Testimony of History
When scientists test a drug they do so with the understanding that things might not work out as they expect. Before allowing a given remedy to be widely distributed the researchers will subject this new treatment to a set of experiments. One of the experiments that these researchers will use is the distribution of this drug to a broad range of people. The scientists will take a large group of men and women, young and old, healthy and weak and administer the drug to them. At the same time they will take another, similar group of people and withhold the drug from them. Perhaps the researchers will give this second group of people a placebo during the trial period. At the end of the designated time, the scientists will evaluate the two groups of people, those that took the drug and those that didn’t.
It is obvious that they will not compare the strongest and the healthiest of one group against the weakest and most sickly of the other. The scientists will judge the two groups as a whole, the strongest of one group against the strongest of the other and the weakest of one group against the weakest of the other.
We have an experiment that has been running for about 2000 years. One group of people has been given to believe that all men are intrinsically evil. This same group of people was taught that man’s actions are really insignificant and they were taught to revere a god who never did anything for those who wouldn’t acquiesce to his desire to be worshiped. This group of people was also focused on a book that spends more words slandering the author’s theological opponents then it does preaching about kindness and justice.
On the other hand, a different group of people were taught to believe that all men were created in the image of God and that the inner soul of man is holy and pure. This second group of people was given to believe that every deed of man is immensely significant and they worshiped a God who constantly sustains every living creature even while they are in the middle of rebelling against Him. And the focus of this group of people was on a book that magnified their own faults.
So we have these two groups of people and we have a 2000 year case study. Each of these groups produced villains and saints. But what type of societies did these two groups produce?
The one group produced a society that had little respect for human life. It was a society built on class distinctions, considered cruelty to be entertainment and glorified war. Its attitude toward people who didn’t respect their god was disgraceful, this society often persecuted those who did not share their views and this society elevated hate to the level of religious virtue.
The other group produced a society that loved life, hated war, respected education, practiced kindness and learned to thrive under any condition. When this second society was persecuted and murdered, they spent more time reestablishing their own lives than they did hating their persecutors.
So what is the argument? How could anyone try to justify the perpetuation of these teachings which stand at the heart of 2000 years of evil? And in case you think that the deemphasizing the concept of man being created in God’s image is not related to murder, you will note that long before this experiment was conducted, the Bible had tied the two together (Genesis 9:6). And in case you thought that slandering people and standing by while they die are two unrelated actions, you will note that the Jewish Scripture tied these two concepts together as well (Leviticus 19:16). So how could anyone from Matthew’s school dispute the findings of this comprehensive experiment?
Ah! But there were some saints in this evil society. And the argument has it that all the other people in the society (those that were not saints) were evil before they were taught these teachings. It is only the saints who should be considered when we judge the effects of the teachings on the society. They were the “real” students of the teachings in question.
Is that how we conduct experiments? Would you want the FDA to apply this twisted logic when they test the medications for your children?
Isn’t it time to go back to the Torah’s teachings of respect for all humanity? Isn’t it time to stop denigrating the deeds of men? Isn’t it time to turn away from a man whose circle of supposed beneficiaries only extends as far as his popularity and submit our hearts to the One who holds the soul of every living being in His loving hand?
Is a 2000 year experiment not good enough for you?
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 
It’s even worse than that. Those saints–where are their voices? Where is the contemporary of a John Chrysostom vociferously defending the Jews against Chrysostom’s writings? Why did no one in Martin Luther’s period write pieces lambasting his anti-Jewish polemic?
Why didn’t Christians turn out in droves to protest the expulsion of Jews from their countries? Wherefore the silence in the face of discrimination against Jews when they were denied entry into every profession but money lending (and then hated for it)?
Today, when someone writes something that could even be perceived as anti-Semitic, we hear a loud chorus of Christian voices condemning it. Why did we have to wait until the 1960s to hear this kind of reaction to anti-Semitism?
Where were all the REAL Christians for the first one thousand nine hundred sixty years of their history?
Christians must find within themselves the courage and humility to confront their dark past, realize that they have no moral standing to preach to us about love, and leave us alone.
In other words the authors had to denigrate and condemn the “non-believer” in order to elevate their own belief system. There is nothing more evident than the story of Pilate. I never realized how far this went until hearing a sermon about the episode. Whereas I perceived the man Pilate as a duplicitous fool, the other side sees this man as a righteous purveyor of justice and was forced into the decision.
Few want to admit it, but there is a definite anti-Semitic result that lies deep within the psyche of those “believers”. Unfortunately there are few who eve realize this inherent condition. When it does surface, the true hatred is displayed without hesitation.
Sharbano, I’d like to add tangentially that the Pontius Pilate of recorded history was so brutal, ordering the crucifixions and massacres of so many Jews, that even Rome was appalled: he was recalled to Rome and replaced him with another procurator. The notion that Pilate would have been worried about the innocence of a particular victim but was swayed by the mob is laughable.
By the way, the only place where there is a “record” of Jews engaging in mob-like behavior is in Christian scripture.
It might be different if the Xtian had any interest in learning from other sources, especially other Jewish sources. It would then be apparent that Pilate’s history is not what is reflected in the Xtian writings. But if this were to happen it would also be realized how many falsehoods there are in that belief system. I suspect this is why church leaders expressly forbid their congregants to read such material, calling it devil inspired. I guess it is a matter of “ignorance is bliss”.
Not only “mob-like behavior” but when I read the Xtian text I simply cannot see any evidence that the authors were even Jewish. It’s as if the entire text was written by some foreigners and not Jews.
Jisroel,
We shouldn’t judge God’s word by the failure of men to put it into practice. If that were the case we would have thrown out the Hebrew scriptures before the time of Christ. The evil perpetrated you speak of was against the NT, not in compliance with it.
The NT is a book of love, life, forgiveness, and all things pleasing to God. It is mostly positive. It is also critical towards certain behavior (which you have mistaken as criticism towards all Pharisees). In the instances where Pharisees or others were criticized, it was their behavior or heart, which was in opposition to the Hebrew scriptures and/or the intent of God, which was the focus of the criticism. Such was also the case when Jesus rebuked his follower Peter and referred to him as Satan. Peter did not have in mind the things of God.
The Hebrew scriptures themselves were much more harsh than the NT to those who were in opposition to God. For example we see the ordered genocide of the Canaanites. Yet we don’t condemn the scriptures. We regard them as holy. We let God be God. Now, God in the NT has no such command yet you condemn the NT based on the failure of people to obey the teachings of the NT.
Yisroel,
My apologies for the misspelling of your name in the above post.
David, you raised a very interesting point.
In the Torah, we find commands to kill entire peoples, every man, woman, and child. In Christian scripture, there is no command to kill anyone.
It must be noted, however, that the Israelites carried out some of these commands but went no further. They did not oppress the surrounding nations (except in retaliation for crimes of war committed against them) or engage in persistent persecution. Certainly, since post-biblical times the Jews never oppressed other people.
I can think of a very few instances of rebellion, such as the Hasmonean uprising against Greek oppression, the Jewish rebellion against Rome, and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in modern times. The only internecine bloodshed among Jews since post-biblical times that I know of was during the time of their rebellion against Rome.
Yet while Christian scripture didn’t command its adherents to kill anyone, the killing was to be found among those very adherents. So while our Scripture with its harsh commands about killing had remarkably peaceable followers, your scripture without such commands about killing had remarkably bloodthirsty ones.
I agree with you that the behavior of some people does not prove the truth or falsehood of any given religious system. But the behavior of the overwhelming majority of a religion’s adherents toward a helpless, weakened, non-threatening people for most of its history should give you pause.
The fact is, Jew hatred was acceptable until pretty much the second half of the twentieth century. I’d like you to show me Christian condemnation of persecution. Why did John Chrysostom’s contemporaries not write against him in protest? Why did no one lambast Martin Luther for what he wrote?
Why is it that even today Christians don’t criticize these people for their morally sick views?
Answer me that, David!
Peace,
Dina
“God in the NT has no such command yet you condemn the NT based on the failure of people to obey the teachings of the NT.”
There is one such command said by Yeshu himself. Luke 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
This statement says nothing of bringing them before the Sanhedrin or even the benefit of a trial. It says to just Slay them.
The NT cannot be said to be G-d’s “word”. We find there is a significant omission in that text. In Torah it is written countless times that G-d says to Moshe saying… There is a reason it is written in that way. G-d spoke and it was His words that were transmitted. Do we find even a single occurrence of such words. Obviously Not. G-d never speaks His intentions to those original followers. Therefore, are we to follow someone who doesn’t even speak His intentions. On the other hand Torah Does speak exactly to and against Xtianity concerning one who performs miracles.
Is it “pleasing to G-d” to teach that Torah is defective, when G-d calls it a righteous Torah. Should we follow a religion that contradicts G-d’s OWN words. Are we to follow G-d and His Torah or man and his words. I choose G-d and His righteous Torah. Thank you very much.
David
Lets put the NT’s slander of the Pharisees aside for a minute – how about the emphasis on the depravity of man, the emphasis on the futility of man’s actions – two Christian doctrines which are not there in the Jewish Scriptures (unless you read them through Christian eyes) – do you think that it is a mere coincidence that the society whose moral teachers pushed these doctrines as important religious truths also had little value for human life and couldn’t appreciate the kindness practiced by others? – really – just a coincidence?
Yisroel,
As to Dina’s point, to be more specific, what I mean is that you (now) cite “doctrine” (two to be specific) to account for “2000 years of evil.” In your post you mention that it was due to “teachings.” You also mentioned that Christians were focused on a “book.”
Could it be that the problem was that for most of the 2000 we were NOT focused on a “book” but rather directed to focus on false teachings based on false doctrine not supported by scripture.
So, I’d like to see the causational link in the original scriptural source which produced 2000 years of evil as you put it.
I think the Apostles would not have recognized the church for most of its history over the past 2000 years; even today they would find significant departures from scripture. The vast majority of creeds, statements of faith and many doctrines are just not found in scripture. They support ideas and practices alien to the 1st century church of the NT.For much of Christian history the Christian ruling class has treated God’s word in the NT as insufficient.
My argument is that God’s word in the NT is completely sufficient, good, and holy. Any attempt to add to it results in evil.
So again, we shouldn’t blame God or God’s word whether NT or OT for the failings of man.
Are you suggesting that for 2000 years people weren’t properly following the teachings, or erred in the interpretation. In any event, if all the people in the past centuries were erring then how can anyone determine what Was originally the proper way. If people have been wrong for 2 millennium what makes the current trend correct. After this amount of time all that is left is speculation.
David, Sharbano is asking an important question. What we hear you saying, essentially, is this: Forget the last 2000 of history; those Christians had it all wrong. I, David, know better, I have the authentic Christianity, so you should listen to me.
This might not be what you’re saying, but from this side of the street, that’s what people like Sharbano and me hear (forgive me for speaking on your behalf, Sharbano).
If indeed that is what you are saying, then we can’t take you seriously.
Having said that, Christian anti-Semitism is NOT the reason Jews reject Christianity. Hopefully, you’ve read enough on this blog to know the reasons.
Be well,
Dina
Yisroel,
Can you cite scripture please.
I hope you two will forgive me for sticking my nose in, but I’m so stunned by what you wrote here, David, that I surely misunderstood. For which part of Rabbi Blumenthal’s comment do you request Scriptural support?
David
If you are asking for specific verses I will give you Genesis 9:6 and Psalm 8:6 for the idea that man is crowned by God with glory
and Jeremiah 18:7-10 for the idea that our actions are significant
But in truth every line in Scripture emphasizes these truths – you don’t deal with someone who is unimportant to you – would the President of the United States write you or me a letter? – But all of Scripture is God’s words to His people – He obviously considers us significant enough to spend so much time on
And if our actions were insignificant would the punishment for failure be so severe? It is because our actions are loaded with meaning that we are rewarded and punished
By the way – the reason we are important and our actions are important is only because God decided to consider them important
David
I realize that I misunderstood you. You were asking for verses from the Christian Scripture which teach the depravity of man and the futility of his actions.
I will point out to you that your doctrine which discounts any teaching that is not Scriptural has no support from Scripture. Jesus never said – anything that is not written down should be ignored – so where is your Scripture?
In any case – the teaching that if one is guilty on one point of the Law it is as if he violated all the Law is a teaching on the futility of our actions – what difference do our actions make once we committed one sin?
And the teaching on the depravity of man and his insignificance is inherent in Paul’s teaching that nothing we do can find favor in God’s eyes.
Yisroel,
In other words you have nothing. You have nothing which links your claim of 2000 years of evil to a “book.”
The Christian bible says men are intrinsically evil (born evil due to original sin): “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” Romans 5:19
“sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” Romans 5:12. Notice the “ALL sinned.”
“one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people” Romans 5:18.
“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
“you were dead in your transgressions and sins. . .we were by nature deserving of wrath. . . we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. . . For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:1-9.
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20″These are the things which defile the man;” Matthew 15:19.
“For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come–sexual immorality, theft, murder,” Mark 7:21.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23.
“If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire.” John 15:6
Non-believers will be damned (Mark 16:16). Non-believers in Jesus are condemned to hell (John 3:18), Jews are of their father, the Devil (John 8:44).
Sophiee,
Don’t you just love how the Christian bible which includes bot the old and new testaments is in such agreement?
Genesis 1:
27 So God created humankind[e] in his image,
in the image of God he created them;[f]
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them,
31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
Genesis 3:
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked
22 Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 – The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually… from his youth.
Psalm 14:
2 The LORD looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if 1″there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.
3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.
Psalm 51:5 – Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 143:2 – Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
Ecclesiastes 7:29 – “See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
Ecclesiastes 9:3 – Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
2 Chronicles 6:36 – “…there is no one who does not sin…”
David, it’s dishonest to ignore the Scriptures that don’t fit in with what you’re saying.
Genesis 6:9: Noah was a RIGHTEOUS MAN. See also Job 1:1. Also, I suggest you read Ezekiel 18 and 33. These two chapters describe how a person can become righteous or wicked–through his actions. Since you love doing word studies, why don’t you do a word search of righteous in the Hebrew Bible? The results might be edifying.
Now, how do you reconcile all of this?
That’s a question YOU have to answer, since this is a Christian obsession (yet another one) and not a Jewish one.
Best,
Dina
Oh, and by the way, to your last quote, David, a righteous man does not mean someone who never sins. That’s a ridiculous Christian definition. A righteous person is someone who does good mostly but sins occasionally. Unless you want to believe that Noah never sinned.
David — the Christian bible states that man is created evil. We are born tainted with “original sin” and need to have Jesus “save” us from this sin. This is NOT what the Jewish bible says. The Jewish bible states G-d said to Himself, “. . . the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Bereshit / Genesis 8:21. INCLINATION (man is inclined towards doing the wrong thing — he isn’t “born evil”) and FROM HIS YOUTH (not born into sin).
HUGE difference. ENORMOUS distinction.
As the Rabbi pointed out, the Christians are taught to “believe that all men are intrinsically evil” whereas Jews are taught that humans are created in G-d’s image (you yourself quoted it!) and that the inner soul of man is holy and pure (not evil).
You quoted Psalm 51 to prove that Judaism and Christianity are the same — but taking King David’s words out of context PROVES what the Rabbi says and refutes your thoughts. David is saying that HE was conceived by his mother’s sin (not his own — he wasn’t born a sinner). We are inclined to sin — but as G-d told Cain back in Genesis 4 — WE can overcome our own evil inclinations.
Isaiah 1:16-18 – “Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil. (17) Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow. (18) Come now, let us reason together, says the L-rd. 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.”
David, it looks to me that you did not comprehend my posts at all. None of the quotes you give say one thing about “original sin” or man being born a sinner or evil. No one disagrees that people sin or that people commit evil — simply that it is not BORN into us. We have the ability to choose good over evil. “if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it.” Genesis 4:7.
YOU can overcome evil.
The Torah states: “See, I [G-d] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)
When describing G-d’s creation plan, the prophet Isaiah reports that the Almighty created evil in the world:
“I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the L-rd do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
The Rabbi’s point stands. Christians have been given to believe that all men are intrinsically evil. Judaism teaches that man is inherently good, but inclined to evil from his youth.
Insults do nothing to “bolster your case.” They do the reverse — showing that you cannot prove your point by logic and facts.
David, what are you talking about? Are you completely unaware of the anti-Jewish statements in Christian scripture, like John 8:44 or 1 Thessalonians 2:15?
I’ll start taking you seriously when you publish a blistering diatribe against people like John Chrysostom and Martin Luther who wrote vicious things about Jews that had the real-life effect of inciting their Christian followers to persecute and kill Jews.
It doesn’t have to be you, David. A condemnation of all these great Christian leaders by any devout Christian would be fine, too. I’m flexible.
Dina,
You wrote:
“David, it’s dishonest to ignore the Scriptures that don’t fit in with what you’re saying.”
My response:
I agree. I thought it was obvious that I was bringing light a common practice of biblical manipulation (which Sophie was engaging with the NT). This is not limited to anti-Christian Jewish denigration of the NT. Jews, Christians and others, as well as those who aren’t but call themselves such, also engage in this practice.
Regarding your comment on righteousness. There is nothing to reconcile regarding righteousness as the NT also characterizes as righteous those who choose the good and reject evil. Here’s a couple of examples.
Hebrews 11:
7 By faith Noah, warned by God about events as yet unseen, respected the warning and built an ark to save his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith.
2 Peter 2:
5 and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly; 6 and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction[d] and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly;[e] 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by their lawless deeds that he saw and heard), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment 10 —especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority.
You wrote:
I’ll start taking you seriously when you publish a blistering diatribe against people like John Chrysostom and Martin Luther who wrote vicious things about Jews that had the real-life effect of inciting their Christian followers to persecute and kill Jews.
My response:
How is it that I am responsible for what someone else says or does unless I was in a position of absolute authority over said person? As I’ve already explained, the NT is the source of everything good and holy, not evil.
Are we not all accountable to God for our own individual evil we commit in opposition to the Christian bible which is holy and good? Catholics who mistakenly hold to a hierarchical system have priests, bishops, and a pope. And if you’ll check I think that from time to time the pope has come out to apologize for this or that. But for me, that’s irrelevant with regards to the NT.
David
I’d like to go record and say that I won’t be held accountable for a book that preaches a false g- d and replacement theology. As intelligent as you may be and knowledgeable as you are I simply view your beliefs as completely upside down. As you may think of me. Instead of coming here and finding areas of agreement and teaching those things you teach trash as far as I am concerned. I have read many an article where a particular belief was never mentioned, on purpose, it can be done.
David
So the answer is zero I guess. You have not one Scripture for your non-scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura.
As for the other points – do you deny the fact that the NT message emphasizes the depravity of man and the futility of human works? Is this not what you believe?
For a Sola Scripture proponent you easily discard quotes from the Christian bible! I’ve heard every excuse in the book for quotes missionaries don’t like — from “out of context” to “it was a parable.” They are the words of YOUR holy book and they confirm what the Rabbi said — the Christian religion says man is born into sin and is inherently evil. This is the opposite of what the Torah tells us.
Your comment that “the NT is the source of everything good and holy, not evil” shows clearly that Christianity is not based on Judaism and the Jewish bible. G-d CREATED evil. There is only ONE G-d and He created good and evil — and yes, He created sin. Read Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15.
Evil is not something external to humanity that is done “to us” by devils (demi-gods). It is a tool used by G-d to enable spiritual growth. Men aren’t born evil or “into sin” — we are born a clean slate. We are inclined to sin (so all those quotes of yours showing man sins are not applicable — of course we sin but we do it OURSELVES we are not born into sin).
The Christian bible says people are evil and need someone to wipe away their sins with his “blood.” The Jewish bible says man is inclined to sin and must overcome his own evil inclination — no one else can do it for you. Just think back to when Moses asked G-d to kill him to atone for the sins of the Jews. G-d said NO — (Exodus 32).
There is only ONE G-d. He created good and evil — He did so to enable man to have spiritual growth. Evil, like everything else, is a gift from G-d.
Yisroel,
Regarding the exclusive authority of the OT until John came (referred to as the Law and the Prophets) we have Jesus’ statements as follows; there are other examples but these should suffice:
Luke 16:
16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.
(note that it doesn’t say the law and prophets AND extra biblical material)
Luke 24
25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah[j] should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
(Note that he doesn’t say beginning with Moses and all the prophets AND extra-biblical material)
Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
(note that he doesn’t say the Law or the Prophets OR extra-biblical material. And he is not fulfilling extra-biblical material).
John 5:
39 “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.
(note that he doesn’t say extra-scriptural material)
Regarding doctrines in general (I’ve already spoken on that; I don’t hold to man’s made up non biblical or added to biblical doctrines, creeds, statements of faith etc.).
Regarding works:
John 5:
29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
2 Timothy 3:
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[b] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
Revelation 20:
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books.
Sophiee,
It looks to me like you didn’t read my post.
So, David, what’s your point?
Can man be righteous through his deeds, or is he a depraved and irredeemable sinner unless he accepts Jesus as his lord and savior?
What is your position on original sin, then?
To your last point, yes, you as a Christian represent Christians. And therefore it behooves you to renounce individuals who have incited hatred as morally sick and damned to hell. It behooves all good Christians to do this. I want them to name names. I want to hear denunciations of early Church Fathers like Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine and such leaders as Martin Luther who preached terrible and vicious words against us.
Why are Christians silent about this? And why are you defending this silence?
We are told that only ten percent of Muslims support terrorism. The rest are moderates who yearn for peace. I’ll believe it when I see the other ninety percent pour out into the street to protest terrorism every time such an act is perpetrated (Muslims are very good at demonstrating, as we all know). The silence of the overwhelming majority of Muslims tells me they aren’t too fussed about it.
The silence of Christians about great Christian leaders who incited hatred against the Jews tells me that Christians aren’t too fussed about it.
The End,
Dina
I just happened to be perusing a news article and this was the wording used:
“mealy-mouthed Pharisee Kenneth Starr”
Isn’t it interesting how Xtian writing permeates even the people in the news media. This attitude isn’t only reflected by secular media but is throughout Xtian followers. Considering Who those Pharisees were, and how it relates today, will reflect an anti-semitism that isn’t even acknowledged. It is there nonetheless.
How about “good Samaritan”? I see that one all the time — and that is nothing but another slap at Jews. The story in the Christian bible makes all the Jews into evil people while the idol worshiping Samaritan is the good guy. The Jewish Kohein (priest) and the Jewish Levite (who are the Jewish “aristocracy”) passed by on the other side of the street, ignoring the plight of their fellow-Jew, only one of the despised, outcast, idol-worshiping “Samaritan” was willing to offer assistance.
When the northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians they replaced the Jews, whom they exiled, with the Samaritans. The Samaritans created their own “version” of Judaism even though they were not / are not Jews. They became enemies to the Jews.
In other words they are not “good people” and the idea of the “good Samaritan” when they are quite the opposite while the Christian bible story castigates the Kohein (priest) and Levi is nothing less than a slap at Jews and Judaism in the Christian bible. The story replaces the hierarchy (e.g. as in a public Torah reading) of Kohenim, Levite and Yisrael with Kohenim, Levite and SAMARITAN!
David
It seems that for this foundational doctrine you couldn’t find anything in the Jewish Scriptures – and in the Christian Scriptures – you have no explicit statements – such as – “nothing is authoritative except that which is written” – but some weak inferences from instances where Jesus happened to speak from Scripture – this is far from saying that there can be no authoritative teaching
but that is only where your problems begin – as usual – you do not face the Scriptures that explicitly refute your position – and you don’t understand the context of Jesus words
You don’t face John 21:25 which explicitly says that Jesus did more than what was recorded in writing and that those books were simply not written for practical reasons – not because those events do not deserve to be written
You don’t face Matthew 23:2,3 where Jesus clearly attributes authority to those who believed in the unwritten traditions
You don’t face John 7:23 where Jesus quotes from the unwritten traditions in the same way that he quotes Scripture (there is no written law explaining what to do when the Sabbath and the commandment to circumcise conflict with each other telling us which of the two laws should take precedence)
You don’t face Acts 15:5 which tells us that some of those who lived with Jesus were Pharisees – they obviously did not come to the conclusion that you did – namely that there is no authority to the unwritten traditions
Finally – you seem to be blissfully unaware that the word “Law” in a Pharisaic context (and there is no question that Jesus’ context was Pharisaic) means the full understanding of the Law of Moses – both written and unwritten
As for works – Do you believe that John 5:29 teaches that people who do good works will be rewarded with resurrection of life even if they never heard of Jesus?
Yisroel,
You’ve failed meet my challenge to establish any link between a Christian “book” and anything negative. Your silence speaks volumes.
Since you know you can’t and never will establish a link, instead you have tried to bring into scripture non-scriptural Christian material which you then hope to successfully attack.
I’ve already explained sufficiently the OT. But you still seem perplexed and confused about many aspects of the NT regarding what is and what isn’t scripture. For example, it apparently stupefies you that Jesus can refer to sayings and bring them into scripture and then condemns the practice of replacing God’s command with the traditions of man. You can’t understand why John would refer to many works of Jesus but then not write about them. So I’ll attempt to explain.
it’s not complicated at all. Anything and everything that God wanted in the NT is there. It’s not too long and it’s not too short; it’s just right. For example, Jesus said more and did more than what is in the NT, but what God wants us to know, God has given to us. We should NEVER go beyond what God wants for us. God is sufficient. God’s scripture is sufficient.
In addition, God can use a saying of man if He so chooses. We shouldn’t attempt to put God in a box. But you and I can’t just make up material or use material on our own and misapply it and say well God used a saying or this material in scripture so I can too. In the same way that you can’t use scripture out of context, you can’t even use the same saying of man (which is used in the bible) in some other non-biblical context which would change the intent of God and misclassify it as God’s scripture, your misuse of man’s saying (even if cited in scripture). That would be a misapplication of scripture.
In short, non-scriptural material becomes scriptural when God uses it in scripture and so long as it is used in the context that God used it in scripture so that the intent of God remains unchanged.
So with that in mind let’s proceed to address your misapplied citations.
You cited:
John 21:
25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
My response:
Note that if God wanted to bring any number of the things Jesus did into scripture he could have. But he didn’t. He brought just the right amount (not too much, not too little). AND, John even tells us why he wrote what he wrote and not more or not less, but he specifically selected the set number the things which did and said as were necessary to believe in the SON of GOD as he says in
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[am] that Jesus is the Messiah,[an] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
You cited:
Matthew 23:
2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
My response:
Of course this one applies to people under the Law, not Christians. Nevertheless, I think I see why you’re confused with this one. Here Jesus is confirming the authority of the Law as administered through the Pharisees. The Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat so they have the authority to make those under the Law of Moses follow their teaching. Of course it goes without saying that He is not here saying that the Pharisees have the authority to teach AGAINST the Law of Moses. Actually He implies that they do at least teach the Law of Moses. The big big big problem with the Pharisees in this situation is that they don’t practice as they teach; therefore, those under the Law should NOT do as the hypocritical Pharisees do.
You cited John 7:23
My response:
We should here cite the whole paragraph to get the full context;
John 7:
19 “Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?” 20 The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?” 21 Jesus answered them, “I performed one work, and all of you are astonished. 22 Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a man on the sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the sabbath? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Again, this is directly applicable to those under the Law of Moses but there is a great lesson Jesus gives us here; I’m glad you cited it.
So, they’re all pissed off at Jesus because he had the audacity to heal on the Sabbath. And Jesus turns around and points out their hypocrisy by showing how they perform circumcisions on the Sabbath.
Here’s the lesson. At times there will be competing God ordained activities in our lives and only one can be accomplished. In those cases we make a choice as to which of the two activities is the will of God for us to do, at that particular time. Jesus is not saying they were wrong for choosing circumcision, but He is saying they made a choice that circumcision was more important to God at that time than the Sabbath. Likewise Jesus made a choice that healing is always more important to God than the Sabbath. So they both (Jesus and his detractors) “worked” on the Sabbath yet they didn’t see the hypocrisy of their anger at Jesus for also doing work on the Sabbath.
NOW, with regards to what is and what isn’t scripture, the fact that Jesus states here and is recorded here in John 7, being the Son of God (who speaks for God) and is clarifying here that we have to apply priorities to the commands of God (and not just limited to circumcision) when only one command can be performed is in itself by definition scripture.
Jesus is NOT as you imply simply codifying the traditions of man and elevating it the level of scripture because he thinks it was scriptural to begin with. Nothing of the sort. If that were the case there would be no hostility from his detractors. Jesus is elevating a Godly CONCEPT to the level of scripture. And that concept is as explained above and stated by Jesus himself in
verse 24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Secondly, continuing with regards to what is and isn’t scripture. It’s not scripture until it becomes scripture. By that I mean that it wasn’t scripture until Jesus spoke it into scripture. It is irrelevant whether or not any particular practice is or was a tradition of man before it was scripture. It could have been a tradition of man to sacrifice to God before it was scripture. You and I don’t have the authority to call something scripture until it is actually scripture. In this case we can now say that to not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment (especially with regards to circumcision and healing on the Sabbath) is now scripture. Judging with right judgment could have even been a tradition of man before; again, it doesn’t matter. Now that Jesus spoke it, it is now scripture.
In conclusion, your mistake is to think that just because some traditions of man become scripture that then means they were always scripture from the beginning and that also we have the authority to elevate whatever we want to the level of scripture.
You cited Acts 15:
5 But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses.”
My response:
This was in fact confirmed in the Law of Moses as you should know, (Leviticus 12:3 Exodus 12:43-49) from what God gave to Abraham (Genesis 17:12). The conflict or tradition of man had to do with circumcision specifically on the Sabbath as I already addressed above.
But leaving that aside, even if circumcision was a tradition of man, it became scripture not to do so for Gentiles at that time. It was not “scripture” or a directive from God one way or the other regarding Gentiles until it became so as discussed in Jerusalem and then recorded in Acts. Before that time it was not scripture.
Christian Scripture of the NT is Christian Scripture because it is based on one particular person, the Son of God, and has the authority of God himself. That one particular person (the Son of God) increasingly gave authority to His Apostles to eventually include the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit. Those who initially spoke with the authority of the Son of God (who himself spoke with the authority of God) were those Apostles who knew the Son of God from the beginning of His ministry and those others who were confirmed by one or more of the Apostles (such as Paul and Mark). In this context then James and the other apostles had the authority to instruct the Gentile Christians in the matter of circumcision. Godly men then recorded these events as the Spirit of God directed them which we have today as the Christian Scripture of the NT.
Acts 15:
22 Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds,[h] 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives[i] and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[j] and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
You wrote:
Finally – you seem to be blissfully unaware that the word “Law” in a Pharisaic context (and there is no question that Jesus’ context was Pharisaic) means the full understanding of the Law of Moses – both written and unwritten
My response:
Scholars agree, the overwhelming evidence is that Jesus and others of the NT used the term Law and Prophets as short hand exclusively for the written canon of OT scripture. Most of the citations Jesus used can be traced directly to the “written” Septuagint. The others are to the “written” Hebrew Scriptures. When referring to scripture sometimes He says it is written and sometimes He says it is said in such and such. However, I read of at least one citation by Jesus as recorded in the NT where he refers to what a prophet of the OT “said” which is not found in the written word of the OT prophet (I cannot find the citation in question right now but will provide it when I find it).
But again, since Jesus referred to what the prophet of the OT “said” (even though it wasn’t written in scripture) and what Jesus “said” IS recorded in NT scripture, it is now scripture. See how simple that is? Not complicated at all.
I’ll get to your comments on works as time permits.
Xtian Scripture??
This “scripture” was canonized by the catholic church, not by G-d. Whose words are you going to follow, Yeshu or Paul. They certainly are not the same.
This doesn’t even take into consideration all the flagrant errors in the Xtian text. We see the contrivance from the very beginning when Yeshu says to get the ass so a “prophecy can be fulfilled”.
Anyone who uses the term “traditions of men” certainly calls into doubt of them even being Jewish, Or, the writer knows nothing of Judaism or how it is suppose to work.
We also see Yeshu using the straw hat argument by stating what is taught when it is something that is NOT taught.
It’s no wonder the man-god had so few followers as opposed to a truly great man, R’ Akiva, who, when tortured, said the Shema. Something a “real” Jew Would say as opposed to Yeshu who cries out why G-d has forsaken him. Let a “Real” Jew be Mashiach instead of a man who was ignorant of Torah.
It’s no surprise they used the “Septuagint” when the church edited the text. This is where the errors are derived from. No Jew would be using a Greek translation for their Torah learning. No wonder Stephen, who was supposedly guided by the “Spirit” erred in so many instances.
“Note that if God wanted to bring any number of the things Jesus did into scripture he could have. But he didn’t.”
If THIS were the case there would have been NO need for all of the writings of Paul. Evidently this Yeshu left out a great deal.
“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[am] that Jesus is the Messiah,[an] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”
Isn’t it REALLY, really interesting that G-d said something similar to Moshe but that wasn’t enough. The standard from Torah is that G-d would Speak to Israel and THEN and ONLY then would the people believe it was from G-d. By the Torah standard, G-d’s standard, Yeshu didn’t fit the bill.
One thing you’re missing the point on is related to the Kohen when he pronounces a house defiled. He directs the house be Emptied before he makes a judgement. Only afterwards does he make his pronouncement. It is the “Words” of the Kohen that makes a house defiled. Therefore the Kohen “creates” a reality. A reality on the ground, so to speak. This is the “authority” that G-d has imparted to man.
David, this is one of the best examples I have ever seen of circular reasoning. How do you know it’s true? Because the NT says so. How do you know something is scripture? Because Jesus said so.
Awesome!
By the way, the quote from the prophets you are looking for might be this:
Matthew 2:23: “And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” (NIV)
Of course the prophets said no such thing; Nazareth is not even mentioned in Hebrew scripture. But that’s okay! Matthew mentioned it, and he’s divinely inspired, so it becomes scripture! How cool is that?
Oh, and by the way, Rabbi Blumenthal and others in the Comments section have written extensively about the impact of anti-Jewish statements in Christian scripture on Christian-Jewish relations. Your statement that “You’ve failed [sic] meet my challenge to establish any link between a Christian ‘book’ and anything negative” is simply false.
You can deny it as much as you like, but we see a causal link between such passages as John 8:44 and 1 Thessalonians 2:15 and the persecution of the Jewish people.
David, it looks to me that you did not comprehend my posts at all. None of the quotes you give say one thing about “original sin” or man being born a sinner or evil. No one disagrees that people sin or that people commit evil — simply that it is not BORN into us. We have the ability to choose good over evil. “if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it.” Genesis 4:7.
YOU can overcome evil.
The Torah states: “See, I [G-d] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)
When describing G-d’s creation plan, the prophet Isaiah reports that the Almighty created evil in the world:
“I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the L-rd do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
The Rabbi’s point stands. Christians have been given to believe that all men are intrinsically evil. Judaism teaches that man is inherently good, but inclined to evil from his youth.
Insults do nothing to “bolster your case.” They do the reverse — showing that you cannot prove your point by logic and facts.
I don’t want to turn this into “Christian bashing.” There are many good Christians who look at the messages of being good to others and ignore the hate in the Christian bible. But the hate IS there — as is the history of Christian hatred towards Jews. To deny the good in Christians and their bible is as bad as to deny the evil.
The Rabbi’s point was that the message in the Christian bible that men are evil and have no control over their “sinful state” without the blood of Jesus means that far too many have used that excuse (literally “the devil made me do it”) to avoid personal responsibility.
Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Chrstians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388.
694 Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized.
1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities’ Jews, who would not convert to Chrstianity, expelled or killed.
1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech)
1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France).
1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked.
1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain.
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated.
1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed.
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland.
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned.
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Chrstians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Chrstians).
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered.
This Christian hatred to Jews continues to today. It didn’t end with the Holocaust. The ADL’s annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in the United States reported a total of 751 incidents across the U.S. during the 2013 calendar year. In March 2014 in Hungary Jewish tombstones were defaced with swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs, including the phrases “STINKING JEWS!”, “HoloLie” and “There was no Holocaust but there will be!!!”
Again — my point is to not denigrate the good Christians of whom there are many. I’m simply asking the Christian readers of this page to wake up to the realities of their fellow Christians. Sad to say that many will say “they aren’t real Christians” — denying the facts themselves.
Sophiee, Sharabano, and whoever else has commented on this thread
Thanks for your input – but please allow me to speak to David myself – anyone who wants to take David’s side is welcome to comment – but in this situation I want to articulate my position myself
Thanks
David
Let me clear up some misconceptions.
First – I recognize that such a discussion is going to be long and drawn out. Just because I didn’t present the evidence you wanted when you wanted it doesn’t mean I won’t present it. Much evidence has been presented to you but you haven’t seen it because you are operating under some serious misconceptions. I aim to clear up some of those misconceptions before presenting you with evidence.
Second – You don’t seem to understand why I brought the issue of the authority of non-scriptural material into the discussion – perhaps it is good that we keep it this way for now.
Three – The way you dismiss the evidence I presented to establish the authority of teachings not recorded in scripture reveals the weakness of your entire thought process.
Let’s take John 21:25 – John does not say that whatever is not recorded in writing has no authority – you put that in there from your own imagination.
John 7:23 – You missed my point – Here Jesus is quoting extra-scriptural understanding of scriptural law expecting his audience to accept it with the same authority as if he would be quoting scripture. How would anyone know that an act of circumcision would be a violation of the Sabbath?
Matthew 23:2,3, – Jesus accepts the authority of the teachers to teach – this is critical – nothing that you have said negates this obvious truth.
Acts 15:5 – You missed my point here as well – I quoted this to prove that there were those who lived with Jesus who were Pharisees – this means that Jesus did not teach the principle of sola-scriptura which is so foundational to your own outlook.
The word Law in the Christian Scripture is used as is the word “Torah” in modern Pharisaic Judaism – sometimes it is a reference to the written five books of Moses and other times it is a reference to a body of legislation – and this body of legislation in Pharisaic Judaism – in Jesus times as well as today – sees the Torah through the eyes of the community – the word “Law” is used in this sense in Matthew 23:23
So your misconception is that you insert your own imagination and call it “scripture”
Four – You still have failed to present a shred of evidence from the Jewish Scriptures to this foundational principle of yours – sola scriptura. And you haven’t explained why Jesus never said this principle clearly and without ambiguity – if he would have spoken as did Martin Luther on this subject – he would have saved countless generations from error – you see – until the reformation no one dreamed of this idea. If Jesus taught this so clearly – how come no one heard of it until the Reformation?
So your mistake is that the idea of sola scriptura is based on an idea concocted about 600 years ago.
As it relates to the concepts of the futility of works and the depravity of man – you yourself commented on this blog long enough so we know your opinion on this matter – we also know that you believe that your opinions have nothing to do with your preconceived notions and that they are all based on Scripture
Do you believe that Genesis 9:6 is a coincidence? Do you believe that it is a coincidence that the people who emphasized the depravity of man were the ones who murdered so much?
Yisroel,
“Scripture” as used in the NT is the OT, NT, or both together.
It’s not what-ever you want it to be.
Your error regarding scripture, as I stated earlier, is based on the fact that you fail to acknowledge that the NT is centered on Jesus.
If you are going to discuss Christianity and the NT (which you have been doing) It doesn’t matter what you call scripture, it matters what Jesus calls it. And in the NT Jesus clearly refers to the OT as scripture. And since you deny the Christ, AND deny the veracity of the NT it shouldn’t matter to you what Jesus in the NT refers to as scripture. So, you’re off on a tangent, a red herring, a wild goose chase.
Since you’ve made it clear you don’t want to discuss the real topic (at least for now) which is your failure to prove a causational link between anything negative and the NT I’ll provide you with one last citation regarding Jesus’ use of, and reference to, OT scripture; and then I’m done with our discussion.
Luke 24:44-51
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that
………………………………
EVERYTHING WRITTEN ABOUT ME IN THE LAW OF MOSES, THE PROPHETS, AND THE PSALMS must be fulfilled.”
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the
……………………………………………………………….SCRIPTURES
46 and he said to them, “Thus it is
……………………………………..WRITTEN,
that the Messiah[n] is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are
……………………………………..WITNESSES
of these things.
49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Maybe we’ll get together on some other topic in the future. It’s been nice debating with you.
David
At no point did I indicate that I care about what is called “Scripture” – the question I asked is what is authoritative. And your refusal to discuss this topic tells us all that the foundation of your faith – the principle sola scriptura – is not based on scripture but on the imagination of men.
As for my “failure” to provide a link between the Christian Scriptures and the evil perpetrated by those who honored that book – that is your judgment. you can reread my article and you will see that I have provided the links.
David,
I hope you are listening because I have some words for you.
It is unsporting to try to take the last word for yourself without acknowledging what you are doing and offering an apology.
It is unkind not to give Rabbi Blumenthal a chance to explain, when he informed you in an earlier comment that he would but that he was holding back for now because he wanted to first clear up something else.
It is ungentlemanly to insist that Rabbi Blumenthal answer your questions but refuse to answer his.
It is unfair to set up arbitrary rules for debate and refuse to talk to anyone who doesn’t follow your rules.
Are you interested in seeking the truth, or do you come here to lecture and score points?
I wish you well,
Dina
Dina
David said enough. The point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as accepting a book without a community. David happens to belong to the community that places the principle “sola scriptrua” as its slogan and believes that it only focuses on a book without focusing on any community – the position is internally inconsistent as David demonstrated to us.
Once we realize that we focus on a community then we can show how people who deeply believed in the principle of sola scriptura behaved when they accepted the books of the Christian Scripture.
Furthermore – instead of bringing a verse in as evidence – I brought in an emphasis – an emphasis on the depravity of man and an emphasis on the futility of works – which are hallmarks of David’s community – and I showed how these beliefs are not conducive to good behavior as history has testified
This is true, Rabbi. Thanks.
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.