And we all know chirstian salvation is in their messiah not in g-d, and the Jews do not believe in a messiah salvation. then your salvation come from a christian teaching not a jewish teaching. Or put another way
“christian reads torah + does not understand = christian messiah salvation.” OR
“christian reads torah + gets Jewish understanding = salvation from the Jew. Choose.
LaryrB, my patter would be ; christian reads torah + gets Jewish understanding from the Jews eye witnessing their Messiah = salvation from the Jew
These are the ones whose robe will be wanted to be grabbed in Messianic times .
Christianity = knowing God of Israel + sending His Son for our atonement.
Or ;’ salvation from the Jews= God of Israel+ His message of forgiveness, + debt for sin paid off by His Son
Eric
Thats right Christian (who already believes in the messiah and does not understand
torah teaching on the matter) reads torah + gets Jewish understanding from
the Jews eye witness to the messiah “christians” they already believed in)
Your Christian belief in the Messiah is long before you study the Torah. That is your problem. Christians cannot even understand what the messiah is, much less anything else.
Hi Eric.
To the One Who created us we owe at the minimum nothing less than our obedience. The theme of obedience is emphasized many times in Hebrew scripture (Exodus 19:5; Exodus 15:26; Deuteronomy 30:1-10). The bottom line for why we do anything in the Torah is because God says so, and we must obey the One to Whom we owe every breath that we draw.
We obey God out of love and gratitude. We owe Him our obedience even if He did not offer reward or punishment. We owe Him our obedience even if His commandments are meaningless to us. We owe Him our obedience even if it were true that His commandments are a burden.
But God is good and loving, and He gave us commandments that benefit us; He imbued them with great significance; and he promised to reward us for our obedience.
We must always remember that if a commandment is meaningful, it’s because God gave it meaning. We must remember that if we don’t understand, nevertheless we must obey. I do not understand the deep meaning of not wearing wool and linen together. Do you? Does it matter?
The Day of Atonement is one of God’s precious commandments, His gift to us in giving us the opportunity to obey Him. It is the holiest day of the year for Jews. Yet in the yearly cycle, God also gave us the precious gift of Sabbath, an event that occurs every seventh day. We question why Christians focus so much on the once yearly atonement and not on the 52-times yearly Sabbath.
In exiling us from the Land and destroying out Temple, God has taken from us many opportunities for obedience. Some of these opportunities are in the rituals of the Day of Atonement. We pray three times a day, morning, noon, and night, pleading that God restore the Temple because we so deeply yearn to obey more of His commandments.
The way that you have described our attitude shows that you have no clue about Jewish worship.
God did not teach us in the Torah that when the Temple is destroyed, He will send a human to substitute for all these rituals. He did not teach us that a sinless human is needed to atone for our sins. God did not teach us that these rituals are temporary until a permanent human sacrifice will arrive on the scene (see how many times the word “eternal” is used.)
That is why your explanation for the Babylonian exile doesn’t work. They didn’t have a Temple. Jesus wasn’t to be born for many centuries to come. And the best you can come up with is that the rituals were temporary. That doesn’t explain anything.
This is what Scripture tells us about observance during exile: Deuteronomy 30; 1 Kings 8:46-50; Hosea 14:3–I think it might be 14:2 in Christian bibles.
God told us to be obedient and to uphold the law. When He said, “Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law,” He did not say “Cursed is he who stumbles and commits even one sin.” He did not teach us that we are cursed if we sin. He held out the hope of repentance. Does it make sense that God would give us a body of law, tell us that we won’t be able to keep it perfectly, but we had better keep it perfectly or we will be punished? And if this twisted idea makes sense, where do you see support for it in Scripture?
The Passover lamb, by the way, was not a sin offering. The goat that carried away the sins of the people was not killed. Therefore, neither is analogous to Jesus. You want to say it’s symbolic, but then you use a literal interpretation by saying that Jesus’s legs were not broken, just like the Passover lamb could not have broken bones. This mixture of literalism when it suits you and symbolism when it suits you is contradictory and confusing.
The Passover lamb was the Egyptian god. The Israelites slaughtered it and ate in their faces. Then the Christians went ahead and made it sacred again. Go figure.
Dina, Sorry I haven’t answered other of your emails yet, I will still go back to microvawe;-) it is not because I didn’t want to, just not enough time.
I have no obection to the words ; “To the One Who created us we owe at the minimum nothing less than our obedience.”
I agree, from our side is obedience He takes care of the rest. He took care of paying off our debt ( caused by sin) His forgiveness doesn’t cost us.
To me obedience to Him means also obeying His Son He sent. No difference if I lived in Moses times, I would have to obey Moses, I live now and the ‘leader’ God sent is Jesus for me.
There is that false picture circulating around coming from the way the leadership of Jesus is described, like ” trust in a man ” ” believeing in a man” . People from outside , I mean non- Christians read it completly different than what it is. For me and other Christians it is not trust in a man, and putting God aside, or believingin a man, and not believing in God but it is believing in God- main source , creator AND that He sent His Son to lead us. So when Jesus says, trust me, it is not to transfer us from trusting God into him for a sake of itself.. God gave him all authority to lead us to Himself. Jesus words were; ‘ Believe in God and believe in me.” not ” forgrt God , and just listen to me” . Like Moses lead his people and they had to listen in everything he said , or else you die on a desert. And it is true , Jesus for us is more than Moses, because Jesus is Son of God.
( I will skip now that issue about non- credebility Jesus) via Moses) I wanted to mainlty point to the fact that Christians don’t see more requirements from God than obedience. Also the same principle is in Christians beliefs that God wants our obeying Him out of love and gratitude. He doesn’t want ‘fake’ relationship in which our heart is far away . I guess we agree on that..
We believe He offers reward or punishment, but the punishment is not for His children but those who rejected God. I don’t know why you think we portray God as a cruel , I will go back to that later.
I wouldn’;t say His commandments are meaningless to us and they were never to be a burden. They are to our benefit.
Love your God and treat others like youself is what He wants from us, not just ‘ believe in me and do whatever”.
I do not understand the deep meaning of not wearing wool and linen together either beside the benefit that if you use them together making a piece of clothing, you save your clothes from deforming, as one shrinks more , than th e other.
You said ;”We question why Christians focus so much on the once yearly atonement and not on the 52-times yearly Sabbath. ”
We have our Sundays as your Sabbaths, with church service , fellowshiping and resting but atonement is a reminder of God’s ‘done away with our sin’ forever. The resting day DOESN’T EXCLUDE remembering atonement as almost in every church service the message would contain reminder of God’s grace and His salvation and Jesus atoning death. So it is not focus on one thing more than the other.
You said ” God did not teach us (…) He will send a human to substitute for all these rituals. He did not teach us that a sinless human is needed to atone for our sins.”
He didn’t say the sinless human was needed, ( I can already imagine if God said that , people would be sacrificing each other. I am sure God knew what He was doing) But long ago in Levit 17;11 He said that atonement is in th e blood. And if His comandments are eternal I believe that applies too. Like in the past a slaughtered bull couldn’t make a sinner righteous, except by repentance and blood offering was symbolic , than it is logical that it has to be some literal fulfilment of atonement in the blood. SYMBOLS DON’T WORK BY THEMSELVES( have no meaning on it’s own) IF THEY HAVE NO RELATION TO ANY ACTUAL FACT Don’t you think so??? If they will arrive on a scene ( sacrifices ) – than no different purpose than they were before with their symbolic meaning. ( offering something that is precious to you)
You mentioned ” during the Babylonian exile people didn’t have a Temple. Jesus wasn’t to be born for many centuries to come. ” It doesb’t matter that they couldn’t practice the symbolic rituals or Jesus wasn’t given yet. People can still repent to turn back to God no matter what situation they are in. Our Father takes care. for the rest. Let’s treplace for a monent the word for atonement for ‘ paying off a debt ‘ Debt is our sin. We lived in a a debt ( sin), but the payment was in God’s hands that one day He would pay us off. And He did. He only wants our trust now. Both from those who didn’t know and those that are living now He wanted our trust. One day finally the time came , when it was revealed that our Father paid us off. Forgiveness is one thing, and paying off the debt ( consequences of sin) is the other thing.) Our responsibility is repentance , He takes care to th e payment.
Base on that do you think God is cruel because there is a ‘pay off for our sins’???
We don’t have to be cursed by breaking the law. Jesus took all that curse for us. Killed as an criminal for not comitting any crime .
Of course there is no such words ” we had better keep it perfectly or we will be punished.” But it was said to Adam , that he will have to die because he disobeyed. Why wasn’t he just forgiven and could live forever? Death – that is the main thing we had to be bought out of.
We believe God bought us out from the everlasting death. That is not a picture of God’s cruelty!
Death penalty was from the beginning, from Adam’s time. I am not talking about any other punishment of God .
Now back to your words; ” The Passover lamb, by the way, was not a sin offering.” Yes I agree. There is an another message in it. The reason Jesus is compared to Passover lamb is to show ; that EITHER the passover lamb was to be killed OR the people would die. The fact that all Jewish houses had to be marked with that blood showed that there wasn’t an exception. No killing the lamb, no blood mark , the death angel wouldn”t pass over even Jewish house.
So Jesus is compared to passover lamb to show importance of his life offered. Either he is killed or there is no redemption. We might say; that is weird, why would God need his blood. Th e same – I am sure – many wondered in the past – Why to kill the lamb?? Why do we need that blood mark?? God want us our of Egypt, He will lead us out , I don’t care about that blood. God is not cruel. But then the death angel would struck your house and there would be no leaving Egypt. No redemption. As much as now Jesus death might have no logic to many , killing the lamb and blood mark on a house might have no logic either , but people obeyed.
That’;s funny you want to make sound the Passover lamb so poganic, because it was the Egyptian god. Nodoby is worshiping an animal , neither in a statue lamb or live one. Christians don’t make a golden lamb, neither golden cow . That’s what egyptions did actually with every animal. Even a cat was holy .
If you understand why Jesus is compared to the passover lamb, you will see ‘his blood ‘ as a ‘safty mark’ ordered by God , like for the Jews the lamb’s blood before their exile.
Once again, Jesus is called a passover lamb to show us that his death had to take place before peoples’ redemption.
You said ” The goat that carried away the sins of the people was not killed.” Not every sacrificed animal or that goat are to portray Jesus. There are other things symbolised too. Goat on which sins were places shows you HOW GOD DEALS with our sin. Using our informal language is; ” Kicked off’ and never seen again. But before that they are placed on another animal that is killed.
Everything is symbolic (all applications ) but they refer to literal PURPOSE in the rituals. They have a purpose that refers to literal achived goal.
It might be Monday before I get back to other emails.
Eric
Hi, Eric.
Thanks again for taking the time to write lengthy and thoughtful replies. I’ve been away and so it will take me some time to catch up.
Thanks as always for your patience,
Dina
Hi Eric,
There is a lot to respond to in this comment, so I’ll respond in a general way.
We both agree that we owe total obedience to God, but you define obedience as listening to Jesus. What is obedience? The Torah tells us clearly what it is: “If you hearken to MY COMMANDMENTS that I command you today” (Deuteronomy 11:13). See also Deuteronomy 28:1 and Exodus 15:26.
Moses transmitted God’s laws to the people of Israel. They believed him because our whole nation–every man, woman, and child of us–heard God speak to him out of the cloud (Exodus 19:9). And they told their children, who told their children, in every generation, until my parents told me–and I believe my parents.
So strong is the claim of national revelation that not a single other religion has ever made such a claim. The Torah even predicts that our claim will remain unique. In addressing the last generation in Deuteronomy 4:29-36, Moses tells them to look back through history and see if such a thing has ever happened. Verse 35 states that we have been shown all this in order to know Whom to worship.
You will likely point to Deuteronomy 18:15 to show that we must listen to God’s prophet as well. Putting aside the fact that Jesus failed the true prophet test, what does it mean to listen to the prophet?
Suppose Dad tells Billy, “Tell Joey to mow the lawn.” Billy goes to Joey and says, “Joey, DAD SAID you have to mow the lawn.” Joey knows he had better listen to Billy or else he will be in trouble with Dad. Joey listens to Billy, but really, he is listening to Dad.
If Billy had said, “Joey, mow the lawn,” Joey would probably say, “Says who? Mow it yourself!”
The prophet functions as God’s mouthpiece; that is why we must obey him. And that is why all through Scripture we find phrases like “God spoke to Moses saying,” “Moses spoke to the people all the words of the Lord,” and in the later prophets “God appeared to me,” or “thus said the Lord,” or “the word of God.” The prophet never spoke on his own authority.
Yet in Christian scripture we do not hear God speaking to Jesus or Jesus quoting God. Instead of Jesus saying something like “God told me to tell the children of Israel” or “The word of the Lord came to me, saying” he says things like “You have heard it said of old…BUT I SAY TO YOU” or “truly I say to you” and then of course the phrases I cited in a different comment, telling people to do things for his own sake or to believe in him. None of the prophets had to demand our belief because we accepted the Torah in the context of Deuteronomy 4.
How can you say that Jesus is greater than Moses, when the Torah tells us that no prophet will be as great as Moses (Deuteronomy 34:10)? Why does it not trouble you that Jesus failed to fulfill the sign he gave to the Pharisees? As much as we have discussed this, you still have not solved this theological problem.
Why do you say that punishment is for rejection of God when the Torah clearly tells us that punishment is for disobedience (obviously straying after other idols falls into this category–Deuteronomy 11:28)?
You say that Jesus points us to God, but it should be clear that the fact that Jews worship God without his help obviates the need for such an intermediary.
You said that had you lived in Moses’s time, you would have listened to him, but now you listen to Jesus. That is a false comparison. A more accurate but no less dubious comparison would be to say that had you lived in Moses’s time, you would have listened to Moses; had you live in Jesus’s time, you would have listened to Jesus; and now that you live in this time, you listen to [the leader that is alive in your time.]
In other words, since you live in the time of neither one, you are choosing which one to listen to. And you cannot of course listen to both.
Sorry to be so long and rambling, but I still have so much more to say.
About the curse of the law, the debt of sin, the burden of the law: these concepts are nowhere to be found in Hebrew Scripture. You cited this verse: “Accursed is the one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them” (Deuteronomy 27:26). I’m not sure what you were trying to prove, but if it’s that one who sins even once is cursed, that’s misreading this verse. This verse tells us to uphold the words of the Torah. It does not say we must perform them perfectly or we are cursed.
That’s the first thing. The second thing is, I can’t find anywhere in Hebrew Scripture the concept that God has to pay off our debt of sin or else we will not have eternal life. God says He will erase all our sins if we repent (Isaiah 1:18). As I have argued here and elsewhere, our spiritual destiny is entirely in our own hands and does not require the substitutionary death of a sinless human being. That we have to be bought out of death, to use your words–where is that concept in Hebrew scripture?
Paul found our laws to be a curse and a burden (2 Corinthians 3:7). This notion directly contradicts Psalms 119. I suggest you read it. The longest chapter in the Bible, it is a love song about God’s commandments.
You misunderstood my comments about the lamb being sacred to the Egyptians, as well as what I wrote about mixing symbolism and literalism. I’ll have to get to that another time.
Be well,
Dina
Dina,I am aware of your strong claim of national revelation about God speaking to Moses, nevertheless I still have reason to trust Jesus as God’s sent one although there was no such a revelation like with Moses.
You answered it for yourself what does it mean to listen to a prophet on that example about ;Suppose Dad tells Billy, “Tell Joey to mow the lawn.” (…) If I am sure that the words Jesus spoke are from God so then I listen. They are the words what God would say. If somebody was speaking out of his own idea apart from God, never promised by God to come , his words would be nothing. You said ‘ since I live in the time of neither one’, I am choosing which one to listen to” We are not being led out of Egypt but into everlasting life. Jesus comes after Moses. God has new things to say through him. Nevertheless Jesus didn’t ‘push’ Moses aside while being now ‘on the scene.’ He said if you listened to Moses you would listen to me. He wrote about me. John 5;46
I know that Jesus spoke differently than Moses. There were no words like “thus said the Lord or ‘God spoke to Jesus saying”. Although he uses words; ‘truly I say to you’ they don’t mean he is speaking something out of his idea apart from God. All his words were God’s commandments. Jesus gave revelation about himself to his Father speaking to our hearts ( John 6;44-45). We might be arguing again how many heard the vioce from heaven. People at Jesus time weren’t gathered in one place ( like at Moses time) but spread out living in different cities.
You said ” None of the prophets had to demand our belief because we accepted the Torah in the context of Deuteronomy 4. ” I would say it is not about our belief but trust . People believed Moses was sent by God but they still struggled with trusting both Moses and God. Despite all the miracles, they were back to pagan worship while Moses was away with God. So what Jesus demanded from us is the same trust not just knowledge of his existence..
You are asking ‘How can I say that Jesus is greater than Moses, when the Torah tells us that no prophet will be as great as Moses (Deuteronomy 34:10)?
You say ‘ no prophet will be?’ I don’t see there future tense ‘will be’ .but Present perfect tense spoken in the past , so that would be from the past till the time these words were written. Maybe I am confused by English Present Perfect. We would use only Simple Past, Presence ot Future. It says’ never again it has there risen a prophet like Moses…” Does it cover a time period till now 2014? or 30 AD when these words were spoken before these dates? God doesn’t speak any more through any prophet? I believe He spoke through His Son.
Hebrew 3 explains more about Jesus greatness over Moses.
“Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,”bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house”.
or Hebrew 1 “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”
You are asking ;” Why do I say that punishment is for rejection of God when the Torah clearly tells us that punishment is for disobedience ?
First question, what type of punishment we are talking about? There are two kinds in the Bible. Losing the blessings or life , second final one; everlasting death for those who never cared to repent.
Second; what do we mean by rejecting God? I meant rejecting God throughout all your life without repenting. Also what about those nations who will come against Israel in the last days and God will punish them ? Zeh 14;12 Are these the people who know God and are just disobeying? To my observation they are those who don’t care about God and His people ,they choose to act evil opposing God’s will so they also reject God. Disobedience would be relating to people who know God . It is in relation to somebody who is your authority.
What about an atheist. Somebody who deliberately chooses not to care about God and His word. Do you think God would say never mind? He will want to compromise somebody’s deliberate lack of trust, lack of will to listen to Him? I call it rejection not disobedience.
You said Jews worship God without Jesus’ help obviates the need for such an intermediary.
Of course you can worship God without anybodys help.
We would have to discuss here what I mean by untermediatry. When people asked Jesus teach us to pray he said an example of prayer starting; Heavenly Father. You can pray to Heavenly Father without anybodys’ help. Here is pretty good explanation what we understand by him being our mediator; http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-mediator.html
As far as the debt of sin, I used that word to refer to the consequences of sin which brought death that we find in Gen 2;17, Gen 3;3. Instead of ‘debt’ we can use the word’ consequences’, ‘penalty’.
About that verse ‘accursed is …” (…) ‘ You said ‘This verse tells us to uphold the words of the Torah. It does not say we must perform them perfectly or we are cursed.” What it is ment by accursed I would refer to our death that by just one sinful action of Adam death came into the world. So even one sin brings death, but it doesn’t mean we are called accursed. Sometimes my words don’t communicate exactly what I want to say.
The second thing you said is, you can’t find anywhere in Hebrew Scripture the concept that God has to pay off our debt of sin or else we will not have eternal life. Many people didn’t know that until the fact happened. God was saying He would erase all our sins if we repent (Isaiah 1:18) but He wasn’t saying HOW He would erase them except we read in Is 53 about that his servant would suffer and carry our sin and justify us. Also He was showing us on the Atonement Day that our sins are carried away by other life/being and also one’s life is sacrificed . Untill Jesus came and said that his blood will be poured out for many for our salvation, then he died and rose again, I can see God had to give His Son for our salvation. Like He said before ,in Levit 17 our atonement is in the blood. We are atoned forever by His Son’s blood. It is atoning for everybody who ever lived.
That is what I call being’ bought out of eternal death’. I am atoned for and have a promise of eternal life after knowing that according to Gen 2;17 I was to die . I don’t see that God was talking to Adam about temporaty death and then going back to life. Gen 3;22-24 clearly shows that.
Why does it not trouble me that Jesus failed to fulfill the sign he gave to the Pharisees? You said I haven’t solved that problem? I don’t have a problem with that because I understand that Jesus didn’t promise to show up to them after the resurection before their faces. He didn’t say he would go to them and show up. They already had many sign in order to believe before their eyes..
He had performed already many miracles , healings in particular, and th eleaders had surely heard the reports and even witnessed some themselves . Definitelly they witnessed Lazarus resurrection and then it is said; they wanted to even kill Lazarus. So were these signs not sufficient?
Jesus had just performed a great sign in the Pharisees’ presence by healing a deaf man who was possessed of a demon. Rather than believe, they accused Jesus of doing this by the power of Satan. Jesus recognized their hardness of heart and refused to give them further proof of His identity. However, He did say that there would be one further sign forthcoming, His resurrection from the dead. This would be their final opportunity to be convinced. But he didn’t promise to come back to them to show up. He was around people for 40 days after his resurrection. I am sure they had opportunity to see him but if the other signs weren’t sufficient , that one might not be either. Matthew 27;68 says that they were aware of his words about being risen from the dead in three days. Does it look like like they were believing his words and looking forward to that? Instead of they asked to put guards before the grave so his body would not be stolen and then claimed he rose again. That showed they didn’t trust his words at all.
I may finish the other points on Monday. I will be too busy this weekend with the family celebration.
Hi Eric,
There is a lot here. Although I have a lot to say on each point, for now, I want to focus on two things.
You wrote: “The second thing you said is, you can’t find anywhere in Hebrew Scripture the concept that God has to pay off our debt of sin or else we will not have eternal life. Many people didn’t know that until the fact happened.”
The key sentence is this: “Many people didn’t know that until the fact happened.”
This is tremendously clarifying, because it proves that first you have to accept Christian doctrine as true, and only then can you find support for it in Hebrew Scripture. That’s because if you know nothing about Christian beliefs, you will not learn them simply by reading Hebrew Scripture. Thus, the Christian who finds support for his beliefs in Tanach is using circular reasoning.
The fact is, Tanach contains a complete picture of Jewish worship and of what God demands of us. Nothing is allowed to be changed. So if anyone comes along, be he Jesus or Mohammed or Joseph Smith, and he wants to change something, we Jews will not give him the time of day.
Wow, Eric, this whole discussion was worth just to hear you say “Many people didn’t know that until the fact happened.” I mean this respectfully. It’s important to understand what kind of evidence we require before we reconsider changing our beliefs, so I think this explains a lot in the difference between us.
The second point I want to address is the sign Jesus gave the Pharisees. I do not believe this story ever happened, but since you do accept it as true, it’s a theological problem for you. You gave me reasons why Jesus should not have had to appear before the Pharisees in fulfillment of his sign. But that is not what your scripture says. Your scripture says the Pharisees asked him for a sign. Jesus was annoyed that they asked for one, after all he had done. But he gives them a sign anyway. Then he doesn’t fulfill it. Now you might feel that the Pharisees should not have needed the sign, should not have asked for it, did not deserve it, etc., but all that is beside the point. Jesus did not keep his word to the Pharisees.
If this story is true, then Jesus fails the true prophet test. If a prophet gives a sign and doesn’t fulfill it–and it doesn’t matter if the people he talks to don’t deserve to see the sign–then he is not a true prophet.
Dina,just a quick note ,
As far as “If a prophet gives a sign and doesn’t fulfill it” – I see that your interpretation of ‘not fulfilling the sign is just the fact of not showing it to the pharisees. Yet, Jesus indeed fulfilled what he said; he was dead for three days and resurrected back to life like Jonah. Both- foretold death and resurrection took place as he said. He didn’t die and stay in the grave forever but as Jonah was risen to life the third day by God so was he.
I should have explained that based on all gospels what is the whole picture about the sign ; Luke 11;30
“For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.”
Who was Jonah and how was he a sign?
A Prophet sent by God with the message to repent. The Ninevites didn’t even witness his three days being dead to believe his story that it was God who brought him back to life. The message was to repent or witnessing God’s judgement.
Pharisees already got their sign too– a call to repent like everybody else. Should we believe they never hear it? Ah, the excuse ; Jesus didn’t come in person to them after his death.
Again, the sign was not about the promise to Pharisees, that Jesus would show up to them after the resurrection before their faces.
Another thing you disqualify Jesus based on not fulfilling the sign according how you expected it to happen, but also according to Deut 18;20 a false prophet shall die, and it is a very doubtful to me that God would have interest to grant him life back.
I might not have time to respond to all your points at once , I will go back whenever I have more time.
Dina,Regarding my words “many people didn’t know that until the fact happened.” I should have said it all became clear to them. You made too generalising conclusion based on that words by saying first you have to accept a Christian doctrine.
My question is did God keep a secret about things that were to come? Did even Jesus say people had no way to know anything until he came and explained it to them? No. Myy words are not really correct stating there was no way for them to think anything until Jesus came.
He answered to those who were grieving ( on the road to Emaus) because of him being killed ; (…) He came to them after his resurrection saying; Luke 24; 25, 44-48 .
” so unwilling to put trust in everything the prophets spoke. Didn’t the Messiah have to die like this before entering his glory? Then starting with Moshe and all the prophets , he explained to them the things that can be found throughout the Tanakh concerning himself.” He explained it all to them because it was a secret before ? No, rather because they didn’t believe these things had to happen.
While back to life he told them that everything written about him in the Torah of Moses, the prophets and the psalms had to be fulfilled. (…) there is what it says; the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on a third day and in his name repentance leading to forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to people from all nations starting with Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.”
So ” what they didn’t know until it happened?’ It wasn’t clear to them why he had to die although Is 53 tells you why he had to die. There were the words that God’s servant would justify many by carrying their iniquities. That became clear to them. But it is not because these things were a secret, but their focus was on redemption of israel and the glory to come overlooking the purposes of suffering and the need for justification . Also was the fact new to them that there is repentance leading to forgiveness of sins to be proclaimed? Did Jesus introduce some new truth??? If there is repentance there will be eternal life.
What did I mean by these words; ‘ God has to pay off our debt of sin or else we will not have eternal life. I am not saying that paid off sin brings you life in itself because someone paid for it. We are justified by trusting God to have have eternal life
I am clarifying God’s justice ; WHY a trusting person earns eternal life which is a free gift of God. , that it is through the act redeeming us from our enslavement to sin that was accomplished by the Messiah Yoshua. God put Yoshua forward as the ‘kapparah ‘ for sin through his faithfulness in respect to his bloody sacrificial death. This vindicated God’s righteousness, because in his forbearance , he had passed over the sins people had committed in the past , and it vindicated his righteousness in the present age by showing that He is righteous Himself and is also the One who makes people righteous on the ground of Yoshua’s faithfulness.
God’s justice is that the sin is punished , been done with like He said in Is 53 how it wil happen . But of course I know you see it as your sufferings to justify all the world.
Apart from learing that God had a way to deal with our offeneses , is there something changed relating to how we are to worship God and what He expacts from us?? No- it has always been by trusting Him! It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
Since it is all about faith that justifies and there is common saying that Christians abondoned the law, and ‘switched’ to trusting in Jesus and the Jews are those who are doing the right thing by keeping the law I will ask;
“Were the Israelities on the wilderness condemned for “failing to follow every point of the Law?”
No, It was due to lack of faith. Was anybody ever considered righteous by keeping the law? David and other great hero? , the whole Hebrew 11 gives us the list of all saved by faith regardless their failure.
In Deuteronomy 4:39-40 -before telling His people to keep the commandments, God tells them to first have faith and tells you the purpose of the law as a guide for your life:
“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. ”
It is often taught that when Paul spoke of the Torah serving as a guardian before Yeshua, he was saying that it held the Jews, under the Law of Moses, in bondage until Yeshua came and died and now that role of the Torah is permanently done away with. This is a biased misreading of the text It has always been as a guide , and it’s purpose was also to show what the sin is but not a justification tool to make others righteous. Then it becomes a ‘curse ‘; or a ‘burden’ what Paul mentioned if you are trying to ‘work out’ your way to eternity by it, because if you failed in one, that one sin will bring you death. Adam’s example. This is what he considered a burden; watching for not failing.
Lets compare it to a story as if we were to cross from one side of a river by stepping on a certain stones, while some stones around are misleading and will make your feet slide down to water. God ‘s law ( a guide) to cross that river is to step on certain stones he appoints. You go by yourslf without trusting God , ( putting aside His guide and help ) you pick any stone you see ( because it looks good) and go and miss the step , you end up in water by missing that one step. You walk with God with faith putting his guide into your life , He will guide you , you might miss a step but you trust Him, He wil grab your hand to support you so you don’t fall.
The law itself is not a curse but a holy guide. You keep it as it is your delight. Nothing new what Christian ‘doctrine’ brought. You pointed me to a psalm 119.
God’s law actually helps you to understand why God ‘s righteousness had to be vindicated. If Adam’s sin brought death, our failer to keep his word would results in our death too. But we can be called righteous by trusting God and walking in his ways like Abraham, David and others before us. Evidence we needed justification but not the one compromising God’s justice.
My questions for later ; Could God just forget Adam’s offense and tell him that he would NOT have to die? Adam would say I am sorry God it was my first mistake… He should have been forgiven which means no consequences…
I am curious also how do you understand Gen 3;15?
sorry it was so long.
Eric, this is a long comment (thanks for taking the time), so I will respond only to a few points.
The prophecies of the Torah are very clear. God tells Abraham he will have a son named Isaac, and presto! He has a son named Isaac. God tells the nation of Israel that if they sin they will be exiled from the Land and suffer in exile–and what do you know. That’s exactly what happens.
A prophecy, by biblical standards, isn’t a prophecy if it has to come true in order for you to understand it. Otherwise, what’s the point?
So the fact is, that you can find support for ANYTHING you want to in Hebrew scripture using this circular reasoning, that first it had to happen in order to be clear. I recommend to you Jim’s article on Horace’s Tree. It’s an analogy to what Christians have done to prove their case from our Scripture. You can find it here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/horaces-tree-by-jim/
Also, we never argued that faith is not necessary. Of course faith is necessary. We take that as a given. We argue that the laws are necessary too. Why would God command them if they were not important? Christians like to pretend that Judaism is a cold, legalistic religion devoid of faithfulness and love and spirituality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Having said that, Abraham was not chosen only for his faithfulness (a better translation than faith) but BOTH for his faithfulness and for following God’s commandments. See Genesis 18:19 and Genesis 26:5.
So I agree with your analogy about the stones. Why then do Christians believe that the laws don’t apply once Jesus came along?
I simply do not understand your extreme focus on Adam’s sin that brought death. Hebrew scripture does not focus on this. We learn that Adam’s sin brought death into the world; we do not see in HS any sign that if we do not keep the laws perfectly we are cursed. Where do you see this?
Genesis 3:15: God curses the snake for tempting Eve. The curse is that there will be enmity between humans and snakes. Humans will try to kill snakes by crushing their heads, whereas snakes will try to kill humans by striking their heels.
What is your point about Genesis 3:15?
Dina, just a quick question. How can a snake as a regular animal ( that rather usually doesn’t talk…) tempt a person? There are tons of other species really ‘vicious’ that after you step on them they can bite you, like scorpions. Do you really think that a book of Genesis would have a reason to carry on the message ” beware of snakes’ and not include other species? ok, It is just my summary, but honestly would God have a reason to talk about vicious snakes there.. after Eve sinned??? Besides people usually don’t step on snakes but avoid them.
I will try to go back to other points of your email some time this week hopefully.
eric
Eric,
Do donkeys talk? Is the story about Balaam and the donkey to teach us that if we beat our donkeys they will start talking?
Eric, this is the BIBLE we’re talking about. You know, the book that has talking animals, angels, dead people coming back to life, that sort of thing.
So what’s your point about Genesis 3:15? To me, the plain meaning is, God punished everyone involved in the sin.
While we’re on the subject of snakes, I’d like to ask you if you see Numbers 21 (the story about the copper snake) as a Messianic prophecy. No need to explain, you can just answer yes or no, if you’d like.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, you said” A prophecy, by biblical standards, isn’t a prophecy if it has to come true in order for you to understand it. Otherwise, what’s the point?”
Ok, an example from Daniel;
The point is some prophecies haven’t come true yet like Daniel 9;24-27 and many kingdoms are not fulfilling the words in chapt 11 yet as not all the kingdoms described there have come to power yet . So can you tell all details can be clearly understood there? I am sure they will be more clear after it all happens. Apart from the presented varieties of interpretations, commentaries that differ so much , it can rather be considered speculations . That is just an example regarding your words that ‘a prophecy isn’t a prophecy if it has to come true in order to be understood. We can understand the ‘outline’ but timing, time -space between the events , many details are not necessary so clear regarding many events in the future.
You said ” So the fact is, that you can find support for ANYTHING you want to in Hebrew scripture…” What you mean by anything? The ‘ key’ is the ‘suffering servant’ . I think no answer will be clarifying to you as long as you see Is 53 relating to th e suffereings of your nation. Here is the link with some comments how the other rabbies understood Is 53 pretty different than yours ,
http://www.gotquestions.org/suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html
And also from my own observation while I was reading th e commentaries in Tanah Stone edition and tried to look with your eyes, but the commented verses are contradicting each other ; First it says it all reffers to the righteous remnant . So how righteous is’ the righteous’ to stick with the words in v9 ‘ to be with no deceit in his mouts and commiting no crime’ and then how that righteous one is fulfiling the words in v.10 which the comments puts as following; that the necessecity of punishment / sufferings it was rather a discipline of refinement to cleans them from their sins. That would make sense if Is 53 was talking about all Israel , but then we come to the issue of being called righteous ‘ in v.9 . Also back to th e righteous remnant; v. 4
( comment) sugests to the nations not to believe that it was God who caused Israel to suffer , but the nations who were mean ( their sin) but v. 10 ( explanations) says it was a God’s discipline. Also v.6 ” Hashem inflicted upon him iniguity of us all’ – it says it is God who allowed that suffereing.
Twisty as possible. Then v. 5 explains that God’s discipline ( brought suffering ) was to our benefit ( the nations’) who were th e reason God brought sufferiung upon his people. v.4 . So it benefited the oppressors. Clear conclusion is we ( the nations) were mean and coused you to suffer , God used this to discipline th e righteous remnant… and it still cames out to the benefit of the nations that they are healed by your wounds. How??? To my understanding everybody is responsible for himself , if you don’t repent and turn away from your sin, you are not forgiven by God , so no healing either because the nation suffered. If someone is not willing to turn from his wicked ways – nobody’s suffereing would benefit him, nobody’s wound’s would heal him
Also God doesn’t need to cause th e nation to suffer for th e sake of suffering to exalt it later Also ‘carrying the nations’ sin” doesn’t fit here at all.
I don’t deny laws are not important. They are our guide throug life ( like that stone picture I gave before) They tell you what’s wrong , what is right. Even John 14;21 tells you we are to keep God’s words . And Jesus said that all commandments are included in two main points ; loving God and treating others as yourself. Then th e law is in your heart; you want to listen to God , you want to avaid things He is not pleased with. The main thing is nobody is justified by fulfilling the law and it has never been. (I think I have already written about it before)
Why I was bringing up all the time example of Adam was to point to the fact that if Adam’s one failure brought death , our failure does that too. I was bringing it up to show why we are not justified by the law because by the law we are guilty and die. It is by God’s grace we are forgiven if we trust Him / have faith in the words He says to us . Whatever words God told Abraham , he trusted and obeyed. Moses ‘ law wasn’t even given yet. But there were words believing his descendants would be like number of th e stars although Abraham might have enough reason not to believe that before he had his first child, then willing to give his only Issac to God , etc. He had a communication with God and he was responding . If Abraham didn’t listen to God and ignored His voice but and only relied on himself , on his own righteousness doing good deeds that would not save him because his one failure like Adams would bring him death. Without trusting God his good deeds would not save him. That is what I mean by saying ‘ we are not justified by law if faith and trust is missing.
So answering your words “we do not see in HS any sign that if we do not keep the laws perfectly we are cursed.” it only relates to life without faith and trusting God. Relying on selfrighteousness. There are plenty exaples of people who failed but they trusted God all their lives , ( like David who knew what God was saying and he trusted His words ) so he knew in his heart God would raise him back by His grace.
You said Hebrew scripture does not focus on Adam’s sin that it brought death. It doesn’t have to focus we all see the results of sin it in our lives – and that we are not immortal because of it. So HS focuses rather on our way out ( so we don’t perish in our death) by learing to trust God. Having faith is not just considering that God exists and doing good deeds. ( many think so) . He speaks to our hearts through His word . For me God’s word continues through NT . You didn’t answer that question; would God leave his people without a prophet after 1400 years since Moses? You were concerned how would He leave them without a prophet for 1400 years, but what about after that?
Ok, now to that snake story… in Gen 3;15 I am sure you can guess that I won’t see your interpretation like you do .
Definitelly I don’t see it to be about ” Humans will try to kill snakes by crushing their heads, whereas snakes will try to kill humans by striking their heels.”
To me the whole story relates to a promise of a future redeemer. But I will focus on explaining why I don’t see your’ beware of snakes’ interpretation. First of all humants don’t really try to kill snakes if they don’t have to , there are many snakes living freely in the wild. Second , very rarely a person gets bitten on the heel trying to keel a snake. They can be killed with tools , and if you accidentally get bitten that usually are legs or hands.
But the main thing is that reading Gen 3 you have conversation of Eve with- I will call it – ‘adversary ‘ a voice through a snake that is denying truthfulness of God’s words. I definitively don’t believe it is a conversation with an animal ( they are not given a reasoning to carry on conversation with people about what God said, or what he wouldn’t do, especially they can’t be tempting a person). Animals can learn a pattern of certain behaviour that is shown to them but not ability to discern things without seeing them before. How does a snake know about dying who never experienced death, how can an animal know about that Adams; and Eve’s eyes would be open to know good and evil ( if opening the eyes if a figurative language) . That resoning is beyond of animal resoning. They can’t use figurative language.
Also the ‘punishment ‘ for that snake is pounding his head- which would be crushing his head then a snake is completely harmless, second the one who is going to crush his head , is going to be wounded, not dead , not defeated completely.
So why do I see it is about a redemer and defeat of adversary ( also called satan, accuser of God’s people Zah 3, a spirit that is against God )
The final outcome is that the seed of the woman shall be triumphant where as the seed of the serpent shall go down in utter defeat. The scriptures are promising the final end to all ‘evi’l
( no death, no temping, no satan ) Is 25;7-12, Ezek 28, Rev 12;9-10 and triumph of Messiah in His kingdom ruling forever.
Also the word “seed” is always in reference to and in connection with the male and never with the female. The seed for procreation is always resident in the male. The explanation is that the redeemer was not to be born as the result of the union of a man and a woman. He was to be conceived of the Holy Ghost in order to become our Redeemer.
You mentined a donkey speaking , it was the Lord who opened the mouth of the donkey, to say words God would want to say to Balaam against the beating to get Balaams attention . God could give a snake abilities to talk but by the words of a snake we see they were not God’s words but the evil spirit’s.
Hi Eric,
I answered your points in the first half of this comment on other threads. It’s getting confusing keeping track of all the different topics we are discussing :). I haven’t answered you in Isaiah 53 because it’s such a huge topic for Christians that I think I should start an entirely new thread for it. But I will say this. The reason the Jewish commentary seems so ridiculous and contradictory to you is that you haven’t grasped the Jewish perspective at all. I will need to find the time to explain that in the future.
About Genesis 3:15, you see this as a prophecy of the virgin birth because of the reference to the seed of the woman, which appears nowhere else in the Bible. In fact, Genesis 16:10 refers to Hagar’s descendants using the same word. Since you don’t read Hebrew, I’ll try to show you.
Genesis 3:15: Between your offspring and between her offspring זרעה
Genesis 16:10: I will greatly increase your offspring זרעך
As you can see, the root of the word offspring, זרע, which literally means seed, is the same in both verses.
Rabbi Blumenthal explains the fallacies of the Christian interpretation of Genesis 3:15 in another article on this blog, here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/genesis-315/
I will end for now with this: Many Christians see Numbers 21:8 as a prophecy that Jesus will be put up on a cross, he will be exalted, and those who look to him will be healed. In this verse the snake represents Jesus. In Genesis 3:15 the snake represents the devil, or Satan.
This suggests to me that Christians do not read the Torah to learn about God and His commandments. They read the Torah to try to find Jesus in it. And in their eagerness to see him everywhere, they impose him on the text willy-nilly.
Thanks,
Dina
“The Passover lamb was the Egyptian god.”
Dina, if I may interject here. This is the kind of statement that only serves a rhetorical purpose, and has ZERO factual basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnum the Egyptian god khnum was only one of the several gods in the Egyptian pantheon, he is associated with the Nile river, childbirth, the life of the crop cycle, and Atum/Re. There is no concept of this divinity bearing sin on behalf of others whether literally or metaphorically. All scripture has to say is that the Egyptians considered goats to be sacred, and so would have been offended at their sacrifice by Hebrews. There is no sacredness associated with the death of the lamb in Egyptian sources.
CR
“Khnum is the third aspect of Ra. He is the god of rebirth, creation and the evening sun”
Your link—What does the sacredness accociated with the death of the lamb in “Egyptian sources” got to do with the Jewish passover?
Concerned Reader,
You completely misunderstood what I wrote. You got part of it, when you wrote this: “All scripture has to say is that the Egyptians considered goats to be sacred, and so would have been offended at their sacrifice by Hebrews.” That was pretty much my whole point. Nowhere did I indicate that the lamb was a divinity that bore sins on behalf of others. My point was that it’s ironic that Christians chose the Passover lamb to symbolize Jesus when the point of the sacrifice was at least partly for the Hebrews to thumb their noses at idolatry.
When I wrote “The Passover lamb was the Egyptian god” I think you understood the reference to “Passover lamb” to mean the Christian idea of it, whereas what I meant was “the lamb the Jews used in order to be passed over at that time.” I was not using rhetorical flourish here either consciously or unconsciously.
I hope this clarifies.
Thanks,
Dina
Nothing LarryB, that’s my point. There is no parallel between the Egyptian worship of the lamb god khnum, and Christian symbolism and Christian reliance on The Hebrew Bible’s passover imagery. Being a god of evening sun, of rebirth, and 3rd aspect of Ra, has no bearing on Christianity either. Read some accredited scholarly articles about ra. Ra is associated with the sun disk and is the result of a syncretic merging of far more than 3 different egyptian deities. There are three aspects of Brahman in the vedic religion, and people try to associate that with the Christian trinity, but there is no substantive similarity as is claimed. Jesus is not a solar deity, but is conceived as Son of G-d (imagery taken from Scripture’s portrayal of coronation of the king, Israel as a nation, and the title applied to angels.) http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Sonship-Mysticism-Library-Studies/dp/0826496660
The parallels between Christianity and Pagan myth alleged by sources like the zeitgeist film, which many noachide and Jewish sites inadvertently and innocently rely on to show a pagan side of Christianity have no actual basis in historical realities, but are informed by speculations. I really mean no disrespect, but Jews don’t know very much about idolatrous religious beliefs, (as they really existed and were practiced) I recommend that anyone who has questions about alleged pagan parallels to Christian beliefs, should go to your nearest university if it has a religious studies department, or even a classics department, and ask professors with credentials who actually study this stuff.
Concerned Reader,
You still have not answered my question whether Christianity is idolatry according to the way the Torah defines and not according to how it was practiced by ancient religions. Halacha recognizes that Christianity is different from the ancient pagan religions yet it is still avoda zara according to the Torah.
In addition to everything else I said about the issue, it’s important to note that it’s not so important that the lamb was a deity so much as that by slaughtering the lamb they were breaking with the Egyptian culture/mentality which was an idolatrous mentality, and that act demonstrated a trust in G-d, not in the lamb.
To Dina, I realize that you were stating that sacrifice of the lamb was a thumbing the nose at idolatry. My writing was more about clarifying misconceptions that people can reach (and often do) from what you wrote, because it is but a mistaken step to claim that Christian worship is based on Egyptian worship. (not that you would do this intentionally,) I meant no offense, but we have to remember that there were many animals that Egyptians wouldn’t sacrifice because they were sacred, not just lambs. And some cultures would sacrifice sacrifice any animals. All the plagues are a critique in some big way of Egyptian religion. The darkness blotted the sun/ra, the Nile turned to blood, and thus the Nile gods bled, etc. but it often takes people very little to say Aha! The Christians must have borrowed from Egyptian myth. I should have clarified that it was not your statement directly, but what is often done with statements like it which I was responding to.
As an example of pagan practices that people allege are paralleled in Christianity, human sacrifice, and cannibalism are often those first pointed to. Human sacrifice in pagan culture and cannibalism in said culture (alleged parallel to Eucharist,) are often done by pagans in cases where a person is accused of witchcraft. The purpose is not to appease the divine, or avert divine wrath, but to eradicate the malevolent spirit responsible for the alleged witch’s magical powers. Most peoples who practice cannibalism and human sacrifice are animists. They believe in many malevolent and beneficent spirits, that are either dangerous, or will bring fortune, depending on whether certain taboos are followed. This is why I’ve mentioned previously, that for me, a working knowledge of idolatrous practices should be necessary for those who would accuse people of the crime of idolatry. The Torah provides fences so that Jews stay away from idolatry, it does not seek Jews to learn it, for the purpose of eradicating it. Christianity, having many converts from polytheism has doctrine specifically defined so as to avoid idolatrous ideas. http://www.brill.com/tertullian-idolatry-and-mishnah-avodah-zarah
Concerned Reader, here’s what to consider while you research the subject.
Imagine someone saying, “I’m a good person because I don’t rape and murder.”
I’d like to see you compare Christianity to the Torah’s ideal of radical, extreme monotheism and see how it measures up, rather than comparing Christianity to radical, extreme polytheism and saying, “Oh, yeah, we’re better than THAT.”
Also, you keep saying that no credentialed academic schooled in the study of comparative religion would agree that Christianity resembles polytheism. This is a side point to me, but I wonder if you would agree with the following statement.
Christianity adopted idolatrous customs and practices from the surrounding culture. This is reflected in the following:
1. The concept of a virgin birth.
2. The concept of a suffering, dying, resurrected savior god-man figure.
3. The custom of the Eucharist.
4. The celebration of Christmas.
5. The celebration of Easter, including the Easter bunny and egg.
The statement does not compare Christianity to polytheism, just alleging that it copied these ideas and practices.
Thanks,
Dina
CR
Iam even more confused now. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Dina was responding to Eric and showing how the lamb was used as an act of difiance.
I imagine the act of defiance was directly related to the Egyptian worshiping the goat/lamb.
Catholic teaching 1Peter 1:19 “The paschal lamb was not only a sacrifice; it was also a food which had to be partaken of. In Holy Communion our Lord, the true Paschal Lamb, gives Himself to us to be the Food of our souls”. It is the christian teaching that is the discussion, not whether or not there was a concept of this divinity bearing sin as you mention in Egyptian time.
Sorry about the name mixup, I was copying anothers name for fun and it stuck. The daringgentile question was from me.
Eric,
You have made a mistake in reading Psalm 49. There is a good reason Dina suggested reading it in context. The Psalm is talking about those who trust to material riches and what foolishness that is. Riches will not save them on the day of death. In verse 8, the verse you quoted out of context, when it says that “the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice,” it is telling us that no amount of money can prevent one from dying nor bring him back from the dead. Money is temporal, and those who trust in it trust to that which cannot save. The sons of Korah compare such people to animals: “Mortals cannot abide in their pomp; they are like the animals that perish” (v. 12). All the honor that the wealthy may receive in this life, but they go to the grave just like any animal. In the end, money avails nothing.
One need not fear such people, because they are temporary. They shall fade away. True, the rich may oppress the poor, but they shall not last. Only those who trust to Hashem will last. Those who attach themselves to the Eternal shall be preserved eternally. Those who trust to the temporal shall find that whatever strength it once afforded them was only an illusion.
To quote v. 8 to suggest that an impossible price must be paid (i.e. an innocent life for the guilty) is to misread the text. It is talking about money. It is not saying that repentance is not enough for salvation. It’s not addressing that point at all. But trusting in the temporal rather than the Eternal, that shall not protect one from death.
Jim
Eric,
You emphasize that one is considered righteous by faith rather than keeping God’s law. But we find that Abraham is rewarded, because “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26.5). This does not accord with your words or Christian teaching.
You also write that Jesus did not teach a new teaching to those on the road to Emmaus. The fact that he rebukes their faith is no indication that his teaching wasn’t an innovation. He had already introduced the teaching before his death, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke: “From that time on [i.e. after Peter had declared that Jesus was the Messiah] Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hand of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Matt. 16.21). He has to show this to them, because they don’t expect that is what happens to the Messiah. (Note: I’m not saying that he did actually teach them this. I doubt it.) They should already know that this is what happens to the Messiah. But this was not a normative understanding of the Torah and Prophets. It still isn’t. It’s a confused understanding propagated by the Church with embarrassingly little support for a central tenet of God’s teaching to humanity.
It’s interesting to note that here is a point where it would be useful for Matthew to insert a passage from the Torah and Prophets. But he doesn’t. Either way, it is clear that this is a new teaching. It is not the expectation given by Torah and the Prophets. Nowhere in Torah can you find the necessity of the innocent to die on behalf of the guilty. One only reads that into the text after the teaching is introduced by the Church.
Jim
Jim, you said ‘Nowhere in Torah can you find the necessity of the innocent to die on behalf of the guilty.’ Except that you can clearly see in Levit 17 that atonement is in the blood ( which usually involves loss of life) and that regulation it is not just temporary as long as the temple is available. Th e temple is not available , the ceremonies are not practiced but God’s regulations ‘don’t expire .
Blood of innocent animals was shed all the time on behalf the sinners in the sin- offering’s ceremonies.
looking at Is 53 I might say the same about the following;; nowhere can I find the necessity for the nation to suffer in order to ‘heal’ and ‘justify’ other nations by Israel’s wounds. Don’t you see how little and poor is the support of this idea based on Is 53? Also based on Daniel 7;13 is there any clear Jewish explanation of the ‘ one like a man coming up to the One of Ancient Days’ ‘with the clouds of heaven’?
Regarding these words; “One only reads that into the text after the teaching is introduced by the Church.” Let’s say people had really no clue about messiah’ s sufferings, because it was all written as a riddle , revealed to people after it happened. ( Although Jesus ‘story had lots of clear predictions) but I will forget about them for a moment and as an example I will point to Daniel 9; 24-27 ( where things are not too easy to understand ) . Let’s imagine you are living in those times when the prophecy of Daniel in chapt 9 gets fulfilled. HOW CORRECT would you supposedly be about Daniel 9 based on your own understanding before it’s fulfillment and how much better and clarifying picture you might have after these events in that chapter actually got fulfilled? Would there be anything wrong with the fact that actual fulfillment of the events made the picture clear ??? A dispute could be found in everything with everybody . From Daniel 9 for some the ‘week’ would. mean 7 days, for the others it would refer to ‘ a year ‘ or ‘ 7 years period’ . I am just bringing it as an example.
But anyways, lets go back to my explanation about justified by faith. That definitely didn’t exclude obeying God’s voice ( if I didn’t say that) and keeping His commandments. read 1 John 2:3-5 – “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.”
Also John 14;21 “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” Also v 23-24 . and another very known statement that the faith without works is dead.
We trust God , we listen to His voice. Is there even possible to trust somebody without knowing what the person is saying?
The last thing – about the words’ they don’t expect that is what happens to the Messiah.”
I wonder if they understood Is 53 with your eyes and mentioned their understanding to Jesus or anybody , as there is no account of any Jews in the gospels interpreting Is 53 like they do now clarifying that it was their nation to suffer and be glorified and ‘heal’ others .
You said it would be useful for Matthew to insert a passage from the Torah and Prophets. Well, maybe it would be useful but he didn’t but anyways the prophecy is inserted throughout the gospels for us.
Eric,
While the blood is used to make atonement, Leviticus 17 does not say that it is the only means to make atonement. Nor are animals needed for atonement. Regarding calling the animals “innocent,” I do not believe such a term can be applied to animals which are not moral agents. I do not see a place in all of Torah where animals are called innocent. That is a Christian innovation.
For an understanding of Daniel 7.13, there is a wonderful commentary out! But without the commentary, let’s see what we can do. The first four beasts were four kingdoms brought before God for judgment. These are horrible kingdoms, seemingly given to violence. After their judgment, “one like a son of man” is brought forward to be judged. So, he is not divine. From what has come before, we have good reason to believe that he is another kingdom. In fact, the best interpretation would be to say that it is the righteous remnant of Israel.
And in fact this is what the commentary says as well. Daniel was troubled by the images he’d seen. So an angel gave him the interpretation, the commentary I have referenced: “As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever–forever and ever” (Dan. 7.17-18.) The one like a son of man is not a divine being, half-man half-god hybrid. He is the nation to whom dominion will be given.
Regarding Isaiah 53, it has been well-explained by R’ Blumenthal here and in the video by R’ Skobac that Dina recommended. Your objections have been answered in those places. I’m not sure what more I can add, but I will say this, if you look at the details of Isaiah 53, you will see two things:
1. You have no way of knowing if Jesus fulfilled healing the world through his suffering.
2. The details of Isaiah 53 do not apply to Jesus. A careful reader will see that it cannot be talking about Jesus.
Jim
Jim
My understanding of the atonement is that the scripture is simply saying that it is the blood, not the eyes or ears or hair etc. of the animal. Then of course, it does not even say it is the only way. Of course of course, it is talking About only animals humans are forbidden to be sacrificed.
Good point, Larry! Thank you.
Jim
LarryB, God didn’t require any human to be sacrificed. Regarding Jesus as a ‘sacrifice’ it is a figure of speach , nobody tied him up and offered to God. He offered himself ( his life) for others , that is what we call a ‘sacrifice’ while giving up something of the highest price. for serving others His blood is what is atoning for all people .
When it comes to animals it was the blood which was serving as an atonement but it was symbolic as animals can’t l wipe away our sins.
I see forgiveness and atonement in the scriptures as two different things. Forgiveness you have for repenting and turning back to God, but atonement is what God provided and it refers to the way of dealing with the offenses we committed before. It is showing God’s justice when our sins are judged.
Hi Eric,
I have over 30 comments waiting to be answered. I won’t be able to answer all of them, and those that I will get to will take some time. Maybe I’ll get to a few of them tonight. I’m jumping in here just to point out that Hebrew Scripture teaches that we have to take an action to atone for our sins. HS does not teach us that God grants atonement through the substitutionary death of a sinless human being.
Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people. The Torah tells us what we have to do to for the day to provide atonement: we must afflict ourselves, not do any work, offer a fire-offering, and so on.
This follows the theme that we shape our own spiritual destiny. Can you cite scriptural support for the way you differentiate between atonement and forgiveness and that atonement is provided by God without us taking action.
The most important Christian doctrine is that Jesus died to atone for our sins. Yet there is no teaching in Hebrew Scripture that, as I wrote above, God grants atonement through the substitutionary death of a sinless human being. If it’s so important, why isn’t even mentioned? Bear in mind that the Torah warns us not to add or subtract from its words. This Christian doctrine is a sharp departure from Hebrew Scripture.
Dina, as far as the atonement- just because God sent Jesus to die for sinners – it does not mean the atonement happens automatically without us talking no action. I have to accept it that it happened for me and that he died for my sins not just for sins in general. I have to repent, turn away from my ungodly life and make my mind to follow God.
You responded to my question “why there is no account of any Jews in the gospels interpreting Is 53 like they do now?” with “Why would there be, seeing as the gospels have every reason to keep that interpretation out of it?” I don’t think this is a good solution, as to keep more facts out to convince the audience about Jesus , the authors of the gospels
would have more reason for all people to be mentioned as clearly awaiting Jesus and understanding the reasons for his death – especially the leaders who would be pictured as the ones expecting him instead of opposing him. Anyways I will come back to Is 53 some time later.
As far as the links, I listened some of that rabbi Michael and I would have so much to comment on about the things he is saying that I completely disagree. One- is his explanation of the Torah contra Christian thinking that we are unable to keep it. He said something interesting- I wrote it down while listening; ” what kind of God would punish you / his children for not keeping his commandments that He gave you if you don’t keep them all….
Then he is citing psalm 119 and other verses expressing the delight in God’s law and that God said we are able to keep His torah. He concludes since we are able then we do it and we don’t have to expect God’s wrath at all… I guess as long as we repent- but we Christians run into the arms of Jesus for rescues because we are unable to keep the torah and Jesus is our rescue from God’s wrath.
First of all; I don’t doubt God said we can keep His Torah, but we fail doing it. I would ask this rabbi why is the nation Israel scattered instead of living in the land God promised if everybody has been keeping the torah and had a chance to repent? One of the commandments was to trust God . No consequences at all? as he said… but we clearly see they are.
Why is everybody dying although being able to keep the torah? Why just one failure of Adam brought him death? Yes we are able BUT WE FAIL . That is what Paul was writing about.
I have already explained you more in the last email about what Paul meant in his letters about that subject . Paul doesn’t deny that Torah is holy and a great guide at all , only we fail keeping it all, and the truth is that one transgression brought us death. Then Paul explains that we are justified by trusting God ( as Abraham’s example) and that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to keep God’s principles as a guide.
I have to go now, we have been discussing so many topics at one , I can’t go back to all of them now, but slowly one at a time.
eric
Eric, all the answers are in the Torah. The Torah explains why we are in exile and what we can do to get out of it. The Torah does not talk about the need to be rescued from the death that Adam brought into the world. All your talk about saving–does it mean nothing to you that the Torah doesn’t focus on it? Read Deuteronomy 30.
As for gentiles, the Jewish people testify that the gentiles do not need to keep the Torah. They only need to observe the seven Noahide laws. The Torah does not teach that the gentiles need the substitutionary death of some Jewish guy in order to be “saved.”
Dina, Deut 30 focus on your trust to God and listening to His voice that is the main thing.
This is what rescues you or saves or redeems you ( however we say that) . There is no need to tell people that they have to be saved if they don’t want to trust God because the salvation/redemption is based on trusting God, then He will take you beyond the grave, I mean you will be risen back to like in the God’s kingdom to come.
See we talk about redemption from death because if that doesn’t happen you can’t participate in the Kingdom to come. And that resurrection happens at the coming of the Messiah.
The thing is Jews don’t see that trusting God means trusting His son, because you don’t believe God sent Him ( back to Is 53) but we do. So our trusting God includes also listening to His Son. God can speak through whom He wants to definitely He can speak through His Son.
Hi Eric,
You wrote, “Dina, Deut 30 focus on your trust to God and listening to His voice that is the main thing.”
If you look at the first ten verses, which tell us what we have to do in order for the exile to end and to be restored to Land, listening to God by obeying His laws is mentioned THREE times. Trusting in God is mentioned ZERO times.
Verse 2: And you will return unto the Lord, your God, and LISTEN TO HIS VOICE, ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING THAT I COMMAND YOU TODAY.
Verse 8: You shall return AND LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD AND PERFORM ALL OF HIS COMMANDMENTS that I command you today.
Verse 10: WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD YOUR GOD TO OBSERVE HIS COMMANDMENTS and His decrees that are written in this Book of the Torah.
I’m not saying that trusting God is not important, of course it is. We show our trust through our obedience to His laws. And we don’t need Jesus to do that, obviously, because a small remnant of the Jewish people have, throughout history, remained loyal to Hashem and His Torah, following His laws to the best of their ability. And this is the only remnant that survives from generation to generation as identifiably Jewish. Coincidence? I think not.
Eric
If you go to google and type in— “rabbi michael skobac why jesus didnt have to die”
And watch his video, it’s about 1 hour and 45 minutes, he explains all this atonement, sacrifice and many other things extremely well. Clearly you could use some help when understanding the Jewish scriptures.
Jim
It is the exact thing you said just slightly different. The main point being the scripture points to the part of the animal, “blood”, not to what is the only acceptable thing, as you said. Repentance being the main thing.
If I may try one more time, the scripture is saying that “when” an animal is used it is the blood that makes the atonement?
Jim, just a quick answer as I have no time to go back to all the email . I am just suprised by your interpretation regarding “After their judgment, “one like a son of man” who is brought forward to be judged. ” Wow, surprising as even Artscroll Jewish Tahan ( Stone Edition- Jewish Scriptures with insights from classic rabbinic thoughts) refers in it’s commentary about ” one like a son of men’ to King Messiah. . How does it come the others don’t see there King Messiah? Second, ; you said ‘ he is brought to be judged. ” I wonder what makes you think this is the purpose of him being brought forward? What type of judgement do you see there? v. 14 clearly says what happens next; ; he is given dominion , honor and kingship ( which means the position, office, or dignity of a king )which logically refers to a king, then it says at the end ” His kingship would never be destroyed.” which would mean his position as a king would be everlasting .
I really don’t see a nation here being talked about.
Seeing King Messiah in those verses doesn’t mean that ” the holy ones of the Most High won’t receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever” No kingdom exists either with only a king, or with people without a king. It has to be both, so I don’t see a reason for excluding the Messiah out of it and interpret Daniel 7;13-14 as relating to the nation. Daniel describes the Kingship first given to the Messiah v.14 , then in v.18 there are the people inheriting it.
I will go back to the rest of your email later,
eric
Eric,
You take me to mean “being judged” in a negative connotation. I don’t. The “son of man” has been judged favorably. It is nevertheless the judgement of God that awards him dominion.
V. 18 is not a separate event from v. 14. It is an explanation of it.
Jim
Eric, you wrote something interesting here:
“There is no account of any Jews in the gospels interpreting Is 53 like they do now clarifying that it was their nation to suffer and be glorified and ‘heal’ others.”
Why would there be, seeing as the gospels have every reason to keep that interpretation out of it?
Eric, you continue to misunderstand the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. Even among Christian scholars today there are 15 theories regarding who is the subject of Isaiah 53, and many recognize that identifying him as Jesus is shaky at best (such as Walter Brueggemann, Professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary).
I know you are pressed for time, but in order to understand the Jewish position–not agree with, just understand–you will need to carefully read or listen to the links that I and others posted for you. Let me know if you’d like that list again.
Thanks,
Dina
Eric, one more thing about what you wrote about Isaiah 53 (“I wonder if they understood Is 53 with your eyes and mentioned their understanding to Jesus or anybody , as there is no account of any Jews in the gospels interpreting Is 53 like they do now clarifying that it was their nation to suffer and be glorified and ‘heal’ others).”
The NT preserves the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 simply by telling us that Jesus’s disciples did not expect him to die after they believed he was the messiah.
Dina, I want very much to give your question a thorough, direct, and thoughtful answer. So I am going to do something that a college graduate would not do willingly if he could help it. I am going to write a paper to answer this question, and I will do my best to cite my sources, and be true to a reading which we can both glean from scripture. (Tanakh off course, although some minor NT quotes may be necessary for clarification of connections.)
Concerned Reader, thanks for taking this so seriously. Wow! I’ll be posting questions for you to consider while you write your treatise.
Best,
Dina
I’d like to see you compare Christianity to the Torah’s ideal of radical, extreme monotheism and see how it measures up, rather than comparing Christianity to radical, extreme polytheism and saying, “Oh, yeah, we’re better than THAT.”
Dina, do you think that the Pagans hated the extreme radicalized monotheistic concept? They didn’t, they hated the notion of covenant. Many gentile pagans were completely comfortable in second temple times with saying the divine was uncompromisingly one, they just didn’t see the rationality of how Jews interpreted this oneness, or how the belief in one divine being squared with G-d as taught in the Torah. Plato and Aristotle both said the divine was absolutely one, immaterial, beyond all, etc. but they did not say that therefore G-d had a specific will, intent, and purpose for us, or one particular nation in the world. So, in that sense, your request for comparison is problematic to start with, because it assumes pagans didn’t already have a notion of radicalized divine unity, simplicity, or immutability.
Concerned Reader, you expressed some dismay over the comparison of Christianity to polytheism and asserted that it has nothing to do with it, that the resemblance is at best superficial. That’s what I’m challenging you on. I’m not assuming pagans didn’t have a concept of monotheism. Those pagans are not part of this discussion.
So now would you like to take a stab at answering the question?
Christians also did hold Judaism’s radical monotheism at first.
And therefore?
I’m addressing Christianity as it has been practiced for most of its history. The original Jewish Christians are irrelevant. Their movement died out both physically and spiritually.
So I ask you, again, how does Christianity measure up to the Torah’s definition of idolatry?
So those pagans weren’t really pagan Dina, because they accepted a radical notion of one G-d, is that what your implying? According to the interpretative box you are placing on monotheism, the G-d of Israel as described in the Tanakh becomes truly irrelevant to the discussion. There is no necessity to accept the scripture hashem delivered in order to believe in the radically monotheistic concept of the divine that you propose. How do you handle that issue?
Concerned Reader,
According to our tradition, Abraham came to knowledge of God all on his very own. I don’t see the problem. If someone asks me if a particular practice is idolatry, then I compare it against what the Torah says about it. And let the chips fall where they may.
I asked you a simple question. It should not be difficult for you to answer.
Thanks,
Dina
You’re absolutely right Dina that Jewish tradition says that Abraham arrived at knowledge of G-d’s existence as unity by himself rationally. We see this in the traditional story from Genesis Rabbah of Terah’s idol shop, when Abraham broke the idols except for the biggest one, and told his father that the big idol destroyed the rest out of jealosy. What was Terah’s reaction? What does it tell us about him? He scolded Abraham, because he knew perfectly well that the idols were the work of his planning and handiwork. Consider how the rabbis spoke about and described the first generation of polytheists in the time of Enosh in light of the above story. People back then could also rationally deduce that there was only one true divinity, but that he must have appointed and created messangers like the sun and moon, stars, angels, and men, to be vehicles through whom to reach out to him. They thought, G-d must want us to honor them beside him, because their function served G-d’s glory. Eventually, some people honored the created intermidiaries (that they acknowledged as creations) so much, that they forgot about G-d. Others like Terah, knew about El (the father of the gods and head of many a near eastern pantheon, including in Ur.) So, a question arises. If Terah knew the idols were creations of his hands, products of his frail wisdom, and if he knew about El, the creator and true G-d, why does the Torah say, The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people, and your father’s household to the land I will show you. Why did Abram have to leave? Couldn’t his father have understood his rationale for believing in the ultimate unity of G-d? The answer is a huge yes, he understood perfectly, as we can glean from these midrashim! So why indeed must abraham leave? The answers are given in Isaiah chapter 40. In this chapter idolatry is maintained and berated as the work of human hands, that has no breath in it, and that people despite their wisdom, return to like a dog to vomit. Why do you complain, Jacob? Why do you say, Israel, “My way is hidden from the LORD; my cause is disregarded by my God”? We see then, that the issue is not whether G-d is one, incorporeal, or beyond all things, but the questions relate to how both this, and belief in G-d’s providence, care, and active will are true. Is my cause disregarded? Does G-d hear? If G-d is one, does that mean an all embracing oneness with acceptance of all different spiritual options? Abraham had to leave his home, because he was the recipient of a knowledge of G-d not gleaned by rationality, deduction, or wisdom alone, but by covenental revalation, and this was something nobody had experienced, likely since Noah. Genesis 15:1 shows that to Abraham G-d answered the question of whether he was present directly.
“the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.” G-d himself exists, both as the rationally deductable first cause whom no man can see, or has seen at any time, but he reveals himself personally, covenentally, in his very word/will/action/wisdom which are synonymous with he himself. This, In sharp contrast to the view expressed above by the first polytheists who could accept unity, but not grasp providence. By convention of the inadequacy of human speech then, a Christian calls this “word” a relationally distinct “person” of the one G-d. Person is not anthropomorphic, nor does it divide G-d up into two, it is merely the best term we can use to describe G-d as beyond, yet able and thouroghly interested in revealing himself directly in a personal way, and not by proxy of creatures. How do we know the first cause to be “person”? Because the word of the l-rd shows us it is person by virtue of itself. The word is the mouthpiece of the father, but it can’t be a created intermidiary because then, everyone can believe in G-d, but still say “my cause is disregarded by my G-d, and rely on the works of his hands, like those first monotheists gone bad in the days of Enosh. The Christians are not disagreeing with you about the nature of the divine unity as such, they are describing said unity with a nuanced theological focus, because idolatry flourishes on the abstract wisdom and the creation as itself.
Concerned Reader, thank you for answering the question. I read your comment three times and I still could not make heads nor tails of it. If you need a degree in Comparative Religions in order to understand what the Torah teaches about idolatry, then that is the wrong answer. A person of average intelligence such as I should be able to grasp this. The Torah is not the exclusive domain of people with above average IQ’s who study for years in universities. (I say this with my tongue slightly in my cheek, as I agree to a certain extent with Dennis Prager that going to college makes you dumber :). Although where does that put me, with my degree in English, I ask you?)
The Torah’s teaching on monotheism is clear and simple:
“I am the Lord your God Who took you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery. You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them etc.” (Exodus 20:2-5)
“The Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a likeness…But you shall beware greatly for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; A FORM OF A MALE or a female” Deuteronomy 4:12,15,16).
The Torah does not teach this:
“G-d himself exists, both as the rationally deductable first cause whom no man can see, or has seen at any time, but he reveals himself personally, covenentally, in his very word/will/action/wisdom which are synonymous with he himself…By convention of the inadequacy of human speech then, a Christian calls this “word” a relationally distinct “person” of the one G-d. Person is not anthropomorphic, nor does it divide G-d up into two, it is merely the best term we can use to describe G-d as beyond, yet able and thouroghly interested in revealing himself directly in a personal way, and not by proxy of creatures. How do we know the first cause to be “person”? Because the word of the l-rd shows us it is person by virtue of itself. The word is the mouthpiece of the father…”
Christians can’t find human speech to describe their worship. But the Torah has no problem using human speech to describe monotheism. So that’s a problem right there.
Furthermore, you are describing a worship that Christians don’t subscribe to. I’ve spoken to enough Christians to know that even Unitarians place Jesus at the center of their worship, giving him greater veneration than any human being deserves because they see him as “the way, the truth, and the light, and no one comes to the father but through [him].” They see him as having the power to forgive sin, something that is only God’s prerogative (as the Prophets describe). They accept the concept of a virgin birth and that Jesus is the literal son of God even if he is not the deity. From where do you derive your authority to assert that the rest of Christendom misinterpret and misapply their own scriptures?
Tell me why, according to the teachings of the Torah on monotheism, Christianity AS IT HAS BEEN PRACTICED since it became a gentile religion is not idolatry.
Auto correct messed up some of the terms I used. Let me try again. You said, Abraham came to knowledge of G-d on his own,according to your tradition. This means presumably that he looked at the world, it’s harmony, it’s order, and said:Aha! There must be a creator, and he must be the only one. Torah shows pagans as people who may grasp the idea of one G-d too, but they may not relate to that oneness in the way Abraham did, or even agree with Abraham that the world shows evidence of guidance, or a maker. Balaam for instance, tried to use sacrifices, magic, and his wisdom to induce G-d to curse Israel. His donkey knew G-d’s will better. The pagan mind says that if G-d is one, there must be many ways to influence the divine, many paths to the one truth. When Torah says Israel heard a voice, this implies G-d is personal and has a unique will, and an interest in the world. Pharaoh could not grasp this idea of a people chosen by a divinity who cares, or a G-d who had a unique purpose or identity. (who is The Lord that I should serve him?) Every sign Israel saw in Egypt was seen by them as a sign of G-d’s providence. Egyptians saw the same signs as natural, repeatable, explainable things. One G-d for Israel meant Hashem and his Torah, a G-d beyond creation, while for the Egyptians the one god might mean the sun disk, Ra, whom Pharaoh was a created representative of. For Egypt, there is no creation in the biblical sense, but fully natural worlds with natural gods.The point in saying Jesus is the word of G-d, is that through him Christians learned the eternal biblical truth that G-d is real in the sense that he actually speaks and commands, and guides providentially everything created. Jews learned the same truth through the divine presence that spoke from Moses’ throat on Sinai. Philo called this revelation of G-d’s will through Moses on Sinai, the revelation of hashem’s logos, word, and first born son, of whom Moses (and by extension all Israel) were the prime reflection. Christians use this same description from Philo except that the righteous teacher’s personality is deemed one with G-d as opposed to just a reflection or creation because of the pagan propensity to worship what it regards as fully created anyway. Do you see that the point of saying Jesus is Divine isn’t the man Jesus, but the experiences and personality/authority that Christians experienced him speak with which reminded them of the Sinai experience? The purpose of Christian doctrine is not to deify a human being, but to clarify that we mean something specific when we say G-d is one, not just an ascent to unity, or sovereignty. Many pagans could accept unity and sovereignty without ceasing in their idolatry at all as I hope I’ve now made easier to understand. Is that clearer? Christians were not the first to say son of G-d, to have a conception of a manifestation of G-d distinct from the father, or other such concepts. If you doubt that real Christians believe this way, I ask kindly and Humbly that you please ask an orthodox priest or someone ordained, even a seminary student. If we judge the quality of our communities by speaking to laity about doctrines, we would both find a lack of real genuine knowledge on the part of most people. If I have questions on Judaism, I try to find an orthodox or accredited source, not just random folks I meet, and I know you would do the same.
Hi Concerned Reader,
Philo is not part of our religious tradition. He was a Hellenized Jew, and it does not surprise me, therefore, that his writing reflected Greek influence. It is doubtful if he even read our Scripture in Hebrew.
The comparison of Jesus to Moses falls flat on its face. Moses transmitted God’s word to the people in an incomparable way. Yet he was never seen as the word of God, the word of God in the flesh, or the literal son of God.
You wrote, “Christians use this same description from Philo except that the righteous teacher’s personality is deemed one with G-d as opposed to just a reflection or creation because of the pagan propensity to worship what it regards as fully created anyway.”
I see this as an admission that Christianity smacks of idolatry.
God revealed Himself at Sinai and taught us to worship only that which was revealed (“But you shall beware greatly for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb.”). At Sinai, we did not see a physical representation of His word. As God’s witnesses, we testify that such a belief is idolatrous.
Christians resort to unbelievably complicated argumentation to support their idolatrous conception of God with Jesus because they can’t face this very simple truth.
If only clergymen understand it and the ignorant masses are too dumb to get it, don’t you see that as a problem? I’m a layperson, after all. I’m not a rabbi, obviously, there being no female clergy in Orthodox Judaism. I have nothing more than a standard Jewish education, which did not include Talmudic studies–this is reserved for men–and which included very little Maimonides. I learned Hebrew and studied our Scripture–and not even all of it–in its original language.
The Christian laypeople I have spoken to are all deeply educated in their theology. They know their scripture backwards and forwards. One of my friends began studying to be a minister but dropped it because of the demands of her family life, but she’s very involved with her church and teaches Sunday school. As far as Christians go, I think they are real enough.
All the Christians I’ve spoken to would likely agree with the following statements:
1. Jesus is the literal son of God and the product of a virgin birth.
2. The Trinitarians among them would agree that he is fully human and fully God.
3. The only way to God is through Jesus (except for my almost-minister friend who believes in the non-scriptural doctrine of dual covenant theology).
4. The only way to heaven or eternal life (depending on if you believe in an afterlife or only in the resurrection of the dead) is by accepting Jesus as your lord and savior.
Yes, Concerned Reader, real Christians believe these things.
But the Torah teaches against it.
The national revelation at Sinai refutes it.
I challenged you to measure Christianity against the Torah’s standard of monotheism. You have shown that it falls short of that standard. I hope you are beginning to understand why Jews insist that Christianity is idolatry even as it is dissimilar to paganism.
Best,
Dina
If I worship G-d, but I have no conception that he delivered any mitzvot, that the Exodus was not real, and that there is no world to come, I am not an idolater, but I am mistaken in my belief is that right?
Yes.
You wrote, “Christians use this same description from Philo except that the righteous teacher’s personality is deemed one with G-d as opposed to just a reflection or creation because of the pagan propensity to worship what it regards as fully created anyway.”
I see this as an admission that Christianity smacks of idolatry.
Did you know that many scholars in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest copies of scripture in Hebrew that we posses) realize that Philo relied on much material from his contemporary Judaism, and other writings in his day more than Hellenism? Philo is not wholly representative of Hellenism any more than Rambam is of a Hellenized Aristotelian philosopher, just because he uses the language and arguments. How convenient it is to say that Philo is not accepted, because he had Hellenistic influence. Does that make his writings not Jewish? If that’s true, then there are whole conceptions and arguments that Maimonides relies on in his books which are thoroughly Hellenistic, but this doesn’t nullify his statements as Jewish does it? Rambam was a Hellenist too if that’s the case. I never said real Christians didn’t believe what they say about Jesus, merely that there are explanations and dimensions to the tradition that the laity, and most Protestants don’t necessarily know, because they haven’t learned. I myself didn’t know a lot of things until I went to college and learned. You mentioned that you are not so familiar with Talmudic studies, Maimonides, etc. because you are a woman, and as per the way things go in Jewish Law, that makes it difficult, I understand. I merely want people to learn as much as they can. Dual covenant theology, certainly isn’t against scripture, but replacement theology cannot accept it, and that needs to be fixed, and is being worked on by mainline churches. It seems to me that since you are not allowed by Jewish law to be a rabbi, effectively you must take many things on faith that you are taught are true because you are barred from learning them directly. This is then no different than a Christian’s faith. If you are barred from investigation, how can you know for sure in detail? I don’t mean any disrespect, but if you have to take what you are taught from a teacher on faith, how can you fault the Christians for the same? This is my whole problem with issues like this. I mean, would you charge a child who was none the wiser with the sin of idolatry, if he believed G-d was physical? Most laypeople, including in Judaism, are just not that familiar with very important aspects of their tradition. I have explained that Christians know the difference between the man Jesus and G-d, and I have shown that assumptions of Pagan parallel are weak.. Saying Jesus is 100% G-d and 100% man does not mean what Judaism says it means, and I have demonstrated that from our traditional Christian sources. But, if you insist on Judging the whole tradition by the number of people who get it wrong, then effectively we are both in the same boat in Judaism and Christianity. How do you judge an issue like this when so many people in both traditions are basically in a state of ignorance and apostasy? It makes effective judgement entirely subjective.
Hi Concerned Reader,
A friend of mine told me that he would not go to college to learn about God any more than he would go to a seminary to study medicine. My point in telling you about my education was a point you entirely missed. The Torah was given to scholars and laypeople alike. The Torah contains enough clarity about its foundational principles that someone like me who cannot spend all her days studying every aspect of Judaism can still become fairly educated about her religion. I believe this is true of the serious adherents of all religions.
(By the way, I am not barred from studying the Talmud; it’s just not traditionally done. Many women throughout history have studied it and continue to study it today.)
Do you really think you know better because you studied the subject in college?
Do you really think that only ordained clergy have the knowledge to know the truth?
Do you think I’m incapable of thinking for myself and must therefore accept on faith everything I’m taught?
If you answered no to these questions, then we need say no more, and let’s move on.
If you answered yes, there is no point in continuing this discussion. I don’t think it’s possible to achieve clarity when you are certain you know better than everyone who has not studied in college or who has not been ordained because that shows you have a closed mind. Sorry to be so blunt. But I don’t want to waste your time or mine on a pointless discussion.
So I hope you answered no.
Assuming that is the case, I am not satisfied that calling Jesus God is monotheism according the simple and clear teachings of the Torah on the subject. Quoting Philo doesn’t work because I reject anything he says that contradicts this teaching.
By the way, to dismiss my argument about Philo as being a convenient argument strikes me as strange. Do we accept anything a Jew might write simply because he is Jewish? Philo, Spinoza, and Mendelssohn are all Jews who wrote outside our tradition. So did the writers of the scrolls found in Qumran. So did Karl Marx, for that matter (Communism is a secular religion, after all).
As far as I can see, Philo and Maimonides are complete opposites. Philo came to Hebrew scripture (which he could not even read in Hebrew, some historians allege) after studying Greek philosophy and being raised as an assimilated Greek Jew. So he tried to harmonize the two. Maimonides came to Greek philosophy after being raised a traditional Jew and having a thorough grounding in all the religious texts in their original language, so he took from Greek philosophy what fit and rejected what didn’t.
Anyway, we’ve gone off on a tangent.
Getting back on track, the way Christians describe Jesus does not match the worship Hashem demands of us in the Torah. It just doesn’t. That’s why you can’t find human speech to support the idea that worship of Jesus is as monotheistic as traditional Judaism.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.
Does the New Testament encourage the set of feelings toward man Jesus?
See the fashion of their feelings when the early followers of Jesus witnessed his miracles or heard divine messages! If you find any verse that draws attention toward the praise of Jesus rather than God, i will buy a coffee and bagel when i return to US.
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and GLORIFY YOUR FATHER which is in heaven” Mt 5:16
“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and GLORIFIED GOD, which had given such power unto men” Mt 9:8
“Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they GLORIFIED THE GOD OF ISRAEL” Mt 15:31
“And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and GLORIFIED GOD, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.” Mk 2:12
“And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.” Luke 2:20
“And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day” Luke 5:26
“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.” Luke 7:16
“And when Yeshua saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.” Luke 13:12-13
“And Yeshua answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger” Luke 17:17-18
“And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.” Luke 18:43
“Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man” Luke 23:47
“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:42-43
“This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” John 21:19
“So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done” Acts 4:21
“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” Acts 11:18
“And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” Acts 12:23
“Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our lord Jesus Christ” Romans 15:6-7
“And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name” Romans 15:9
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” 1 Corinthians 6:20
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31
“For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” 2 Corinthians 1:19-20
“Knowing that HE which raised up the lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.” 2 Corinthinas 4:14-15
Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving TO God.
For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings UNTO God; Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify (WHOM? JESUS? NO) God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.Thanks be UNTO God for his unspeakable gift” 2 Corinthians 9:11-15
“But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Philippians 4:19-20
Now, let me stop here. I’m tired of this.
Keep unmasking the Christianity and keep embracing Christians who will repent someday!
Gean Guk Jeon If you want to know if a book encourages a certain set of feelings and millions of people have read this book and walked out with this “certain set of feelings” then you have your answer without reading the fine-print 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Gean, consider what the rabbi says very carefully. Do millions of people read the New Testament and come to the conclusion to worship the father only, without worshiping the host of heaven?
The answer to that question for many millions of Christians is clearly a no.
If you ask a Jew “what is the only way to get to G-d?” the answer is “directly via yourself and your own actions.” If you ask a Christian that same question, he will declare that Jesus is “the only way to the father.”
Even though Jesus does say that the father is greater than he is, Christians do not believe this in a clear way.
Christians believe that you only know the power of G-d if you know Jesus personally and accept him as the savior.
There are so few personal details of the messiah in Jewish writings. We do not know just based off of Tanakh who he is, but we know what he is supposed to do.
Shalom, Brother CR,
You said, “Christians believe that you only know the power of G-d if you know Jesus personally and accept him as the savior.” For example?
Gean, look at these verses below
1 John 5:12
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
John 3:18
John 12:37-41 This verse says that Jews ignore Jesus’ signs because G-d has blinded their eyes to the truth of Jesus. The author of the New Testament does not tell the audience that the Jewish people have legitimate reasons for not believing that Jesus is the Messiah. It would rather just call them blind.
John 14:6 (as understood by all Orthodox Christian sources) teaches that one who does not go to G-d through Jesus (by prating to him, being baptized in his name, etc.) will not get to G-d.
Romans 3 and Galatians 3 both teach that a man is not justified by his actions, but only because he has faith in the death of Jesus as the lamb of G-d? IE you cant be righteous unless you accept Jesus.
The Christian translation of Psalm 2:12 as “Kiss the Son less he be angry,” is another example of Christians believing that only through Jesus can a person have a relationship with G-d.
Gean, with respect, It is untenable to try and read the Christian Bible as though it teaches that those who don’t accept your messiah can be saved. I know its untenable because I tried to read the New Testament that way when I was a believer.
No Christian source that I have ever seen believes that a person can please G-d without belief in Jesus as a necessary prerequisite. That is as central to Christianity as apple pie is to the U.S.A.
You may not believe this Gean, but Christianity and the New Testament teach in an unambiguous way that only the Jesus believer is guaranteed salvation, or guaranteed the love, spirit, and power of G-d.
As you said to the rabbi, you cant ignore the statistics. Of the millions of Christians in the world, the vast majority confess and believe in their heart that without acknowledging Jesus and his ressurection, a person is spiritually blind.
The New Testament presents a double standard to its readers. It teaches out of two sides of its mouth. On one side, the text says that only by accepting Jesus and his miracles can a person be accepted by G-d. It teaches unambiguously that those who dont accept Jesus are blind.
On the other side, it says G-d cares about how you behave and that miracles ultimately cant serve as proof of anything. The book teaches that Jesus is divine on the one hand, (so he can establish new laws) while on the other hand it teaches that he is subject to the father’s already established commandments. These premises cant both be true.
This is to say nothing of how much Jews and Christians differ on the nature and role of the Satan. The Christian Bible teaches that Satan is the god of this world, and that the world is captive to Satan’s power without the blood of Jesus.
In Judaism, the Satan is like a prosecuting angel who ultimately does a job that G-d created him to do. He’s not a rebellious angel in Judaism. There is no war in heaven in Judaism.
Shalom brother CR. You said ” no Christian source believes that a person can please God without belief in Jesus as a necessary prerequisite.”
What about Hebrew 11:6 which says “without faith, it is impossible to please HIM for he that comes to God must believe that HE is, and that HE is a rewarder of them that diligently seek HIM.” ? Where is the prerequisite of faith in Jesus here? After this statement, the writer of this letter gives many examples of the great men and women of faith throughtout the 11th chapter, and please let me know if you can find anyone who pleased God with faith in Jesus.
CR, “only the Jesus believer is guaranteed salvation or love, spirit, and power of God”?
Let us see how Luke teaches. Zachariah and Elizabeth (אלישבה?),
the parents of John the Baptist are called “righteous before God doing blameless the commandments and ordinances” without believing in Jesus.
Simeon in Jerusalem was “righteous and holy and wait for the condolence upon Israel” and holy spirit was upon him; spirit of God instructed him and inspired him even while he was not a Jesus believer! (Luke 2:25-27)
Peter taught Cornelius household that “in every nation, he that fears HIM and works righteousness, is accepted with him” (Luke 10:35) where is your prerequisite?
When did the whole household of Cornelius experience the spirit and power of God? When they believed in Jesus? When they got baptized in Jesus’s name? No. When they heard the word! (Acts 10:44, 11:1, 15)
See how John teaches.
“No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”(1Jn4:12) Not Jesus believer but lover of brother is guranteed the presence and love of God.
Gean, you can prove anything by ignoring the verses that don’t fit your theory. You can prove that Jesus is not needed from the New Testament, as you just did. You can also show that Jesus is needed. The problem is that the authors of the new testament had a purpose. The purpose was for Jews to believe in Jesus. If there is not need to believe in Jesus, then why would they have die and being persecuted just for the fun of it? Those early believer thought it was essential to believe in Jesus, and that’s what you see as a message throughout the new testament. If I open a book and ask you the essential message of a book, you will not go and look for specific sentences out of context to prove what you want to prove. You would talk about the general intent of that book.
The SCOPE of the New Testament would be as follow “Jesus is the messiah, who came on earth to die for the remission of sins, and you have to believe in him to live a life that is pleasing to G-d”.
From Matthew to Revelation, this is the main message. The message of the New testament exclude (Exclusion for the scope of this book) how and why the people before Jesus did not need to believe in him to be right with G-d, it’s not a book of laws on how to live a life that is pleasing to G-d. This was done before, and this was not needed for the authors.
So, when you come with your examples, yes, you look like you have a point, but you forget the whole purpose of the BOOK…
Brother RT, i understand your point and agree that the message out of the scope of the N.T. would prevail over my counter-interpretations of the specific passages. You said “the message of the NT exclude how and why the people before Jesus did not need to believe in him to be right with God”
Of course! It is excluded because Jesus was not there yet! How could they believe someone who did not even exist?!
“It’s not a book of laws on how to live a life that is pleasing to God”
Can you prove this in front of vast amount of teachings regarding holy life that is pleasing to God which are found in Jesus teachings in the Gospels, examples in Acts, detailed teachings and applications in every Epistle, and warnings in Revelations?
If you can, bring it on bro!
Hi Gean, are you saying that your preacher is adding new laws each time he creates a sermon? Jesus did not intend to add anything to the book of the Law, neither did Paul. Their teaching was only to clarify what the law already said. Everything that is needed is in the Torah, Jesus / Paul and all the other NT writer tried to explain what it meant for some individuals, but really is not the intent of the writer to create a new sets of laws.
Brother RT. I am not saying that Yeshua is adding new laws. As you said it was not his intention to create a new sets of laws. You exactly know the intention of the NT writers!
That is why i believe Yeshua said like this.
“No man puts a piece of new cloth (Jesus’s new law) unto an old garment (Mosaic Law) for that which is put in to fill it up takes from the garment, and the rent is made worse”(Mt 9:16)
In other words, we should put a piece of old cloth (Mosaic Law) unto a new garment (Renewed covenant and law) to make it whole and complete!
So Gean, if the intention of the NT writers were not to put forth new rules, not to instruct on how to keep the rules, then what was the intention of the NT writer? Why did the NT writer wrote what they wrote? Why is it so important that Jesus came on earth and died on the cross if the intent of the NT writer was only to incite people to keep the law? It makes not sense to die for this man Jesus if all you need to be saved is to keep the law! He that’s all the message of the NT, then I really don’t get it!
Sorry for late response brother.
Amazing question which took years for me to find out!
The NT urges us to project ourselves mingled with Barabbas on the cross next to Yeshua. We were released sinners because of him. Imagine how Barabbas would have lived. Because of the new life in grace and love of God in Yeshua, he must have lived as a new man doing the good works according to the Torah. That is the purpose of salvation from the cross. “For we are his workmanship, created in Messiah Yeshua unto good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:11)
“Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works”(Titus 2:14)
Without conviction of the forgiveness
Manifested on the cross, we will always be hesitant to do the good work, dinstancing ourselves from others because of the fear of exposure of our hidden sins.
The prodigal son in Luke 15 was able to complete his return (repentance) to his father because he confirmed that his father forgave him by running to him and hugging and ordering the big party! The father who is running toward the sinners on the way represents crucifixion. If the father waited in front of his house, staring at him until his son steps into the door, the son might have run away because of the fear of punishment. So the repentance fails.
Gean, your explanation seems weak. G-d forgives those who repent as per Hebrew Scriptures. If I was Jesus, I would have refused the mission. Seriously, God would have send Jesus (and he had to die on the cross) for the purpose making it clear that G-d can forgive them? Really, it’s all over the place in the Hebrew Bible. There was nothing more than that? Jesus’ followers died just to make sure people understood that G-d could forgive them? There must be something more that the NT writers and Jesus saw on their mission…
I admit the fact, Rabbi. I cannot deny that the statistic is a very important factor to judge the book.
Brother CR, you know the focus of the text is not an unilateral assertion of the status of the Jews,
to focus is fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10! Why Isaiah 6:9-10 is the number one Tanakh verse in the Gospel? What the spiritual blinding of His own people have to do with the glory of God Isaiah saw in the temple? How is it a God’s glory and fame when His chosen nation got invaded by pagans and the land and people got devastated, and more over, all the judgments and dooms were actually executed by God HIMSELF who took away the opportunity to repent?!!
Paul calls it Good news to the Jews first because Yeshua restored the glory of God. Yeshua fulfilled the prophecy by teaching the Jewish people with Parable (Mashall, Secrets, hidden truth, so that people will not understand) in order to be delivered by them to the crucifixion where God will expiate the sins of the HIS own people! What a glorious Father God to His own people; i envy so much the Jews whose Father is such a good father!
Jesus’ crucifixion has brought nothing but pain and centuries of suffering to the Jews Gean. To ignore that sentiment in favor of your theology is unfeeling at best.
Jesus has been anything but a gift for the Jewish people. If you cannot be bothered to notice all those verses where the Jews are called blind, even after the Crucifixion was finished, I don’t know what to say to you accept to ask that you please show a modicum of understanding.
Jews have no desire to embrace Jesus. Absolutely none, nor will they ever embrace a human being who is worshiped as divine.
The Messiah was supposed to bring peace and knowledge of G-d. Jesus literally died without accomplishing any of that, and at the same time, his words fueled the systematuc persecution of Jews who were blamed for his death. The Jews are far from blind to the Torah Gean, they are following its commands by rejecting the worship of Jesus, I am sorry to be so blunt, but it needs to be said, since you seem to think that all of those New Testament verses that slander Jews should be appreciated by them? Absurd.
How long will you define Jews as if they are forever victims and Esau who is enslaved to avenge what has been hurt in the past by brother?
Absolutely no Jews desire to embrace Yeshua? Don’t you see So many Jews including Pharisees, scribes, priests in the 1century Israel, and the Jewish diaspora in the synagogues in Asian Minor up until now in America and Israel… They are embracing him.
You are not supposed to control their wounds by bringing bad news; supposed to bring good news to heal them and comfort them. I want to suggest that we should interpret the Scripture and history by the Soverign God first not by human fault. Especially so in the history of Israel.
Hi Gean,
My apologies for interfering in this conversation.
“How long will you define Jews as if they are forever victims and Esau who is enslaved to avenge what has been hurt in the past by brother?”
What do you mean by the above? Does Esau represent the Jews and Jacob represent the believers (or so-called believers) of Jesus?
I know ,from your comments and responses from others that you are a non trinitarian believer of Yeshua .You have a heart to reach out to the Jews ,to show them who Yeshua is and to refute the so-called false teachings of the Church which have caused misery to the Jews for many centuries.
But Gean,the belief of the Church on Yeshua/Jesus is spot on .Yeshua/Jesus has demonstrated in the Gospels that he wants his followers to believe and worship him. Many early Christians readily embrace martyrdom with the belief that Yeshua/Jesus is G-d,that they have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”(Rev 7:14).Chief among them the early Jewish believers of Jesus-Peter,Paul ,Stephen among others . The Christian Scriptures were written with that belief in mind .Are you implying that the Church ,the Bride of Christ and recipients of their teachings does not know her husband?
With that in mind ,how can the Good News bring healing and comfort to the Jews? The believers of Yeshua/Jesus persecuted them ,instigated by the spiritual leadership of the Church who believed that their existence should be in misery for they denied Yeshua/Jesus and responsible for his death -most of these spiritual leaders are declared as saints by the Catholic Church.
In addition ,how can they go against what has been expressly taught to them by their Husband ,the G-d of Israel ,Creator of the heavens and the earth (Deut 4:15) ? I agree that we should interpret scripture by Sovereign G-d . If done that way ,you will find the Jewish Scriptures is the story of G-d , His firstborn and their relationship-there are ups and downs but one message is clear -He is faithful to the Covenant He has made .The terms and conditions of that Covenant has never changed .He alone is Their rock and their Salvation.He alone will vindicate His people and through this the whole world will see His glory.
Viewed this way ,the Christian Scriptures is advocating a different message -the worship of a different “G-d”.It interprets the message of the Jewish Scriptures from the perspective of the other G-d namely Jesus ,his acts ,his death and resurrection .It was Jesus who taught his disciples to see it that way,during their encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25).
Is your interpretation of Scriptures from this lens?
Shalom brother Sharon.
Thanks for interfering and lubricating this discussion, and especially thank you for your description of my heart and desire.
I think Revelations 7:14 talks not about
Christian martyrs in the early church. (By the way the term church means not Christians but the people who were called out by the word of God)
Rather i believe that it talks about those remnant of God who reject idolatry to antiChrist forced by the false prophet during the tribulations in the end time.
Good news to the Jews first! Paul declared. why? The word of God -Tanakh has been fulfilled! Good News is not “Jews, you will be justified if you believe in Jesus.”
Good News is “Jews, God has justified you in what God has done in the death of Jesus” so that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled!!
ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, Christ has died for us
ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES
Christ has resurrected and showed up.
This is the clearest definition of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15
Hi Gean,
You are right on rev 7:14 . I misunderstood the context of that verse. Thank you for making it clear.
Jesus said “I am the good shepherd , I know My sheep and My sheep know me”
(John 10:14).You mentioned that Christians are not the Church i.e called out by the word of God i.e Jesus. Are you saying that the Church has never known the intent of her founder ? I suggest you to visit the numerous Catholic churches in South Korea . South Korea has a rich Catholic history. Talk to the priests and religious there . Find out what is the meaning of “Church” from them.
Before I go on , please refer to Concerned Reader’s comments below on the new covenant of Jeremiah.
I can’t see the connection between Jeremiah 31 (if you mean verse 31-34) and 1 Corinthians 15 based on the following reasons:
-The message of Jeremiah 31 is also found in other books of the Jewish Scriptures :
a.“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. (Jer 31:33)
b. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you (Ezekiel 36:26)
c. The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (Deut 30:6)
-G-d will bring back those who have been scattered among the nations before the events above takes place.
– The verses is saying that G-d will put His Law /give a new heart /circumcise the hearts of the Jewish people. There is no mention of an intermediary. So what does the death of Jesus have to do with the giving of a new heart & spirit to a nation?
– The dispersion of the Jewish people occur some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus (from 135 AD) . If Jesus is the agent of G-d’s promise, the gathering should occur after his death and resurrection .The dispersion should not have taken place.
There are commenters who have given many other solid reasons to you and others as to why Jesus is not the Messiah, plus numerous articles in this blog.
You mentioned – “we should interpret the Scripture and history by the Soverign God first not by human fault”. My hope – the message I receive from the Jewish Scriptures is in alignment with the intent of the Divine Author, even if it forces me to alter my worldview and perception of Him. The Jewish Scriptures has its own message, which unfortunately has nothing to do with Jesus- interpreting it solely to find clues in order to support the message of the NT or its exalted character/Deity (however you define it) in it is a “human fault”.
Gean Guk Jeon I find it interesting that you compare the Jewish people’s problem with Christianity to Esau’s grudge against Jacob. The Jewish people haven’t been walking around for 2000 years trying to settle a score for something that was done years ago. We are just asking you to to stop trying to convincing us that your path is the better and more righteous path. That is not “enslaved to avenge.” I have seen people compare the Church’s centuries long persecution of the Jewish people in the attempt to “settle the score” for the killing of Jesus to the anger that Esau bore with the desire to kill. That comparison is easier to see.
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I have meditated upon the passage again, and i want now to ask you to forgive me for my inattentive comparison. Yet i still believe that the story contains the prophetic message of secrets that Esau represents the Jewish people (firstborn) and Jacob (second) represents gentile Christians. Jacob the church must bow down and repent for stealing the birthright of firstborn to reconcile with the big brother Esau, the Jews.
Gean Guk Jeon What makes you think that the Church has the birthright? Who has been serving God for the last 2000 years? Who has been living by the sword? Who has the promise of the land?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“How long will you define Jews as if they are forever victims and Esau who is enslaved to avenge what has been hurt in the past by brother?”
Gean, The Shoah happened only 72 years ago! The Jews don’t define themselves as victims, how absurd of you to say that.
They have actually still been victimized by many groups of people, even now, because people don’t believe they have anything to contribute to discussions of this sort.
Ever read about the Pogrom in Poland in 1946, the Kielce pogrom? Charges were leveled that Jews had kidnapped Christian Children for nefarious purposes, (which was a very common charge in Christian Europe.) When the Christian world (only in some quarters) stopped buying into hoaxes like “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” (A DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHICH IS STILL BELIEVED BY MANY,) the Muslims picked it up.
You are acting like Jewish persecution is an old phenomenon of a bygone time! It isn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
The fact that you are here trying to dictate to Jews how they should read their own religious texts, in light of your understanding of Jesus, is part of the problem. Why cant you just accept that they dont believe in your Messiah claimant?
Many of those who have done the victimizing of Jews were actually Christians, and there is centuries of Christian Jew hatred that fed the perception of Jews as bad people. Christian liturgy praying for the conversion of “perfidious Jews” was only removed in 1965! 1965!!!
“Absolutely no Jews desire to embrace Yeshua? Don’t you see So many Jews including Pharisees, scribes, priests in the 1century Israel, and the Jewish diaspora in the synagogues in Asian Minor up until now in America and Israel… They are embracing him.”
You don’t find many people among the Messianics who know very much about Jewish law, practice, philosophy, or the history of other Messianic movements who also embrace Jesus.
I only know one guy who was a former Chassidic Jew, who STILL OBSERVES JEWISH LAW, and is regarded by all traditional Christians as a heretic. Should a Jew stop observing the Torah because he meets one Jew who believes?
How many Orthodox Jews are you aware of who have embraced Jesus who still observe their Judaism?
You bring up Diaspora Synagogues and Jews in Asia Minor in the 1st century who embraced Yeshua as evidence that he was Messiah. That’s part of the issue. People who embraced Jesus did not know the Torah in its original language. They spoke Aramaic, and wrote primarily in Greek.
People who have embraced the Nazarene have not studied Judaism 1st before making their decision to convert. They usually let a mystical experience make the decision for them, before they have studied in depth.
Even Dr, Brown says “I knew the truth of what I believed with a changed life, but the rabbis said “you don’t even know Hebrew!”
The problem is, a changed life (such as leaving addiction,) or a mystical vision, is not grounds for a religious Jew to change his religious practices or beliefs. In fact, G-d shows you that miraculous signs are not equal to truth.
Hellenistic Jews who embraced the teachings of Philo of Alexandria also embraced Jesus. Tell me, why do you think none of the early Church Fathers bothered to learn Hebrew? Why were the early Christians so quick to abandon Jewish law (which the Hebrew Bible enjoins them to observe forever?)
If you say “Jesus made a new and higher law,” The Torah of Moses never states that it will be replaced by a different set of laws. The New Covenant of Jeremiah is not a different set of Laws, but a renewed spirit to Observe the law of Moses. Malachi 4:4 negates the possibility that the New Covenant could be a different law or a set of improved laws, because Jews are told in Malachi to prepare for the day of the lord and the coming of Elijah by remembering the decrees that G-d gave at Horeb.
“The Torah of Moses never states that it will be replaced by a different set of laws. The New Covenant of Jeremiah is not a different set of Laws, but a renewed spirit to Observe the law of Moses. Malachi 4:4 negates the possibility that the New Covenant could be a different law or a set of improved laws, because Jews are told in Malachi to prepare for the day of the lord and the coming of Elijah by remembering the decrees that G-d gave at Horeb.”
Brother CR, Amen Amen.
I agree with this statement thoroughly.
I think you know that John the Baptist disciplined his contemporaries based on the Torah, even before Yeshua taught anything or crucifixion or resurrection. I want to ask you and my Jewish brothers and sisters, how do the Jews of today keep the Torah? There is no temple; culture has changed; materials are not available; we face different enemies and different strategy. Do you still keep the Torah by word for word? or according to the spirit of the Torah?
Gean, Jews today keep Judaism in the same way that Daniel the Prophet did. Remember when Daniel was in Babylon, and when there was no Temple? Daniel’s Prayer and Repentance sufficed to please G-d in that generation when there was no Temple, so its the same today. G-d is content to forgive the repentant.
Jews still study about the temple, and they await its construction, but a Jew can still serve G-d, even without the temple. Jews have to keep the Torah’s words in such a way that it does not depart from the plain meaning of the commandment, (plain meaning in the sense of the way Jews have received for how to keep a given commandment.)
There is no accepted notion of a “higher law” that replaces an earlier one in Judaism. G-d gave Israel judges to decide in “cases too hard for you, between blood and blood,” how to keep the commands.
So, when technology changes (for example,) the rabbis would interpret the new technology through the lens of Torah, legal precedent from other cases, etc. (much like any body of law in the world.)
Gean, the issue really is as simple as this. If your interpretations of NT verses were true, then Jesus as a person would become irrelevant to the equation of a Jew’s or gentile’s relationship with G-d. Jesus becomes the optional and unnecessary 3rd wheel.
If Jesus only taught Torah, then Torah is sufficient, without him being involved.
If however the Christian Bible (and the prevailing interpretation of the NT by centuries of Christians) is true, then Jesus is the only way to approach the father, the only way to avoid damnation, the only path to eternal life, and Jews and gentiles who don’t believe in him as lord are blinded and damned.
That is what the whole of the Christian Bible teaches very plainly according to centuries of its own readers who were far closer in time to Jesus than you or I today. That is just a fact of history.
While your interpretation is interested in building bridges, the Christian Bible as a whole does not hold to your interpretation of it. I don’t say this to be mean to you, or to harp on this, but to just share the facts of how the New Testament is read and practiced by billions of people.
Just today in fact, this blog post popped up in my daily google news stand app. I was actually surprised this popped up.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/some-catholics-are-defending-the-kidnapping-of-a-jewish-boy/551240/
In 1858 (that’s the generation of Great Great Grandparents) a Jewish boy in Bologna was secretly baptized by his Catholic nanny, and as per mandatory Church teaching in Europe at the time, such a child was required to have a proper Christian education. So, what did the Church do? They kidnapped this boy! They stole him from his family, and raised him in a monastery, so as to save him from damnation. And the extra scary part? Catholics of the hard right traditionalist view TODAY, who want to undue Vatican II still respect that decision!
The Pope who oversaw this was Beatified (made a saint) by the Church AS A WHOLE, IN MODERN TIMES UNDER POPE JEAN PAUL II !!! Also consider the fact, that a traditional Catholic is much more liberal today then they EVER used to be. The Catholic Church today does not actively seek Jewish conversion anymore, but CLEARLY as the blog post shows, many Catholics still believe they should.
So, with respect (because you are a nice guy,) Jesus is not teaching Torah, because Jesus is central to his own message. Even if it wasn’t his intention to make his message about him, its the net effect of every word that he spoke, that people make it about him.
CR, this was quite interesting. Gean, I don’t want to be saying how or what you should believe. When I was a Christian, I used to go for a while in a Calvinist, predestination based church. After a while, I could not understand how G-d/Jesus could have decide who would go to hell, and why if he was the only one who decides the outcome (Hell/Heaven) of each individual, how could he choose to blindly close his eye and not save some. I refused to believe in such teaching for about 5 years, until I rejected the New Testament. Going back, and looking at those verses, it is clear for me that the predestination of the saints (Jesus decided who would be saved) is indeed part of the new Testament. It proves that if you want to believe something, or in the other hand if you refuse to do so, you will chose to understand some teaching that fits your understanding of G-d and the world. We can decide to interpret what the Bible should be because of our moral standards, not on what it said in the first place. We cannot imaging Moses stoning a person who gathered woods on Sabbath, we have to imagine him as vile. We cannot imagine G-d sending my grand-ma in hell because she was not a devout Christian (fill the blank), and in your case, you cannot imaging G-d sending HIS Chosen People in Hell because they have not understood Jesus as the messiah. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the New Testament say that all Jews who refuse Jesus will have part in the Lake of Fire. Just be careful not to put your interpretation on top of what the New Testament say…
Cheers and have a good week end!