Good, Bad and Both
– Isaiah 53; Deuteronomy 31:27; Numbers 23:21
Christians point to Isaiah’s prophecy recorded in Chapter 52 verse 13 through 53 verse 12 as the most obvious proof to the legitimacy of Jesus’ claims. The prophecy describes a servant of God who suffers for the sins of the world. Who else can this be but Jesus? Or so goes the missionary argument.
The fact is that no one saw Jesus suffer for the sins of the world. This is an unsubstantiated claim made by his followers on the occasion of his failure to fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Bible. People think of Jesus when they read Isaiah 53 only because the Church built its theology of vicarious atonement on the basis of this passage and because the Church invested 2000 years in an advertising campaign to associate Jesus with vicarious atonement. But the connection is not verifiable. The connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53 is as real as the connection between the drink known as Coca Cola and the colors red and white. It is a connection created by man.
But who else could this passage be talking about?
The Jewish commentators explain that this passage is talking of the righteous of Israel. The Christian argues against this interpretation by pointing to the many passages in Scripture which teach that Israel suffers for her own sins (e.g. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). How then could this passage describe Israel? The servant of the passage suffers for the sins of others and not for his own sins while Israel suffers for her own sins.
This Christian argument fails to consider two important Scriptural truths. The first Scriptural truth that the Christian fails to consider is the concept of collective guilt and the second is the concept that there are different ways of evaluating the same entity and both can be true. Allow me to elaborate.
When the prophets speak of the guilt of Israel, how many people need to sin before the guilty verdict is decided against the nation? What percentage of the nation must violate God’s commandments before the nation is labeled as “sinful”?
Joshua 7 provides us with the answer to this question. That chapter relates how one man sinned yet the entire nation is described as having violated God’s covenant. All it takes is one man and the nation is already guilty.
There is no question that the sins that brought this bitter exile upon us were more than the sins of one man. But the fact that the nation is declared to be guilty does not preclude that there are some righteous people amongst us. These righteous people, whose vindication is described in Isaiah 65:8-14, are not suffering for their own sins. It is this group of righteous people who suffers for the sins of the world and who Isaiah is speaking of and the Christian argument about national sin is simply irrelevant.
But there is another foundational Scriptural truth that the Christian is missing. And that is the truth that God sees the same people from different angles. Let us take the people of Israel in the generation of Moses. On the one hand they are described as rebellious and stiff-necked (Deuteronomy 9:6; 31:27). On the other hand we are told that God sees no iniquity or perverseness in Israel (Numbers 23:21). How can this be?
This same seeming contradiction is found in Scripture concerning King David. On the one hand David speaks of his sins and his guilt (Psalm 38:5; 40:13; 51:5,6). But on the other hand he speaks of his righteousness (Psalm 7:9; 18:25). So was David a sinner or a righteous person?
We can find the answer to this dilemma when we realize that God judges people on different levels. On the one hand, no living being is justified before God (Psalm 143:2). This includes even the angels (Job 4:18) and it would certainly include the men that are deified by the various religions. Yet on the other hand we find that Scripture is filled with righteous people. Because God also judges people by taking their frailties into account (Psalm 103:14). Another way of understanding different judgments against the same people is by recognizing that sometimes the judgment is declared in relation to other people. In the sense of the absolute, the person may be guilty, but in contrast to other people the same person may be considered righteous.
With this understanding we can approach the judgment against the Jewish people. We know that they suffer for their own sins as the Scripture clearly spells out in so many places. Yet we see that they have not violated God’s covenant (Psalm 44:18). The prophet tells us that in the Messianic era, Israel will be vindicated and her righteousness will be obvious to all (Isaiah 62:2). Israel will be rewarded for having hoped to god throughout her long exile (Isaiah 25:9; 26:2; 49:23).
Isaiah 53 is speaking of the righteous of Israel. Did these people sin? They certainly did as did every living being created by God. But are these people righteous? They certainly are, if only because they hoped to God and to no one else.
The nations of the world cannot appreciate Israel’s loyalty to God. They ridicule this loyalty. They call it legalistic and hypocritical. They see Israel’s rejection of their idols, not as an expression of love for God, which it is, but as an act of immorality and arrogance. They cannot fathom how one can be human and sinful and still enjoy God’s light.
But when God will openly reward His servant who maintained loyalty to God the nations will realize that it was only because of Israel’s yearning for God that God blessed the nations of the world.
The prophet Micah gave expression to the voice of the servant described in Isaiah 53. The servant is not sinless, but the servant dwells in God’s light even when surrounded by darkness. And the servant’s enemies will be confounded when these simple truths will be revealed (Micah 7:7-9).
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
I also think of a couple of related ideas you’ve written about before, since forgiveness is also part of the righteousness described for Israel and fits with what you wrote here. You said how the Yom Kippur liturgy quotes from Job about how we can bring nothing to God that He hasn’t given us. You also said that since the servant offers his soul as a guilt offering, this image reflects on the idea of repentance (the time when such offerings are given) even at the same time as it speaks of a sacrifice being made by martyrdom and adding to the restoration of the world.
Quote; “The fact is that no one saw Jesus suffer for the sins of the world.”
I’d like to mention another fact, the fact that everyone can see suffer Jesus for the sins of the world. Christians have seen that particular graven image on a Crucifix so often that their belief concentrates on this “fact”. On the other hand Yeshayahu was a Jewish prophet and I imagine HaShem providing a graven Image for Israel or a Prophet of HaShem predicting a graven image. If Christians were right, Isaiah would have attempted to lead Israel into idolatry and he had to be stoned to death and no-one would know anything about him today.
Israel was given the commandment neither to worship graven images nor to serve them. Pagans were never lead out of the house of bondage, thus this commandment is not valid to them. Pagans may pray to a carved idol and serve it, but never Hebrews.
HaShem was frank when HE forbade human sacrifices. Abraham was taught: Ram; yes, Son; no! Yet, in Greek mythology we find lots of divinities killing their sons in order to save the world. Thus we know, where the idea comes from that Theos (not ELOHIM) killed his son.
How can sins be blotted out? Okay, a Jew sins when he brakes the Shabbat and keeps the Sunday and a Christian sins when he brakes the Sunday and keeps the Shabbat, except SDA, e. g. A Jew sins when he prays to Jesus (Yeshua) and a Christian commits sin when he doesn’t. Now, what are the sins of the world? I got it: it is the “original sin” that the church father Augustin invented around 400 C. E. For about 400 years the church had a sacrifice and no-one knew what it was good for until Augustin had the “great illumination”. While a Jew only can sin after his BarMitzvah, a Christian was born as a sinner. And again the Tenach provides the so-called truth;
Psalms 51:5 KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Quote; “Joshua 7 provides us with the answer to this question. That chapter relates how one man sinned yet the entire nation is described as having violated God’s covenant. All it takes is one man and the nation is already guilty.”
In the desert, on Shabbat, there a man collected wood for fire. What, if he would not have been stoned? It would have been a signal for the people that HaShem doesn’t take it serious and every-one would have collected wood on Shabbat.
And there is another Christian point that I can see; the salvation from the eternal hell. Every Christian believes this; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the hell and the earth – And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good, especially hell.” Where does the Hell come from? It comes from the so-called New Testament and got, by translation, somehow into the Christian so-called Old Testament. Today, I do know that the Tenach mentions neither “Hell” nor “Devil”. The Devil the Hell!!! 😀
When I see the suffering servant, today, I consider all the preceding chapters in Isiah mentioning Jacob/Israel as HIS servant. And this servant I can clearly see suffering, wen I come to pogroms or to the shoa e. c. Thus, using Isaiah 52/53 for a crucifix-idol is ‘plain’ syncretism.
Peace to all!
One word of the Messiah to understand: if they treat the green tree like they did imagine how they will treat the dry wood…
Hope you will understand! Many blessings!
You call him Messiah, I call him carved idol. We both mean the same. But, please, tell me, why St. Paul was canonized by the Pontifex Maximus? Is St. Paul “sanctus” or is he “kadosh”? And, please notice that between a Roman Catholic “Christ” and a Jewish “Mashiach”, there is a vast difference. A Jewish Mashiach always has to be anointed by the High Priest / Kohen HaGadol from the tribe of Levi, a descendant of Aaron, according to Torah with a distinct oil mixture. Please tell me; where did who anoint Jesus Christ according to Torah? Since Jesus evidentially never was anointed this way he cannot be Mashiach. That he is Christ, this fact is evident because the Vatican teaches it and the Vatican is teaching the plain truth – hope you understand.
Hi Shomer! Peace to you!
First I am not a Roman catholic but an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Russia being the land where the majority of Orthodox come from). If you knew a little bit of History you would know the antipathy of the Orthodox for the Roman catholics. They are idolatrous in a sense with their idol the pope of Rome. I encourage you to study Orthodoxy and you will find the whole Revelation and the Beauty of the living Divine Liturgy.
Now concerning the Messiah the Christ in Greek. The anointing of human messiah like the king are made by the High Priest but for us the Son of God incarnate in the Flesh is the Himself the High Priest of the Heavens in the order of Melki-Tsedek (my King Righteous) The Father in the Heavens through His Holy Spirit sending His Word in our world to transform it by within by the daily Sacrifice of the perpetual Eucharistia.
Also the anointing of the Humanity of the Son Eternal is made by the Hypostatic Union with the Word Eternal. No need of human priest when the Eternal Anoints Himself!
There is something I do not understand. You quote a Roman Catholic crucifix idol from the Roman Catholic New Testament (green tree) although you are not Roman Catholic. When I quote from the “NT” I do it for this one and only reason; I work out the contradictions within this Roman Catholic anti-torah-pamphlet. Especially St. Paul contradicted himself so strongly that I can’t trust him a word any more today but it takes time to work it out. By the way; as a former Evangelical I knew the difference between the (wrong) Catholic church and my own (true) Evangelical doctrines. But today I see that I was betrayed by my clergy men and I had to learn that my Evangelical beliefs had all come from this (wrong) church. How can (right, orthodox) doctrines from a (wrong) Catholic church be true? Think about that.
Leaving Protestantism is quite understandable for your pseudo-ministers are workers of iniquity. The Lord Yeshua already warned us about them in his Gospel. The one who walks in truth is the one who do the will of the Father not the one who heals or chastises demons or preaches with an agenda.
Now concerning your Roman catholic so-called church called the Prostitute by saint John, she is not the Sobornost (Katholic) Church. You are all confused but that is normal having been lied through out your days.
Now for you to understand: Daughters of Babylon Protestant sects and their mother the Whore of Babylon, the Roman church are counter-witnesses to the truth. The whore left Orthodoxy with her doctrine of papal supremacy disobeying her own bishop of Rome Gregory the Great who warned future bishop of the temptation of spiritual pride by elevating himself above the sons of God. They forgot the warnings of the Christ in his Gospel and his Humble example. What followed was all kinds of adulterous doctrines:
*like the cult of angels
*the supremacy of a man the pope instead of God
*fast on Shabbat days
*the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharistia
*the dual-procession of the Holy Spirit
*the immaculate conception of Maryam
*the change of times and feasts days
*the persecutions of Orthodox Christians and Jews
*the abrogation of children Communion
*the abrogation of the Communion to the cup of Salvation
*the infallibility of a man the pope
*the elevation of a man as an idol, the pope
*the worship of Lucifer in the Vatican
*the belief in extra-terrestrials beings as brothers
*the baptism by sprinkling instead of immersion
*the separation of Baptism from Chrismation
*the love of power and political influence
*the love of money and riches
Conclusion may the Lord have mercy on you and may he shines his face upon you that you may rejoice in the whole truth and that you may live in peace in his Kingdom.
You wanted to explain that Christianity is not internally contradictory. But even if that were so, your beliefs are very radical and the loyal followers of Moses’ covenant Torah can’t risk making a mistake if a man who is claimed to be God incarnate really is just a man. They can’t risk changing their tradition if it was never meant to be changed. What level of proof do you think is acceptable before you begin to worship a teacher?
I was blocked yesterday. And I think I am being censured. I must be very deranging for those who run this blog.
Shalom to you!
I understand the risk that you are talking about and actually based on American state in religious affairs and the many sects of all kind I would be confused and puzzled. Therefore I condemned nobody but as I witness of the Resurrection of Christ and a keeper of His Commandments I can not stay comfortable and share not the Beauty of the Revelation that can save people life and elevate them to the Heavens. That would very be selfish.
Why 20 millions of Christian Orthodox preferred to keep their Faith rather to renounce it during the rage of the Red Communism Era? Because they were witnesses and knew that this life is worth being lost for the gain of the Kingdom of Heavens.
Therefore the risk on those who do not believe is bigger for two reasons:
1) For Christ words are clear to whom will not enter the Heavens!
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,[d] and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”(Book of Revelation chap. 21)
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. (Book of Revelation chap. 22)
In contrast, majority of Rabbis will say you can enter the Heavens whatever the Religion except those who sacrifice to idols. Most rabbis I think (based on their testimony on net) do not condemn Christianity.
2) According to Saint John who is the liar the one who refuse to believe that:
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1John2)
Conclusion the risk is on your side and personally taking your risk of unbelief to cling on a new Judaism post Temple when we know that the keeper of the Temple Divine Liturgy are the Christian Orthodox is way to risky when eternity is in the balance. Evaluate this very carefully but foremost pray and pray the One Elohim for He is not a deceiver bu the God of Truth the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
Christian What is more important – to obey God or to get into heaven?
Either you are very old, or you do not know what a witness is.
It’s interesting how everyone is an idolater, Except the one who says he is not.
Sharbano, are you not?
Christian Paul what say about your painted images….If Roman Catholics are idolaters
I don’t see you any better.
Rabbi Shalom to you! You asked: “Christian What is more important – to obey God or to get into heaven?”
This question supposes that the two are to be chosen one against the other. It is only possible if:
1)If your god is not the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. If your god is the satan then of course I will chose Heavens for the false god satan has his place in the underworld… and will never obey this liar..
2)if you understand the realities of the Heavens as being separated from God
Counter response to your false conceptions:
1) When you obey the true God and do his will you will enter the Heavens
2) The Heavens is entering in the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit that is why now the satan and impure spirits are banished from entering
Conclusion your question is an absurdity in itself!
Many blessings and may the truth prevail in all!
Christian The point of my question was addressed to the idea of which of these two we should me fearful of – so answer the question
I respectfully answered your question. Obviously you did not like the response. Maybe you should read it carefully for it is important not to divide the reality of the Faith. Only the divider wants to divide. The One Elohim is a unifying Force for those who believes in Him and Heavens cannot be dissociated from God. I think you should know that. Unless I am too idealistic to think that a Rabbi should know the things of the Heavens.
Many blessings and may the truth prevail in all!
P.S.: To those who believe in the Resurrection the light of the Heavens shine upon their faces and they proclaim the Beauty of the Kingdom!
Christain I am satisfied to leave it to the readers to decide
ypf, “Christian What is more important – to obey God or to get into heaven?”
I wondered where wil that answer lead you?
There is no such a thing in NT to choose between those two, so I guess you are leaving it up to our choice anyways but it is showing an unrealistic decision to make. What do you call heaven, if not the place with God? So if you obey God , you are not excluded from the place where you can be with Him or know Him.
And what if there were no heaven, no afterlife. Would it still be important to obey God?
Eric My question was – which of these two issues should be foremost in your mind and heart?
I have a question for you which is more important obey your Father or your Mother?
If you can response to that I might see the goal of your question…
Thank you in advance!
Christian Those two are equally important – now please answer my question
Rabbi If both are equally important therefore God the Father and His Kingdom His Shekhinah our Mother are equally important for all sons in the Son obey to both and cherish both.
ypf, what is more important to you obeying God or obeying all the extra laws you added to God?
I do not know what you mean by ‘going to heaven’ ??. God and Jesus spoke about eternal life which will take place on earth. Which is continuation of life with God. If you obeyed Him , that life is part of your future. . To many ‘heaven’ is simply expression of a place opposite to God’s judgement. Place with God instead of being separated from Him. So your questions narrows to that’ what is more important; obeying God or ‘not being separated with Him forever”? You can’t choose between one or the other, they are all one . By the way, I will answer your question you are aiming at; our obedience to God means following jesus.
Eric Let me explain what I am aiming at with my question. C.P. tried to argue that if one were unsure if Jesus was telling the truth or not they should still follow him because of the fear of not making it to eternal life. What I am trying to show C.P. is that first and foremost we should be focused on obedience to God. With that focus – if one is unsure about Jesus’ claims then they cannot follow him because it might be a rebellion against God. Do you understand my point? Do you agree with the idea that if someone is unsure if Jesus is telling the truth or not that they should not follow him?
Rabbi rest assure that Yeshua is more than a prophet or the one telling the truth. He is the Truth being God Word in the flesh. No lies is to be found in Him! He was not God manifest until the Father decide to manifest Him to his People. Like the prophet predicted He became a stumbling block being a Humble Messiah instead of a Moses elohim.
This was permitted by the Father to let the Gentiles in the New Covenant and bring them out of Paganism. Your accusation of Yeshua being an idol only takes grip if Yeshua was not in the heart and soul of millions of believers who gave their life having been witness of the Power of His Resurrection much powerful and convincing than what happen in Sinai. For higher is the realm who touches your being higher is the grace you receive.
A carnal sensual impression is not higher and more powerful than a spiritual impression in your intellect. The higher the degree of Communion and Communication the higher your being is transformed into the light of the Heavens. But how can you understand what you do not know. I hope one day you will!
In the mean time, many blessings and may the truth prevail in all!
Christian Paul You have accused the Jews of tampering with the texts – the link you provided showed that either you lied or were lied to. Either way you are passing on a lie – a testimony to the falsehood of your congregation. Will you admit that your accusations were false?
Obviously you did not read all the verse in Hebrew from the dead see Scrolls and see how they have been tampered (the Masoreitic text). I will let you read it again carefully and compared to your actual text. I thought the tampering was significant but not what I just discovered with my own eyes.
Saint John Chrysostom and Justin Martyr were right and even now scholars can prove with the Dead Sea scrolls the discrepancies. The Septuagint is more align with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Believing a Saint and father of the Church versus some people having an agenda to supposedly protect their community from the strong arguments of Christianity, I will reasonably chose a Saint for he is a man of God. This is a no brainer! Plus now we have proofs that are confirmations of the allegations.
Many blessings and may the truth prevail in all!
P.S.: look at the Scroll Isaiah 7:14 there is two lines for this verse, look at the first and see for yourself if you read Hebrew and behold… What do you think now? Who must ask forgiveness for false accusations against a Church father and a Saint?
Shalom to you and may your eyes open to the Truth always!
Christian Chrysostom is someone that you trust? Can you read Hebrew?
Should we believe Chris or should we believe the evidence of our own eyes? I can’t believe you are writing such nonsense. You obviously don’t read Hebrew or else you wouldn’t write such an outrageous lie.
Strong arguments of Xtianity?? Really. Well, maybe you should go find someone who CAN bring forth strong arguments, since no one has as yet.
Christian Paul you even go against the opinion of your fellow Orthodox Christans. By example on Orthodoxchristianity.net:
“The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll has ‘almah, agreeing with the Masoretic” http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18805.msg278435.html#msg278435
You are the only guy on this earth saying the DSS say virgin. Don’t you think it is a little bit silly?
Shalom UVracha, Saul
I have found two “very important” miracles in the “New Testament”. Since the holy virgin Mary had a son (which is confessed in Orthodoxy likewise – so, where is the difference?), the bachelor St. Peter, somehow, had a mother-in-law – a great miracle!
When someone translates ‘ruach hakodesh’ by (holy) ghost he sould know that where there are ghosts there it is haunted. Thus you know who copulated the holy virgin. (Please don’t laugh!)
Rabbi Shalom to you!
I am not here questioning in the DSS the alma I have seen it. But what you did not see is the Tetragrammaton who is in the DSS and absent in the Masoreitic.
“YHWH behold the alma”
This is more powerful than any text. If YHWH behold the alma it goes in sync with the Gospel of Luke chap. 1. It only confirms the Christian view and even more powerfully than I previously thought. This is major!
Many blessings and may the truth prevails!
Your first contention was “alma” was NOT there;
This is what you wrote There:
“Double click many times to go see the Hebrew not what they translated. And I ask you can you find honestly there the word almah? “
Christian One thing at a time – do you admit that your accusation about deleting “virgin” was false?
Peace to you Sharbano!
Did you read it? My first contention is that I do not see ‘alma’ thanks to Jim I spotted it and discovered something stronger: YHWH name appears in the DSS (Isaiah 7:14) but not in the Masoreitic.
YHWH BEHOLD THE ALMAH… do you see it? That is major confirming the Gospel of Luke 1:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”
38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
May the truth prevail in all and many blessings! The month of Mercy starts tomorrow I think: Shabbat Shalom to all!
Christian You lied – admit it
What was that g-d’s name, Zeus.
Eric, you have mentioned ‘heaven’. This Christian place where some Christians go to after passing away, reminds me that there is another place where the others go to – eternal damnation resp. hell. But heaven and hell are both unknown to the Torah. Sheol is something totally different and so is the Jewish book of life. Yet in the Torah we find synonyms; good and bad resp. good and evil. But there I must admit that both, good and evil, result in death and not in life. If a Christian thinks, the good is life and the evil is death he doesn’t know his own Holy Scripture.
shomer, “But heaven and hell are both unknown to the Torah.”
But eternal life with God and eternal abhorrence is mentioned in daniel 12 ;2. It doesn’t matter how people call that place of eternal life with God. Some call it heaven some differently. It doesn’t change the fact it is a place opposite to eternal condemnation.
I already explained before that NT talks about life on earth after resurrection.
If someone believes in life in-between after dying till resurrection as a type of soul life, it doesn’t matter to me.
I do not understand what you mean by
“But there I must admit that both, good and evil, result in death and not in life.”
Hi, eric krakofsky, I explain:
Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, good or bad, so to say. It does not say; “good or evil” but “good and evil”. Thus, good and evil is the same fruit. So, someone who talks about heaven, always keeps “hell” or “damnation” in mind. Torah doesn’t know heaven but sheol. In German Christian “OTs” in Numbers 16 we read that Korah and his company went to hell while Yaakov stated to go to his beloved Josef to the pit. The same expression in Hebrew in both cases (sheol) was mistranslated in German. Even KJV in Deut 32:22 lies; sheol is sheol and neither hell nor pit. Heaven and hell belong together like good and evil. Even the translations of the Greek “NT” lie, as GeHinnom (in Jerusalem), in Greek: Gehenna, and two different locations in Greek mythology were translated “hell” likewise: hades and tartaros. Have you been to Hinnom valley already. If not, I promise you that you will not find any eternal fire there.
Today, after half a century Christianity, I do know that there is neither a hell nor a (Christian) heaven! Both are fairy tales. But near death experiences come very close to reality (sheol). Whilst Evangelicals “know” that Roman Catholics go to hell, Roman Catholics “know” that the heretics do, including Evangelicals. I imagine, I was ‘God’ – I had a problem!
As long as you forget heaven (and hell) and trust in sheol, you are fine. Heaven was invented for the “good” (Christians of the own denomination) and hell for all others – both belong together like the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.
FYI, Shomer, traditional Jews do believe in an afterlife and we do refer to heaven and hell, though our concept of these is different than the Christian concept.
The Torah certainly alludes to an afterlife but does not dwell on it for the simple reason that we are not to obsess about it. Our task is to be obedient to God; anything else is irrelevant. The message of the Torah is how to live our lives in this world and we needn’t concern ourselves about any other.
Christians are obsessed with eternal salvation and eternal damnation. They would do well to consider how much the Torah addresses this issue (hint: not at all).
They would do well, on the other hand, to consider what the Torah actually does teach.
I fully agree – with one exception. Torah, Neviim and Ketubim know neither heaven nor hell but sheol only. As a matter of fact I heard of Rabbis that teach that a Jewish man cannot go to hell or that hell is shortened for him when he was married to a bad wife. So, Jewish men, never get divorced, when you do not want to go to hell…. But what if the wife is so bad that she’s getting divorced? Bad luck – hell. But how is a bad wife defined? Is it enough when she scratches him or bites him or does she need to shout at him or all together and how often – is once enough. You see, I do not find hell in Tenach but in Greek mythology only.
I don’t know where you get your information from, Shomer. It seems like you’ve got it all twisted. But no matter, you obviously don’t believe in the Jewish oral tradition.
Hi Dina, you got it. Since Moshe didn’t know the oral law, I don’t need to know it either – my opinion. Greetings
Moshe TAUGHT the Torah She B’al Peh so clearly he “knew” it. What do you think he did those forty days, And thereafter.
You wrote: ” Since Moshe didn’t know the oral law, I don’t need to know it either.”
This is not logical, since Moshe received the Law from God via oral transmission, and he obviously left stuff out when he recorded it in writing. For example, he said we should slaughter animals according to his prescription, but never wrote down how.
Oral teaching is essential to and a part of every culture. For example, that is how reading a language has been taught for thousands of years. Oral transmission is used to teach how to pronounce the letters and vowels (you can’t get that from a book).
Are you a Karaite Jew? The Sadducee had the same position as you:. Is this movement or party getting resurrected in our time?
Shomer how do you think that the written Torah got here? Is it not from the Holy Oral Tradition? What about the Talmud? And all rabbinic teachings?
You are the equivalent of the Protestant in the Christian side. Therefore your understanding of the written Torah is your norm. You are your own Interpreter. How do you know that you are in the right path?
Thank you in advance!
Quote; Rabbi rest assure that Yeshua is more than a prophet or the one telling the truth. He is the Truth being God Word in the flesh.
Sorry, this is plain Roman Catholic heresy. I am amazed that you pretend not to be Roman Catholic. I personally know so-called messianic Jews that would agree with you, but believe me, they are as Catholic as you are and as I was. It is a self deception to assert Catholic doctrines about “Jesus” using the Hebrew name Yeshua. Please, show me from the Bible who the word of God incarnate was and I tell you that this was plain brain shit of a Roman Catholic hallow, Saint Paul (the Christian Paul!), that you find no-where else in 1200 pages in an English Bible.
The only Yeshua I know, was a Jewish rabbi as every other rabbi today is, too. And this particular rabbi was a member of one of seven known groups of pharisees, a pharisee friend (!), so to say. But Statements of hat Roman Catholic “Jesus”, you find in your Bible are so Catholic that I have decided not to believe them; obviously you do but you don’t think about that.
Getting out of Babylon the Great your Roman Catholic church the Prostitute is a good thing. But certainly you are ignorant of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am fully a member of the One True Holy Sobornost and Apostolic Church. Think Russia, Greece and all the Orthodox countries who fought Nazism and your Roman popes. You should better know your History.
Many blessings and may the truth prevail!
You pretend to be Orthodox although you confess Roman Catholic heresy – I don’t understand! You should better know the source of your faith.
Hahahaha. Serbia: Orthodox Country and first judenrein state in Europe. Romania: Orthodox and ally of the Reich with Antonescu. Bulgaria: Orthodox and ally of the Reich. Russia didn’t exist back then, it was the USSR and the heresy of Sergianism. You really live in a fantaisy world.
Tell me, for how long have you been member of the Orthodox Church? And wich one? OCA? Rocor? Greek? Are you a westerner or do you have parents from Eastern Europe?
Hi Saul! Shalom to you!
You like to laugh at people. You should be more respectful. I am from the Middle East and have three citizenship. (Europe, North America, Middle East) born in Africa though. I think humbly that my mix exposed me to a lot. By the way I am more Jewish than you Sephardi and Mishrahi and both from mother sides! But O real Christian I am not Jewish by religion but by blood only. My Religion is the Christ Yeshua the Son of the Living God, member of the Glorious Orthodox Eastern Church.
Like all my brothers Christian Israeli they still are being persecuted and martyred by monster created by the Beast!
Therefore your lecture are misplaced for like Paul I could boast on my human genealogy but that is for human pride. Let us stick to the issue and stop the character bashing and the denigration.
Many blessings and may the truth prevails in all!
I do not respect liars, sorry. You made things up here since i first saw your comments. I’m an eastern european, meaning hot headed.
“By the way I am more Jewish than you Sephardi and Mishrahi and both from mother sides! ”
It was never the issue to begin with. But eveytime you’re in the corner you run away. If you continue, i’ll think you are related to Carl Lewis or Bugs Bunny. Becauqe you are STILL(!!!!!!) running away. Where is your answer here? About WW2? About your Orthodox Jurisdiction? Come one, do not be afraid. Tell me, are you member of Rocor? OCA? Greek Church? Romanian? Bulgarian? Serb? Come on, i don’t ask for your ID card.
“et us stick to the issue and stop the character bashing and the denigration.”
Lol no no sorry it is too late for it. Since i first came in, you slandered me, making things up. Everyting i ask you, i can answer. I Was baptized in a Church belonging to the Bulgarian Patriarchate, where have you? And for how long are you member of the Orthodox Church? These are easy questions. You lied about Isaiah 7:14 in the DSS, you lied about prayers to the angels, you confused the immaculate conception with Mary’s sinlesness, you are unable to answer a simple question on oecumenical councils, you seem very ignorant of Eastern Europe Orthodox countries etc etc etc. All of it make your whole story doubtfull. And since you have slandered me, now i would like to know basic things about you. Don’t be a hypocrit, Christian. You started all of this, now you have to back up your claims.
You have, in essence, admitted you are the former persona of “the order of Eliyah”. You do realize that careful misleading is no different than actual lying. What does Revelation say of liars.
shomer, I let you keep your believes based on your theories. i call it theories as you based them in the ‘good and evil” and made an interesting story. out of it I am surprised it is so hard for you to understand the basic fact that after -life relates to simply to life with God after resurrection for those who obeyed and loved Him. The other option is whether we call it a hell, fire or donation, shame or everlasting abhorrence Daniel12;2 is simply place where you do not share life with enjoying the presence of God .
Eric, I have simply based my knowledge on Torah, not more and not less. I call the Christian resurrection what it is, a human invention. Since Moshe didn’t know anything about resurrection I don’t need to know it either. Today, I am proud about many knowledges, esp. from the so-called NT, that I do not know any more; it helps a lot!
shomer, yes Moshe didn’t even hear about Isaiah so I guess you do not have to believe in Isaiah words either. No wonder, you can’t believe Daniels and Ezekiels words ( ch 37;1-13 )as they also ‘came’ long after Moshe died. To you God closed himself at Sinai and since then He doesn’t share His plan at all. I got it. Keep it for you, i do not share that.
Eric, when Hesekiel prophecies resurrection in ch. 37:1-3, then Isaiah prophecied a suffering carved idol on a crucifix in ch. 52-53. And Daniel was a Prophet and everybody could add to Moshes revelation as it pleased them (Deu 4:2). I know what you mean. Shomer
Shomer, Of course Isaiah did not prophesy about “carved idol on a crucifix” but a suffering servant who would heal others and justify others with him being offered as guilt offering.
You seem to have a problem even with your own scriptures as you argued about simple fact of resurrection Daniel mentioned.
Rabbis Mendel Kaplan and Michael Kigel seem to have come under the persuasion that Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah (01:51-02:05; 23:49-23:56 of http://www.torahcafe.com/dr-michael-kigel/leper-a-conversation-with-dr-michael-kigel-video_d0b1c4758.html). Are they heretics?
They are speaking about a Gemara. Have YOU studied that Gemara. Obviously you haven’t or you would realize what they are speaking about.
It’s an act of desperation when a person attempts to use someone’s words without any realization of the underlying principles of those words.
Dan, I didn’t have a chance to read the links you posted, but I doubt you will find that anyone on this blog has said that it is heretical to believe that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah. I myself do not object to a messianic interpretation. In fact, there is some midrashic interpretation that holds that this is symbolically about the Messiah, in the sense that the Messiah represents Israel and suffers with them.
But there are two problems with Christians’ seizing on midrashic interpretation. The first problem is that you fail to understand its use in Jewish tradition. Midrashic interpretation is another layer of meaning that never supersedes the plain meaning of the text. For Jews, the plain meaning is the primary meaning and the meaning we study first before delving into midrash. What must be pointed out is that those who propose a midrashic interpretation do not reject a plain and contextual reading of the passage.
The second is that Christians reject Jewish midrashic interpretation, so it seems strange to me (I would say inconsistent and hypocritical even) for Christians to seize upon and insist upon the midrashic interpretation in only this instance.
The simple point was that there should be no Jewish objection to any interpretation of Is 53 as being Messianic due to the fact that such an interpretation would be perfectly within the realm of normative Judaism; at the end of the day, that fact will remain true no matter what anyone on this blog says about it.
It’s unreasonable to expect Jews to have “no…objection to any interpretation of Is 53 as being Messianic” (my emphasis) because it is fair for Jews object to any reading of the text where the midrashic interpretation replaces the primary interpretation of the text, since that is against Jewish tradition. It is also fair for Jews to object to any interpretation that wrenches the text out of context and/or mistranslates it to force a Christological spin into the text.
Therefore, the fact that some commentators add a messianic element in the midrash is completely irrelevant to the Christian insistence that this passage refers exclusively to Jesus.
Furthermore, since Christians reject Jewish midrashic interpretation, it still remains the case that it is strange, to put it kindly, and inconsistent and hypocritical, to put it harshly, to seize on a Jewish midrashic interpretation and insist that it is valid in only this one case.
Dina, “I myself do not object to a messianic interpretation. In fact, there is some midrashic interpretation that holds that this is symbolically about the Messiah, in the sense that the Messiah represents Israel and suffers with them.”
Oh really, you do not object to that now? Is it possible for the messiah to just simply share in the sufferings with Israel? In the sense that he represents Israel…yes but representing somebody doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to share in all the matter the others do. Although we see Jesus really did. But since you do not acknowledge him how do you know the messiah could be sharing in the same route of suffering? Symbolically or not. Based on what you would agree with midshipman interpretation since even the context according to you doesn’t include the messiah? How do you get that ‘symbolic sense’? As I remember midrashic interpretation it used to be out of discussion..
If you really believed that the Messiah represents Israel it would be easier for you to see that many messages that just seem about the nation really include the Messiah too. That’s how exactly Isaiah speaks about him the one representing the nation . Yet you would insist’ this is just about ‘us’.
Dina, correction, my computer changed the word ; instead of ‘midshipman interpretation I mean midrashic.
“But since you do not acknowledge him how do you know the messiah could be sharing in the same route of suffering? Symbolically or not. ”
Well, the thing is, this is not important at all. There are clear messianic criterias, if he fulfills them, then if he suffered or not becomes irelevant. This is why the Rambam wrote:
“One should not presume that the Messianic king must work miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena in the world, resurrect the dead, or perform other similar deeds. This is definitely not true….
If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.
If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.
He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: ‘I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.’
If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. ”
The Messiah is not about one fragment of prophecy here, a type there etc. This is about clear criterias, criterias that if fullfiled can not be denied, it will change the world radically. There will be universal knowledge of God. So we do not have to worry about his suffering or not. When universal knowledge of God happens, i do not think we will be arguing about the suffering of the Messiah.
Saul, You do not get it. If suffering is described then also it’s purpose. It the ancient jews were able to see his suffering and it’s purpose of bringing justification , there is a reason. There is spiritual redemption and physical one. You see only the second one and your expectations are just him
( the Messiah) coming and doing all the things promised just all at once and miraculously getting the whole world simply going well. But while God is talking about future redemption He is first calling all to come to turn to Him. One can’t just happen without the other.
The truth is there is no peaceful life with God until people repent and will be willing to serve Him and make him priority in their lives. That’s why jesus came to call sinners to repentance , turning them to God and God’s forgiveness. That’s why he dies for many so that their quilt forgiven could be washed away so they can share in resurrection to life with God in the future kingdom coming. Unless you understand the need for that, you won’t see Jesus as the Messiah and you will be just looking forward to a ‘hero’ who comes and fixes everything while the others couldn’t.
Eric, I am responding to a comment you addressed to Saul https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/#comment-22517
You wrote: “Unless you understand the need for that, you won’t see Jesus as the Messiah.” This is not the first time you have written something like this. Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that you need to believe in Jesus first in order for all of this to make sense. That is called a circular argument, and it should trouble you. First have faith. Then find ways to rationalize it.
Forgive us for not taking that seriously. You should not, either.
Dina, “Unless you understand the need for that, you won’t see Jesus as the Messiah.”
The need is the need for forgiveness and price paid for your sin not what you wrote;
“You are saying that you need to believe in Jesus first in order for all of this to make sense. “
Eric, you think that people who don’t believe in Jesus don’t understand the need for forgiveness?
Dina, you responded to my statement ; “There is no such a thing that ‘ blood was not the only way of atonement.””if you follow this path your sins will be wiped away (18:22; 33:16). ”
Your theology is against God’s law. It is against levit 17. “For the LIFE of the flesh is in the blood: and 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’, Lev. 17. 11.
And atonement means ‘to cover’.
Your theology says we do not need ALL God’s law. Because in God’s law the blood was given for an atonement ‘to cover’ our sins and for that purpose served the offered animals . And the one( previously wicked person) who turned away from evil and wanted life would acknowledge the meaning of the sacrificial ceremonies . The wicked one who turned away from his evil ways would participate in that if the temple was there. The temple ( after exile was over) had been there till times of jesus, so there was no break period into ; NOT going to the system where blood is shed for your sins where the house of God was present among the people. ( till Jesus’ times)
There verses you listed are about forgiveness (1 Kings 8:46-53 and Hosea 14:3). Sacrifices are included in the law as for ‘sin covering’. Believing that God covered your sins by somebody is not against these verses you listed. Believing in the one by whom God covered our sins is part of trusting God.
“You ignored the point that the Torah rejects the notion of substitutionary death: Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16.”
Yet these so called ‘substitutionary’ death(s) functioned as ‘sin offerings’ on the altar. The same like they did, Jesus isn’t our ‘substitution’ but is our ‘covering ‘ for our sins according to the purpose of the blood shed in atonement ‘to cover’. And what was always being covered if not sin? Why the sin still had to be ‘covered’ after people repented?
“You ignored my point: why is what was good enough in terms of repentance and forgiveness for my forefathers from Moses to David to Daniel not good enough for me? ”
What was good for the others is that Jesus death already atones for all who lived before with God and served Him. They trusted God in whatever God revealed to them at their time. We trust God today which includes God’s revelation to us that Jesus is his servant through whom God accomplished our spiritual redemption. What did God recon to Abraham as righteousness? Abraham’s trust.
“You ignored my point: this is a brand new way of worshiping God, not taught at Sinai”
What that blood atones?
According to you , yes Israeli ties never learned of the meaning of their offerings in which blood was shed. They took it as a barbecue party. Didn’t they?
You ignored my challenge: show me one place in the Hebrew Bible that teaches that the price of sin is eternal death.
You ignored my answers from Gen 3 . I answered you there based on that chapter. There was no everlasting life wide open standing to them after they sinned. It entrance was secured till a time. Gen 3;22-23.
‘Show me one place in the Hebrew Bible that one man, a literal and physical son of God, must suffer and die and that you are condemned to eternal death if you don’t believe in this man.:
‘Believing that man’ means believing that ‘sin is covered’ by offered life. Yes, Torah doesn’t mention that at all in your theology.
Is the Xtian religion based upon a single word or verse and all else is discarded. Does your bible only have that verse in Leviticus and no other.
As Isaiah has written
“Days are coming when Jacob will take root; Israel will bud and blossom and fill the face of the earth like fruit. Did He strike him as He struck those who struck him? Was he slain like the slaying of his enemies? According to its measure of sin He contended against her farmland, stripping it with His harsh wind on the day of the east wind. Therefore, through THIS shall Jacob’s iniquity be ATONED for, and this shall be the fruit of his sins removal: When he makes all the altar stones like ground chalk stones, and Asherah-trees and sun-idols arise no more.”
And in Torah:
“The wealthy shall not increase and the destitute shall not decrease from half a shekel – to give the portion of Hashem, to ATONE for your souls. You shall take the silver of the ATONEMENTS from the Children of Israel and give it for the work of the Tent of Meeting; and it shall be a remembrance before Hashem for the Children of Israel, to ATONE for your souls”.
“…as his guilt offering for that which he sinned, a tenth-ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall not place oil on it nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering….The Kohen shall provide him ATONEMENT for the sin that he committed regarding any of these..”
Your descriptions of Atonement does Not meet with Tanach. It disputes your assertions.
Eric, responding to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/#comment-22673
You argued that my position that blood sacrifice is not the only means of atonement contradicts God’s law (despite the many Scriptural citations I presented in support of that position) because Leviticus teaches that atonement is in the blood. To bolster your point, you made an interesting argument:
“Your theology says we do not need ALL God’s law.”
Before I address your main point, I want to draw your attention to the reason I find this statement interesting. By interesting I mean self-serving and hypocritical.
Your theology says we do not need any of God’s law, so it’s a bit rich for you to accuse me of saying that we do not need all of God’s law (which I have never argued, but more on that in a moment).
You seized on this one tangential law–and it’s tangential because that is how the Torah presents it, as I explained already–and have made it the main justification for your belief in Jesus’s blood atonement. Are you similarly zealous about the law for not wearing a mixture of wool and linen? Not gathering sticks of wood on the Sabbath? Eating leavened bread on Passover? Eating shellfish? Why this law, out of all the ritual laws that don’t apply to gentiles anyway?
Why is this ritual law that does not even apply to gentiles in the first place the only one that is for all time and forever? (This is beside the fact that the Torah mentions that the other laws are also eternally binding on the Jewish people.)
Why did I say that the mention of atonement in the blood is only tangential? Look at that passage. If you read it without your preconceived notions (and I recognize that this is very difficult to do), you will see that the topic is not about atonement. The topic is about forbidding the consumption of animal blood. And the passage provides two reasons for this. One of the reasons is that when you offer a sacrifice, the blood happens to be the part that atones. Christians make a huge deal out of this passage because of the way it’s misrepresented in Hebrews. The Torah never teaches that atonement is only in the blood.
This does not mean, as we have explained but you seem to have missed, that we believe that the law is not eternal. This brings to the point that your accusation that my theology says that we do not need all of God’s law is baseless. God gave us some laws that apply only in the Temple, and this includes all the Temple rituals. He gave us some laws that apply only in the Land. Some laws apply only to farmers, while others apply only to women. Some apply only to mothers; others only to fathers. And so on.This does not mean, for instance, that a man who can’t keep a law that applies to a woman is doing something wrong.
The laws are eternal, but God took away our ability to perform the Temple rituals when He took away our Temple. He also provided different means of atonement (as we have shown you). And we Jews–not you gentiles–look forward to the time when the sacrificial system will be restored so we can once again fulfill these commandments that we could not during our exile. To us, obeying God is the greatest joy, and we anticipate the opportunities He will provide us for obeying Him as fully as possible.
Now you also wrote this: Quoting me: “You ignored the point that the Torah rejects the notion of substitutionary death: Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16.” Quoting you: “Yet these so called ‘substitutionary’ death(s) functioned as ‘sin offerings’ on the altar. The same like they did, Jesus isn’t our ‘substitution’ but is our ‘covering ‘ for our sins etc.”
Good gracious, Eric, I should have been more clear. I’m revising what I wrote: ““You ignored the point that the Torah rejects the notion of human substitutionary death.” It should have been obvious to you that I meant human substitutionary death when you checked the sources I cited, Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16. This misunderstanding on your part invalidates your point.
You wrote this: Quoting me: “You ignored my point: this is a brand new way of worshiping God, not taught at Sinai.” Quoting you: “What that blood atones? etc.”
Eric, this outrageous. I have many times explained what was new about the Christian worship, and it wasn’t about the atoning power of blood. Are you playing games with me? Being silly? What’s wrong with you?
For what feels like the tenth time I shall explain yet again: the new type of worship was 1) the need for a mediator between man and God and 2) the need for a human to die to redeem man from sin, and 3) the need to believe in that human in order to attain eternal life.
So now will you stop sneering and answer the question?
I answered your second-to-last point in a previous comment, but your last point is again outrageous. I challenged you to find me “one place in the Hebrew Bible that one man, a literal and physical son of God, must suffer and die and that you are condemned to eternal death if you don’t believe in this man.” And your answer? “Yes, Torah doesn’t mention that at all in your theology” (my emphasis).
In my theology? What, you don’t want to admit that the Torah doesn’t mention it at all, period? The Torah doesn’t mention AT ALL the basic foundation of Christianity. Why not come straight out and say so?
I’ll tell you why. Because one can’t expect honesty from a man who claims that there’s nothing dishonest in calling his website Jews for Judaism 2000.
Shame, shame, shame on you.
Dina “Eric, you think that people who don’t believe in Jesus don’t understand the need for forgiveness?” They do but they do not understand that there is also a need for the sins to be ‘covered’.
Dina, The last thing. Since messianic Judaism is 2000 years old it relates to the time of 2000 years of Jews knowing and trusting Jesus. That’s why you have Judaism 2000 and not a broken covenant Judaism . Non of the Jews in our circle will deny that their Judaism is not true despite your beliefs.
In regards to your comment about 2000 years of Jews following Xtianity I would question where and what is YOUR source for this. It wasn’t long after the Churban that Xtianity became almost exclusively Gentile. Those who Did convert weren’t doing so out of “knowing and trusting” but rather under the penalty of death if they didn’t.
Very few Jews in history–if any at all–converted out of sincere conviction but either by force or because they were sick and tired of being kept out of every profession and wanted to advance in society. Only today do we find Jews who are ignorant, can’t read Hebrew, and never studied the Bible in the traditional Jewish way who get sucked into the deceptive practices of scoundrels like Eric.
Yet he feels at peace with God because he believes in Jesus.
And that, my friends, is the problem with Christianity. It doesn’t matter what you do, it matters what you believe. Eric vehemently protested to the contrary, but his actions speak even louder and more vehemently than his words.
Dina, the accusations are not from God but from you , that’s why I live at peace. The truth is if you didn’t hate christian missionaries my website would be indifferent to you. It would not matter.
you said ” ..Jewish way who get sucked into the deceptive practices ” of me . That is interesting accusation. Sorry I do not put there any ‘sucking’ devises but free choice of reading and CLEAR STATEMENT WHAT THE WEB IS DISCUSSING AND WHY . You choose and not ‘suck’ yourself into!
Eric, you wrote, “The truth is if you didn’t hate christian missionaries my website would be indifferent to you. It would not matter.” There you go again, imputing motives to others without evidence. This has nothing to do with how I personally feel about missionaries. Sure, I wish they would leave us alone. But let them at least be transparent and honest about who they are and what they are advertising.
You are at peace with God because you have convinced yourself that what you are doing is right and proper. But you will have a lot to answer for.
Well, I shouldn’t be so shocked. After all, your scripture teaches that it’s okay to lie to bring people to Jesus.
Sharbano, 2000 years of judaism means the time period in which you have been revealed who your Messiah and future king is. It is about your choice to know him not about how many followed, do we know them etc.
Give me a break!!!!
This is NOT 2000 years of Judaism. Once again Xtianity attempts to Redefine the language and has turned it to Xtianese. Were these “Xtians” following Judaism these 2000 years. Were they following all of Torah for 2000 years. Since they were NOT then by “definition” they were NOT following Judaism.
since you do not get that the fulfillment of the Torah is in Jesus you won;t get it and that discussion will never end. Read also Josephus in which it is stated that most Jews believing in Jesus also followed their Torah .
There is no Actual evidence of any fulfillment only speculation and assumption. The Torah contradicts ALL that you have proposed. It is clear and unambiguous to anyone who even reads the English. let alone the Hebrew. On a further note; there are hermeneutics in Hebrew that G-d could have and would have used in order to support the intent of Xtianity. Instead, there is nothing even close that assigns Xtian polemics to Torah. Xtians use examples like Gen 3:15 which, on its own, defies the Xtian interpretation. That verse speaks of “you and the woman”, “its offspring and her offspring”. It is taught that this reference is about the S’tan, the serpent being the S’tan. If this were the case then we would Have to conclude that the S’tan has “offspring”. How many descendants does the S’tan have. Who did he mate WITH for those descendants.
This is but one example how Xtianity corrupts Torah to say Jsus is the fulfillment. There is NO logic in Xtianity and therefore must rely on the emotional attachment that controls the belief.
Sharb, I am aware that the Septuagint originally only covered the Pentateuch . The other books were translated later.
Still the available Septuagint manuscripts are older than the existing Hebrew texts and most of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament used the Septuagint as their primary source. I am not going to argue about your ‘the only reliable orthodox jewish copies that they were better than anything else ‘ as there were many problems also with hebrew translations and throughout centuries they undergone so many changes and adjustments.
As far as fulfillment of Judaism and what it is meant.
The earliest Christians—all of Jewish background—saw the events of Jesus as the fulfillment of all that Hebrew scripture had told them to look for. They saw themselves not as a breakaway new religion but as the continuation of the religion handed down for generations. Many of these Jews refereed to themselves as “completed Jews,” as the title ‘messianic’ was given much later, They refereed to their Judaism as the fulfilled one, why? They believed that their faith in the God of Israel had been “completed” or fulfilled in Yeshua/jesus. That he brought the meaning to all what Judaism was about to them including the meaning of the feasts, sacrifices etc. Also according to nowadays messianic jews their faith means ‘Judaism fulfilled’ including us non jewish Christians who believe so. According to the NT record the first believers they were sabbath-keeping, torah -observant, feast celebrating Jews to whom Jesus was the one who brought meaning to it all. Non of these practices ceased when they believed in atoning work of Jesus. There still were coming to the temple( acts 2;24, 5;12) they were present at the normal hours of prayer ( acts 3;1) Even after having been called before Sanhedrin to defend their faith they continued daily in the temple ( acts 5;42) . Ananias , the man who baptized Paul was a ‘devout observer of the law’. ( acts 22;12). The faith in Jesus didn’t stop them being jews as they were before. So this was not a new religion to them but Judaism fulfilled in which all feasts and sacrifices took on meaning although many still refer to the future fulfillment. Those jewish believers were not even called Christians not until Antioch ( acts 11;26) that they were given such a Greek title for the word Messiah, meaning the messiah’ followers much later but not starting as ‘the new christian religion’. Of course they are still things to come to be fulfilled but they are clearly stated. Both those Jews and us gentile Christians are looking forward to the coming messianic kingdom and coming of the reigning king which we know it will be Jesus.
You need to understand it in order to understand it. I love this!
Messianic Judaism has been around for 2000 years? Messianic Judaism was founded in the 1960s. Stop lying, it’s making me sick. I can hardly bear to talk to you anymore.
Dina, We do not call it messianic for a purpose . Didn’t I say that yesterday? I did! Do not skip what I said and add to it your own story. The reason is not to start with 1960 or any other date but since life of jesus and jewish believers at that time which is around 2000 years back! and the statement ‘we are messianic’ didn’t exist for them . They considered themselves Jews who recognized their Messiah. That’s it!
Eric, you wrote this: ” Since messianic Judaism is 2000 years old it relates to the time of 2000 years of Jews knowing and trusting Jesus.” And that is what I was responding to.
I keep catching you in lies. You remind me of Christian Paul, aka Eli Lion. You guys should form a support group, Liars for Jesus, or something like that.
Dina, Messianic Judaism – it is what we call those believing Jews in Jesus in our times. I do not teach a belief THAT STARTED IN THE 60 s but the same truth that started 2000 years ago with birth of Jesus! These so called messianic Jews now rely on the same Messiah with those from 2000 years ago although nobody called them ;messianic; at that time. If I put ‘messianic jews for judaism ‘ my website would have to encourage some denomination and that was not a purpose but showing that Jesus is truly Jewish king
Then do you take back this statement: “Since messianic Judaism is 2000 years old it relates to the time of 2000 years of Jews knowing and trusting Jesus”?
Dina, “Since messianic Judaism is 2000 years old it relates to the time of 2000 years of Jews knowing and trusting Jesus”” Why should I take that back? I know what I mean. I am not the only one that says that origin of what we call messianic jews nowadays or since the 60 s started 2000 years ago. My statement doesn’t include that all Jews believe and it doesn’t speak about all Jews but availability of of Jews knowing jesus as their Jewsih messiah. Another words what you and me call now ‘messianic jews’ they were already present 2000 years ago.. The knowledge that Jesus is the messiah is available from 1 ctry till now on.
Look at other sites in google .
Eric, you keep contradicting yourself on the use of the term “messianic Judaism.” This is the name of a movement that began in the 1960s.
It’s common for liars to contradict themselves. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
Dina, you said ;
“I had already declared that a midrashic interpretation regarding a messianic understanding does exist.n the Jewish tradition midrashic interpretation adds layers of meaning to the text but does not replace the plain meaning.”
From all your words I picked the lines where you put any information about how you relate to the midrashic messianic interpretation. But there was not much.
While getting to the core of your interpretation you just said the interpretation exists but not much more. So what are these ‘added layers’ to the text without not replacing the plain meaning ? You do not have to explain that you do not replace the plain meaning but how the interpretation we speak about are fitting there??? This is what is also lacking the answer . How do you interpret the Is 53 speaking about the nation and having words that are pointed to be spoken about the Messiah at the same time ? The text either speaks of one thing or the other or both by saying that they both ( subjects) ( servants) are spoken about at the same time or are related to.
According to Babylonian Talmud, (Sanhedrin 98), p.2 “Rabbi Yochanan said,
The Messiah-what is his name?… And out Rabbis said. “the pale one”… is his name, as it is written “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows-yet we considered him stricken by G-d, smitten by him and afflicted.”
Would you agree that they identify the suffering in is 53 with the Messiah?
According to Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin his interpretation goes ; “I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah….This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer(…)”
Rabbi Moses Maimonides: (1135-1204) “What is the manner of Messiah’s advent….there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place’ (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc….in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.”
Rabbi Moses, ‘The Preacher'(11. Century) wrote in his commentary on Genesis (page 660):
“From the beginning God has made a covenant with the Messiah and told Him,’My righteous Messiah, those who are entrusted to you, their sins will bring you into a heavy yoke’..And He answered, ‘I gladly accept all these agonies in order that not one of Israel should be lost.’ Immediately, the Messiah accepted all agonies with love, as it is written: ‘He was oppressed and he was afflicted’.”
Targum Jonathan ( 4th Century )
“Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper, he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men. ”
These are just a few examples. I am not going to bring it all up.
As far as that;”it is inconsistent and hypocritical for Christians who reject Jewish midrashic interpretation to seize upon it and insist on exclusively interpreting according to midrash in only this one instance.”
We are focusing on that one chapter via the midrashic interpretation not other issues so is it possible to focus just on that point first?. Talking about other issues I have not brought up is right now a distinction from that subject.
It has become distasteful to me to debate with you, now that I know the dishonest tactics you have engaged in and defended. You had me fooled. I thought you were one of the good guys.
Nevertheless, for the sake of those who are following the conversation, you must be answered.
I had created a folder in my email organizer called “Eric” in which I have saved your comments so I can reply as I have time.
This comment is in response to yours about midrash and Isaiah 53: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/#comment-22610
As usual, you seem to read only half of what I wrote. I explained that I won’t get into discussions about midrashic interpretation with Christians who won’t or can’t see the plain sense of the text. That’s because for Jews that is the primary meaning. It’s ridiculous for Christians to tell us how to understand midrash when they themselves don’t understand and reject it.
You see, you don’t seem to understand what I mean when I say that either. Midrashic interpretation is part of the Talmud, the Oral Torah, the part of Jewish tradition that Christians contemptuously call man-made and reject entirely. You don’t see the hypocrisy of Christians who sneer at our Talmud suddenly decide to accept a Talmudic interpretation in only one place in the Torah? Suddenly, non-literal midrash is correct, right, and proper? What business do you have quoting to me people to whom you attribute no authority and whose books you don’t understand and who certainly would have died rather than accept your idolatrous beliefs?
That is why I will not answer your questions about midrash. They are irrelevant. I will only say this before I move on: Rabbi Moshe ibn Krispin was a controversial rabbi whose authority is not universally accepted. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan was not giving literal interpretation. The Rambam saw this more literally, but I have no problem with that. As I’ve already explained, both explanations work, though the “p’shat” (plain meaning) is always the primary meaning.
There is a larger point that must be made, however.
It is clear, crystal clear, that you did not arrive at belief in Jesus by reading the Hebrew Bible first, without any preconceived notions about Jesus. Had you studied our Scripture with an open mind, had you absorbed its message and spirit first without prior acceptance of Jesus, and understood the clear, consistent, direct messianic prophecies (as opposed to the vague references Christians use as proof texts) you would never have come to the conclusions you hold. As you have often stated, you need to understand the need for Jesus in order for all of your arguments to make sense.
I will close by asking you: is there any place in Scripture that teaches that the nations will be vindicated for their belief in Jesus and the Jews will realize their error?
Eric, the criterias are clear. And there is no first and second coming mentioned in Tanakh. There is just one, with all the criterias that must be met.
And there is no need for a dying Messiah in order to have guilt removed. Repentance, Good deeds, or Temple blood sacrifices are enough. Since there is no need for the dying Messiah, there is no need for a first and then second coming.
Saul, then ask yourself a question for what purpose/ symbol God introduced blood sacrifices if repentance is enough. Why the blood on the altar which was sprinkled for a symbolic ‘ cleansing’ of the altar. There was always a lesson in it – that price of sin was death. Lesson that your wrongdoings are placed on a ‘ substitute ‘ and punished on it or done away with on that substitute. Lesson of God’s grace toward us. lesson that sin always involved the price which was loss of life. The same lesson that comes from Genesis 3. God kept bringing that lesson for a purpose , not for the ritual with no meaning in itself. You fail to understand it.
Your argument is circular. I could reply: ask yourself why blood was never the only way of atonement and why God sets up repentance and good deeds as well. Arguing in a circle does not prove a position, it just shows us what you believe.
By the way, if Jesus is punished in your place, since you would derserve eternal hell, unless Jesus is suffering eternal hell, he was not punished in your place. If you say it only means physicall death in your place, then it’ obviously false since you die nonetheless.
Also your view of Leviticus 17 is lacking context. For you to say that the sacrifice was in our place, you would have to prove the sins concerned by the blood sacrifices are worthy of Death in the Torah. Or do you say the lamb went in hell in our place? It hardly makes any sense.
When we look at this issue here is how it goes: Isaac is not sacrificed, and God himself brings the Lamb(Pessach). You have it backwards: Lamb is replaced by a human. This is a strong going back into what God has forbiden.
“Your argument is circular. I could reply: ask yourself why blood was never the only way of atonement and why God sets up repentance and good deeds as well. ”
Nothing is circular but it will be if you reverse my question and keep puting yours without first addressing what I asked about then we will be going around .
There is no such a thing that ‘ blood was not the only way of atonment.” God doesn’t simply switch from one way to the other. You reason it based on the fact that sacrifices are no longer offered, and that God says He wants our repentance. None of the things God said is more or less important or workd undependently and is replaced by the ‘other option’ . They all are important to God, they all work together. Example; there is no sense of offering any sacrifice when there is no repentance. Sacrifice without a right heart means nothing and repentance without ‘ atonment in the blood’ would not give us eternal life. You have to start with the understanding that sacrifices were always symbols. Symbols of something not just temporary but symbols with a meaning. That payment for sin is death , that our sin results in our death. Lesson from Gen 3. This lesson was repeated always in the temple for a reason ; to remember it. To remember that sin meant loss of life. That there is a price. God didn’t need killed animal for any reason for Himself , the only reason was the lesson to show what was the cost of sin. The fact that we do not offer sacrifices at the moment doesn’t change anything . It doesn’t change the fact that sin results in our death. God is not switching to another way to repentance and good deeds now as repentance has been needed always . Repentance can be present yet you will still die. And the atonment God provided is for the reason to set us free so we can have eternal life. Just think over the words why God even said the atonment is in the blood? Why not in repentance? Why not in something else? What is the blood meaning here? It means life that is shed/lost/offered. Atonment is in life that is given for you. You do not give yours , somebody else paid with his life
Your further questions show that you do not even understand the meaning of the offerings/ sacrifices. You said;
“For you to say that the sacrifice was in our place, you would have to prove the sins concerned by the blood sacrifices are worthy of Death in the Torah. Or do you say the lamb went in hell in our place?”
Did any offered animals have to go to hell? No! In Gen 3 God doesn’t say to Adam that when he disobeys he would go to hell, but that Adam will die. That might answer your other question;
“By the way, if Jesus is punished in your place, since you would derserve eternal hell, unless Jesus is suffering eternal hell, he was not punished in your place. ”
“If you say it only means physicall death in your place, then it’ obviously false since you die nonetheless.”
Did the offered sacrifices fixed the problem and made anybody immortal because they were offered? No! They meant physical death in your place. We die but are promised resurrection to live with God.
“Isaac is not sacrificed, and God himself brings the Lamb(Pessach). You have it backwards: Lamb is replaced by a human. This is a strong going back into what God has forbiden.”
Isaac is not sacrificed as Issac is also a person that will need his anonment for himself. Issac is not appointed by God to die for others. There is a lesson in that story . God shows He IS THE PROVIDER OF A SACRIFICE .
Jesus is not a type of Issac – human offered to God. God didn’t ask to tie him up and kill him so God can be pleased with the human offering! And so that jesus can repeat the story! While sacrifices are lessons of sin resulting in death , Jesus fulfills the requirement for the atonement in his blood shed for us.
Eric, I am not answering for Saul and I hope he responds because he always presents lucid and cogent arguments that I enjoy reading. However, I feel compelled to answer for myself because in your response to Saul you ignored points that I made in the past and also very recently (perhaps you have not yet read my most recent comments).
You wrote: “There is no such a thing that ‘ blood was not the only way of atonment.”
To make this blatantly false statement, you have to ignore Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33, which lay out a complete path to repentance without mentioning blood once, and if you follow this path your sins will be wiped away (18:22; 33:16). Please read these chapters carefully and confront their words. If you are honest you will concede that they cannot be reconciled with your theology.
You also have to ignore Leviticus 5:11, where God Himself tells us that a person could bring a flour-offering instead of an animal if he were too poor to purchase an animal. If atonement is only in the blood, then how would a flour offering work? Too bad God didn’t know that it needed to be blood. You had better let Him know, Eric, so He can change this verse to reflect your theology.
You also continue to ignore such Scriptural passages as 1 Kings 8:46-53 and Hosea 14:3.
You ignored the point that the Torah rejects the notion of substitutionary death: Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16.
You ignored my point: why is what was good enough in terms of repentance and forgiveness for my forefathers from Moses to David to Daniel not good enough for me?
You ignored my point: this is a brand new way of worshiping God, not taught at Sinai, and thus in contradiction to God’s teaching in Deuteronomy 4.
You ignored my challenge: show me one place in the Hebrew Bible that teaches that the price of sin is eternal death. Show me one place in the Hebrew Bible that one man, a literal and physical son of God, must suffer and die and that you are condemned to eternal death if you don’t believe in this man.
Heck, if you could find a place that taught that you would have presented it already. Fact is, the Torah doesn’t teach any of these foreign notions, strange to our forefathers and therefore considered avodah zarah, strange worship.
You don’t have a case, Eric. You just have a feeling.
Thank you Dina for your kind words, i hadn’t seen Eric’s reply, the comments presentation is sometimes hard to follow.
“There is no such a thing that ‘ blood was not the only way of atonment.” God doesn’t simply switch from one way to the other.”
The problem is you do not understand my point. My point is God presented different ways of atonement for sins, one of them is Blood. But it is not the only way, Daniel had no Blood to atone for his sins. Unless your show us a verse that says Blood is the only way, then you really have no point at all, and your argument is circular by assuming what you precisely need to prove.
” Repentance can be present yet you will still die. And the atonment God provided is for the reason to set us free so we can have eternal life. ”
Now you confuse death, temporal death, with eternal life issue. But the fact is, Jesus died his apostles died, you will die, despite Jesus’s sacrifice. So despite blood, you still die. If your sins were nore more because of Jesus’s blood, and for your argument to be valid, no Christian should die. But they all die.
“Just think over the words why God even said the atonment is in the blood? Why not in repentance? Why not in something else? What is the blood meaning here? ”
Blood is a symbol of our heart that is totaly dedicated to God, and not to some Egyptian deity. When Israel put blood during the plagues, it was a symbol of their whole adherance to God, and a denial of any other deity, even the egyptian lamb. You as why something else but God gave something else: repentance, or good deeds etc. even a flower. What God asks in any of those case, is that we show to him that we are dedicate to him more than to anything else, be it money, other false deities etc.
“Atonment is in life that is given for you. You do not give yours , somebody else paid with his life”
You still die, so obviously Jesus didn’t die in your place. Jesus didn’t spent eternity in hell fire, so obviously he didn’t pay that price for you. I still fail to see how he paid any price in my place. Your argument is like if Dina told me she will pay my bills but i still have to pay those bills myself. It does not make sense.
“Did any offered animals have to go to hell? No! ”
No,but according to Christian theology this is the price of sin.
“Did the offered sacrifices fixed the problem and made anybody immortal because they were offered? No! They meant physical death in your place. We die but are promised resurrection to live with God.”
No, but this is not our theology, this is yours. You start by telling us that the lamb and Jesus pay the price for us, but you still pay that price yourself. Your comments are very telling, for they show you do not maintain the same line of reasoning all along. You start by telling us a lamb and Jesus died for us in our place, but then you mock that teaching when i show you it is inconcistent.
“saac is not sacrificed as Issac is also a person that will need his anonment for himself. Issac is not appointed by God to die for others. There is a lesson in that story . God shows He IS THE PROVIDER OF A SACRIFICE .”
And that lamb is the Lamb of Pessach, not Jesus, so you still have no point at all.
“Jesus is not a type of Issac – human offered to God. God didn’t ask to tie him up and kill him so God can be pleased with the human offering! ”
He asked Jesus to do so by letting himself die on a cross. Jesus said if that cup could go away, but then retracts by saying drinking this cup is God’s will. So, for Isaac, we have God stoping Abraham from sacrificing his son, but in Jesus case, God’s will is for Jesus to die despite the fact that Jesus wishes he could escape it.
“While sacrifices are lessons of sin resulting in death , Jesus fulfills the requirement for the atonement in his blood shed for us.”
Now this is a big step. And you still have not shown how he paid the price for you. You have 2 options left: either physical death, but it is obviously false, or eternal hellfire, but this is false since you do not believe he is in hellfire.
Before you post a comment, if you click on the boxes that say “Notify me of new comments via email” and “Notify me of new posts via email,” then you will receive an email invitation to subscribe to this post, so all comments are emailed to you. This way you don’t miss any comments.
There is still one point i forgot about this, Eric:
““Jesus is not a type of Issac – human offered to God. God didn’t ask to tie him up and kill him so God can be pleased with the human offering! ””
It is even false according to Christian Theology, since Jesus is said to be a high priest that offered himself up to God the Father. One example, from an article of a Christian Apologist of answering islam team:
“According to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures, the Lord Jesus came as our High Priest in order to present himself as a sacrifice for the sins committed by all those whom God effectually calls to salvation:…
… 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. For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.” Hebrews 7:14-16, 23-28
…. “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” Hebrews 10:10-14” http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/qa/appease_c.html
What we have here, is human blood apeasing God the Father’s anger. And Jesus, the high priest, offers himself as a sacrifice. ” human offered to God…so God can be pleased with the human offering” fits better the Christian scriptures and theology.
saul and dina.
As you both addressed my message and one tried to answer for the other I am addressing my answer to you both.
I do not have much time to write that’s why I am delayed with all the responses.
Bringing up some of your statements here it goes:
“Daniel had no Blood to atone for his sins.”
What I am saying that Jesus’ death is also atoning for Daniel and for all those who died before and trusted in God. If Daniel participated in any atonement by blood it would be still symbolic expression of how God ‘covered’ our sins. Because the meaning of the word is ‘to cover’ Daniel’s sins are covered by Jesus who paid the price. Daniel lived before Jesus but he trusted God .
” But the fact is, Jesus died his apostles died, you will die, despite Jesus’s sacrifice.”
My argument is not valid to you because you do not understand the purpose of his death. Jesus never said that we would be immortal just because he died but so that we could have eternal life with God after resurrection.
John 17; 2-3 ” As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
“Blood is a symbol of our heart that is totally dedicated to God, and not to some Egyptian deity.”
Saul , you made your own story here as the only application of blood with given reason is explained to be for atonement purpose. ( Levit 17;11) If you had on your mind the fact of the blood being put on the doorposts at the exodus, it was God’s commandment to do so , not peoples’ idea of expressing their dedication to God. Not people’s expression of denial of Egyptian god. During any sacrificial ceremonies the people never celebrated later their offered bulls and lambs as the denial of Egyptian deity. The reason Israeli ties applied that blood was to follow the command of God . But it was God Himself who established the purpose of applying blood for a reason ( not people’s idea ) .
You quoted my words ““Jesus is not a type of Issac – human offered to God. God didn’t ask to tie him up and kill him so God can be pleased with the human offering! ”” Then you said “It is even false according to Christian Theology, since Jesus is said to be a high priest that offered himself up to God the Father.”
Being offered and giving up your life willingly makes a difference that’s why we do not compare Jesus to Isaac.
When Jesus presented himself as a ‘sacrifice’ it means; he COMMITTED himself to fulfill the work for others that COST his life . ‘ By the words ‘ he offered himself to God’ simply means he submitted himself to fulfill God’s will. And God’s will was for Jesus to be our sin ‘covering’.
“What we have here, is human blood appeasing God the Father’s anger.” What about bull’s , goat’s ram’s lambs’ blood?
In your argument the problem has to do more with the reason for God choosing sacrificing.
Israelities did sacrificing for their sins despite their repentance . Why because God gave such instructions in their law.
In Leviticus atoning blood occurs about 60 times in relation to the sacrifices, the consecration of the priesthood, and the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Why? No reason what so ever for you.
“God gave something else: repentance, or good deeds etc. even a flower ” I hope you meant flour.
But flour could never be applied at the atonement ceremony. Flour doesn’t atone for you. The High priest would not enter the Holy of Holies with a flour and sprinkle the altar with it. There was no exception to that.
“Your argument is like if Dina told me she will pay my bills but i still have to pay those bills myself. It does not make sense.”
The wages of sin is death . Death simply ‘owns’ you ‘keeps’ until God raises you back. Your bill would be resurrection into shame and whatever follows after ( depending what you and others believe ;eternal death, eternal hell etc) simply NOT life with God. Your bill would be NO everlasting life with God . God send his son to ‘cover ‘ for your sins so that you could live again. Jesus didn’t have to go to any other hell ( according to people’s ideas) . His hell was already on the cross; shame for us, suffering and death.
“You start by telling us that the lamb and Jesus pay the price for us, but you still pay that price yourself. ”
No , I do NOT pay the price of being risen into shame and everlasting contempt. This ‘bill’ is paid.
“Jesus said if that cup could go away, but then retracts by saying drinking this cup is God’s will. ”
By this jesus was asking God if sacrificing his life was the only way . If it was , he was willing to submit himself to that. Nobody would be awaiting a coming torture with a smile if you have a problem with why Jesus was asking His father whether he could avoid it or not. Simply’ “Is it the only way? If yes , let it be.”
Why is it that Jsus is suppose to be the offering for past, present and future yet in the Third Temple times the sin offering will resume.
“Upon the prince shall be the responsibility for the burnt-offerings, the meal-offerings, and the libation, on the festivals, on the New Moons, and on the Sabbaths, on all the appointed times of the House of Israel; he shall prepare the sin offering, the meal-offering, the burnt-offering, and the peace-offering to atone on behalf of the House of Israel.”
This is what Ezekiel says; and YOU want us to believe in a theology that cannot save.
As far as Leviticus and the blood for atonement; this is speaking of What Blood is “Valid” to put on the altar. The Shechitah is done so as cause the life of the animal to cease in the draining of that blood. The animal cannot die because of shock or some other cause. The blood has to be drained in an instant and death must result in that manner. This is why it is called the “life-blood”. Therefore Jsus didn’t meet the requirements according to Leviticus since his death wasn’t due to the sudden loss of blood. Just because he lost blood that doesn’t meet the requirements, that is, he didn’t die by his “life-blood”. The conclusion we can draw is, once again, Xtianity has “missed the mark”. For Xtianity to use Leviticus as part of some symbolism falls on its face. You have missed the Entire Point by not understanding the Torah and what it teaches us. What Xtianity attempts to do is “take two words”, atone and blood, and say, ‘see, blood is required for atonement’, without realizing and understanding what is actually required according to Torah.
Eric, responding to your comment here:
You know your scripture better than I do, so I would like to know the source for your statement that Jesus atoned for all those who preceded him, such as Daniel. Not because I attribute any authority to it, just because I’m curious.
I touched on many of your points in other comments, so I won’t repeat that here, but instead would like to repeat one more challenge, and that is this:
You keep repeating the Christian scriptural assertion that the wages of sin is death. This idea is not derived from the Hebrew Bible. I challenged you to find me one place that teaches that the price for sin, for all sin, is death, eternal death. That’s nonsense. The Torah teaches that repentance wipes away all your sins, that they will not be remembered against you.
I am responding to your comment https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/#comment-22509
You imply that I have flip-flopped on the issue of messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53. Then you proceed to ask a series of questions of how the midrashic interpretation can possibly be symbolic.
In fact, I had already explained all this before. I had already declared that a midrashic interpretation regarding a messianic understanding does exist. In this comment you remind me that I had insisted on keeping midrashic interpretation out of the discussion; I have not changed my mind. I was simply explaining to Dan what I had long ago explained to you because he raised the topic of midrashic interpretation.
Although you seem to have ignored what I explained to you then and what I just now explained to Dan (in fact I get the sense that you only read half of what I write), I will explain again.
Number one, in the Jewish tradition midrashic interpretation adds layers of meaning to the text but does not replace the plain meaning. Everything I have argued about regarding Isaiah is focused on a plain reading of the actual text in context. This is the primary meaning for Jews. In our tradition, you cannot study the midrash if you cannot first grasp the plain meaning, a problem that plagues most Christians when they approach this passage.
Number two, I pointed out to Dan and I repeat to you: it is inconsistent and hypocritical for Christians who reject Jewish midrashic interpretation to seize upon it and insist on exclusively interpreting according to midrash in only this one instance.
Number three, it is the height of audacity for Christians to tell Jews how to understand their own midrashic tradition, which they themselves do not understand and which they hold in contempt.
At the end of the day, Eric, there is no way I can even begin to discuss midrash with a Christian who does not know how to understand the plain sense of the actual text.
dan1el2 Why would you think its heretical to say that Isaiah 53 is talking of the Messiah? I say so to – in context.
YPF, This would mean that the Messiah is not an individual but a certain people and it means that “Christ” and “Messiah” are not synonyms. I’m with you! Shomer
Eric, you may have noticed the angry tone of my recent comments to you. In general, although the rhetoric sometimes gets quite heated, I endeavor to maintain a respectful and unemotional tone (as much as I can), recognizing that we are all God’s children created in His image and that we must put reason before emotion.
The revelation that you are (or were) the author of a website that billed itself Jews for Judaism 2000 and that you defended that title has shocked me to the core. Far from being the sincere but misguided Christian I thought you were, I now find that you have engaged in duplicity and rationalized it. I am not only disappointed, I am mad as all get-out.
When you denounce this tactic and apologize for your dishonesty, I will talk more happily to the Eric I thought I knew. Until then, I will remain disappointed and angry.
Regarding the deceptive tactics you employ, and your comments here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/good-bad-and-both/#comment-22726 .
And here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/matthews-guards-by-jim/#comment-22725 .
It is a gross misrepresentation to call your site “jewsforjudaism2000,” when you are neither Jewish, nor do you practice Judaism. You are a Christian for Christianity. And it is debatable about whether or not your particular brand of Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Regardless, you know that when you call your site “jewsforjudaism2000,” you are creating a certain expectation, an expectation that you have no intention of meeting.
What you wrote to Dina is no less deceptive than the name of your site. You are attempting to move the discussion away from your dishonesty to a debate about what is true Judaism. This distraction, an attempt to put Dina on the defensive, will not absolve your utterly disgraceful false advertising. The question is not whether or not Christianity is really Judaism. The question is whether or not your fairly represented your site. You did not.
All of your justifications for this misleading name are attempts to find loopholes. As long as you can say that your faith can be called Judaism, then you feel entitled to make a misleading site. But you are lying to yourself. This is not justification, because this is not about whether or not you can call your faith “Judaism”. This is about the expectation you give others when you name your site accordingly.
You have been accusing the Pharisees of being untrustworthy. You misrepresent yourself and the scriptures regularly to get at your desired end. Who is untrustworthy?
Some people lie to themselves and to others so many times for so many years that they lose the capacity for honesty. It appears Eric may be just such a person, incapable of understanding why calling his site Jews for Judaism 2000 is misleading and deceptive.
as usual with most open minded Christians his site is moderated so he will only allow comments to show up that he agrees with. he obviously doesn’t like open discussions.
What a hypocrite, he can come here and say what he wants and we listen and respond, but he won’t take comments on his own site that he disagrees with.
Eric, your true colors have been revealed at last.
I guess I missed something somewhere; how do we know this is Eric’s site.
It IS interesting that the site is moderated, but I’m not one for going to Xtian sites to “teach” them.
Jim found him out. He used the screen name studyb here and on that site. And he did not deny it when confronted.
I am evading the point by asking the question that you are refusing to answer for the third time? Interesting. “We are not talking about dying but about whether or not is was proactive. ” We are not talking about dying ( although we did) but because the answer would be yes’ which means ” the firstborns would be judged) then we are not talking about it. Yes I get it shab! I help you and change ‘dying ‘ to ‘ God’s judgement ( if dying was not a point) of which we talked about anyways whether God would pass over with His judgement He executed on the Egyptians or not.
Since you evidently require constant explanations I guess I’ll have to reiterate.
You stated the Pesach lamb saved Israel from G-d’s wrath. His wrath was being directed AT the Egyptians and Not Israel, therefore the command was a proactive command and had no relationship to any sinning on the part of the Israelites. It was the sin of the Egyptians that were at issue. Your contention suggests that Israel “had to be saved” but if it weren’t the hardening of Paro’s heart there would have been no need for blood. As Chazal tell us the Israelites never spoke Lashon Hara and therefore warranted redemption.
There is a point here I recently contemplated in regards to “blood”. The plague of the river turning to blood has an interesting concept. We are told that the miracle was whoever drank from the river corresponded to who the plague was against. When an Israelite took from the river he drank water but when the Egyptian drank from the river he drank blood. Now, isn’t it interesting that this period is etched into Xtianity, especially the Passover. Do you see the question. Who is it that instituted a “ritual” of “this is my blood”, and “drink”.
Yup, I just commented on Jews for Judaism 2000 and my comment is awaiting moderation. Let’s see what happens. At any rate, it’s not a very popular site. I don’t see any comments, unless I am looking in the wrong place.
Dina, ‘Christians for christianity’ would be a site for Christians as they already know who Jesus is and do not need to learn that.
It’s your site, you are a Christian,, and you are promoting Christianity. Stop lying to yourself and to others, it’s shameful.
You can try and make excuses but to use such a name for such content is nothing short of disgusting and despicable since you have attached yourself to a real Judaism site, Jews for Judaism. It is no different than Xtians who claim to be “rabbis”. It goes to show that Xtianity cannot be sold on any merit but instead has to create associations with REAL Jews and REAL Judaism. It is why you stated, falsely, about 2000 years of Jews following Jsus. It is Dishonesty.
Jim, your dishonest judgement is simply detasteful. My website CLEARLY sets its statement and PURPOSE and it is NOT hiding that it will speak about JESUS and that it will try to show or explain why we believe he is their Messiah. If a jew comes to and reads ‘ About us’ and doesn’t wish to hear about jesus he leaves and as he has a choice whether he wants to read or not. The same choice you have while coming to google and typing any subject and choosing it to read or not..
It is clear that your comments of critic came out after I addressed your message about your claims of last chapter of matthew considered by you as a fabrication and lie. It is clear that you can’t handle it and are trying to reverse the judgement and impose it on the one who touched you.
I do not feel like having obligation to your disgraceful critic and carry on explanation to you while we chose the title like we chose. As believers that Christianity is born from judaism , the true one and having many jews that work with us we keep it as it is and that will be the answer to you.
Unlike this website that tries to put Christians in the worst light of antisemitism and shows itself as a FRIEND who speaks ‘ill’ about us , out website is not addressing any negative judgement towards you.
P.S. as far as comments on it they are closed as we have not possibility to respond to every site and continue them. They operate on another place .
Eric, it misleads Jews unlike me who are ignorant of their heritage and have not studied the Bible in Hebrew according to Jewish tradition. Have you ever wondered why your success rate in converting Orthodox Jews is zero?
I share what I is known about jesus and not for keeping the rate of how many I could ‘convert’
Eric, that is a non-response. I didn’t say a word about how many people you can convert. I was talking about deceiving ignorant Jews who, unlike me, don’t know Hebrew and haven’t studied the Bible.
when I believe what is true I can’t put my message under the blanket and say let nobody know that Jesus is the future king. A everybody has a choice what they want to read and what they want to agree with.
Eric, you responded: “when I believe what is true I can’t put my message under the blanket and say let nobody know that Jesus is the future king. A everybody has a choice what they want to read and what they want to agree with.”
That wasn’t the point. Tell everyone what you want, just be honest about it. Say, “I’m a Christian, and I want to tell you about Jesus.” Don’t say, “here’s a website about Judaism!”
Proclaim your beliefs from the rooftops for all I care, just be honest. I prefer the bible-thumping street preachers to liars like you. They don’t pretend to be what they are not.
Nobody’s trying to shut you up, Eric. You know that darn well. You’re trying to make the accusation out to be something it is not so you can avoid confronting your rank and foul dishonesty.
Eric, you wrote that “as far as comments on it they are closed as we have not possibility to respond to every site and continue them. They operate on another place.” Please enlighten us. Where is that other place that comments operate? Thank you.
you have a place for comments addressed to me here that will be enough for me.
So you’re not only dishonest, but evasive too. I want to know where I can comment on your website so your readers will see the comments.
iDina, I do not use that website at all as I have the others and I am too busy to operate on all.
Xtianity is “Antithetical” to Judaism. There is absolutely NO relationship OR comparison.
It’s rather a recent invention by Xtians to “claim” Judaism as their predecessor. What IS clear and unambiguous is virtually every Xtian is wholly ignorant when it comes to Judaism. They read the five books, which THEY call Pentateuch, and assume they know all there is about Judaism and Jewish Tradition. Xtians, and you Erick, have virtually nil in knowledge of Torah and Judaism. I have heard countless Xtians, and even Jsus, come along and say “this is what the Jews believe”, or “this is what Judaism says” when both are far from reality. So don’t come here and “Claim” your religion is Judaism. It is NOT and never will be, no matter how much it is dressed up in messianic terms.
I’ve been thinking about Eric and his sudden silence. Maybe he got busy with other things and will come back in a week or two, as he sometimes does. Maybe he’ll be like those other Christians who finally give up because they can’t answer our arguments and so slink off with their tails between their legs.
I can’t believe I’ve been arguing for well over a year with one of those deceptive messianic-Judaism-type of missionaries when all along I thought I was talking to an ordinary Christian layman who had stumbled on this site and who sincerely wanted to correct what he felt were misperceptions about Christianity.
I do not remember who mentioned Hosea but here is the answer; I combined the the subjects that were referring to repentance via atonement and sacrifices.
Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”
Your interpretation is that showing mercy or loving-kindness and charity to others is a far better method of atonement than sacrifice. But such interpretation ignores the analogy of Scripture. God is rebuking Israel and Judah because they were living wicked unrepentant lives and yet they were still engaging in the external ceremonies because they mistakenly believed these ceremonies could remove sin without true faith in God and repentance. Chapter five of Hosea lists all the wrongs done among the people . God is saying that He desires true faith in Himself, a faith that leads to godly living, far above unbelief, wickedness and empty ritualism. God through the prophet Isaiah condemns unbelieving ritualism with even stronger language. He calls the sacrifices of the wicked “futile sacrifices” (1:13). Their incense is an abomination (1:13). He hates their feast days (1:14). He says, “I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting” (1:13). In Hosea, God is not condemning the sacrificial system itself but the ABUSE of the sacrificial system. If the external ordinances of religion are practiced without true faith and repentance then they are worthless.
The simple reason is that any wicked person can offer up a sacrifice. Saul was a wicked man who openly and obstinately disobeyed God’s word yet who loved to offer sacrifice. Thus, the prophet Samuel said to Saul: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to heed than the fat of rams. ANOTHER WORDS A SACRIFICE WITH AN EMPTY HEAT MEANS NOTHING. Do not offer it if you can’t obey God. Do not put a sacrifice over obeying God. The ceremonial sacrifices were of divine institution but they were not acceptable to God apart from faith in Him. People described in Hosea and Isaiah 1 offered sacrifices without faith and repentance. By ‘I desire mercy and not a sacrifice ” God shows that the moral law has priority over the performance of rituals (the ceremonial law).Simply Hosea teaches that faith and obedience must precede external church ordinances.
Similar is the message in ps 51.
God is not rejecting His own appointed offerings, and He is not saying that we can be self-atoning by repentance. What again He is emphasizing is that the best of gifts is hateful to Him without a right heart. And that reference is not simply to atonement but to the whole range of worship. It has to be with the right heart. The message is not to diminish the meaning of the sacrifices but doing them with the right approach .
By the end of the Psalm we read : “Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.”
David did not look to his repentance as the foundation of atonement but to God who justifies through the BLOOD of a SUBSTITUTE. This point is evident from David’s plea in verse 7, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”
The sacrifices and other rituals keep in mind that all were instituted by God and therefore cannot be objectionable before Him. The common theme that runs through all OT is on the necessity of a proper heart attitude when approaching God. He requires a broken spirit. A person who is regenerated by the Holy Spirit understands that he has nothing meritorious or good to offer God. So said Jesus : “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish” [Lu. 13:3, 5]. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven”
Jesus is not teaching a new thing; and he is not saying “just come to me you will be fine” The message is build on All words what he said . So Jesus saves from the guilt of sin (justification) and the power of sin (sanctification) those who repented and want to serve God according with the right attitude God demanded while approaching sacrificial ceremonies.
If blood atonement was unnecessary and inferior to charity or repentance then why did God even bother to institute the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle and Temple? Why did God set aside a special priesthood? Why did God say that blood was given to make atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11)? The truth is that blood atonement is the scarlet thread that runs through the whole Old Testament. The shedding of blood by sacrifice was crucial because it typified the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary. After Adam and Eve sinned, and became conscious that because of their guilt their nakedness was now unacceptable,Fig leaves were replaced with an animal skin which means a life had to be lost to cover their sin. Then God promised a coming redeemer. Why didn’t God just tell Adam and Eve to be sorry? If repentance was all that was needed why was a redeemer necessary, why sacrificial system etc?
If the shedding of blood was unnecessary then why did God accept Abel’s burnt offering yet reject Cain’s non-bloody offering of the fruit of the ground (Gen. 4:3-5)?
Eric, you misrepresent my argument, but that is what one would expect of a Christian missionary who labels his website Jews for Judaism.
I can’t take you seriously because of your inherent dishonesty but for the sake of the audience I will answer you, while holding my nose.
I never said that God rejected His own sacrificial system. I never said that it was unnecessary. I only argued that God provide other means of atonement as well. I have supported this argument with Scripture after Scripture after Scripture. Instead of responding and/or refuting, you repeat your position, as if by saying it louder each time it will make it true.
Frankly, I am tired of endlessly repeating myself. I’m not going to give you any more proof. Look it up for yourself in the comments section of the various articles I discussed it under and come back to me with a real answer. You brought proof to me against an argument I never made, so there is no need to respond to it.
You damned yourself with your own words. If obedience is so important to God, then you are in big trouble. God said that human sacrifice is forbidden. God said that human substitutionary atonement is unacceptable. God said that He is close to all who call on Him sincerely, in contrast to your belief that Jesus is the only way to God.
You guys call us spiritually blind. We “don’t get it.” Well, look who’s talking.
I had already given a response to your comment here showing that atonement is not a primary focus and isn’t even what is required for this long exile. Read the Isaiah I quoted.
Are you really that oblivious to what Genesis says regarding Abel’s sacrifice. It is quite specific that Abel brought the Very best of his, whereas Cain did not. It had NOTHING to do with blood. This is nothing short of twisting the words of Torah to fit a certain agenda.
I would like to see the Rabbi post the article “A Warning from Isaiah”, which details specific accounts in the Xtian text and a corresponding rebuttal in Isaiah. I don’t know Who the original author was. But it is certainly much more pertinent than Xtian reading of Tanach.
You refuse to give your answer about messianic application existing in Jewish writings because you will not’ speak to such a christian like me who doesn’t understand the plain meaning” etc yet you can speak about any other subject. I just wondered based on what the others could see messianic application to that chapter while understanding the plain meaning and context of that chapter.( unlike me)
It is well known that the early Jewish works such as the Targum Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum adopt a messianic interpretation of messianic prophecy in Is 53. I missed a couple of more observations before .
Is 53 speaks of the vicarious suffering (vs. 4, 5, 6, 8 10, 11, 12) .
Also the word “we” throughout chapter 53 as referring to the Gentiles has a problem. This would be inconsistent interpretation because throughout the whole book whenever the word “we” is introduced abruptly in the midst of a prophecy it always refers to Israel and not the Gentiles (Is 42:24; 64:5; 36:6; 24:16, who themselves need atonement but are supposed to atone for others? I heard more jewish interpretations that this chapter is interpreted as you atoning for others.
Anyways even Talmud explicitly teaches that righteous Jews can suffer and atone for other Jews, interesting Yet Ezekiel 18;20 would be used against jesus but it is not used against Talmud.
It’s disgusting and dishonest to cite the words of people to whom you attribute no authority and who never advocated the type of worship you engage in.
If you think they got it right here, then maybe you ought to consider that they got it right elsewhere. Otherwise, leave it alone.
I will leave you with this: they include the Messiah with the remnant of Israel. Read Zephaniah 3 (starting in verse 9, especially verse 13) for a description of the remnant that matches Isaiah 53.
You can’t understand our position until you take off your vicarious atonement/suffering glasses for a minute.
Yes I stumbled upon your site with the purpose of talking about Christianity and show why we believe in Jesus being the Messiah. You do the the same to show us why you do not. I also support Jewish messianic movements who have no problem with recognizing and retaining their Jewish identity . Then I write separately only for Christians on my polish and english blog. I see now that you relate the term ‘messianic Jews’ only to the 60s because the Jewsih movement believing in Jesus was granted their recognition name at that time. The name was granted to tell apart between the believing and non believing Jews. But all know that Jews knowing Jesus as their Messiah is not a new phenomena from the 60s . So no, I am not contradicting myself when I mentioned that word. If Jews believing in jesus started in the 60 there would be no NT scriptures from the first century. That’s why my first post starts with ‘the work which was done 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, work of jesus.”
The word ‘messianic’ is not in the web title so that the non-believing in Jesus Jews do not associate the word with the faith influenced by Christians ( that messianic Judaism is accused of a faith being influenced by Christians), as the first century shows you that those Jews believing in jesus( we call messianic today) were precursors of what we call today Christianity. in other words ; Jesus the Messiah is not a Christian- gentile idea but jewish.
The trust in Jesus the Messiah started among the Jews and the message was for the jews while they were able to keep their Jewish identity and not see Jesus as an obstacle to their faith but fulfillment. Recognition of Jesus as Jewish Messiah started by your own people not by us- gentiles. The disciples were all Jews, their calling was to their own people. Jesus Himself declared to the Canaanite woman who sought His help, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). This was his priority . He instructed His disciples when He sent them out, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6). So the first followers of Jesus were all Jews or converts to Judaism; the 120 in the Upper Room, the 3,000 saved at Pentecost, and the 5,000 saved shortly thereafter. They did not convert to another religion, but understood they had found the Messiah promised by their own prophets. None of them ever though that they left Judaism and switched to a new religion but that Jesus was part of the faith they had so far.
It is known that the Jews believing in Jesus ( messianic today ) see Jewish religion as having very little to do with the Old Testament Scriptures. They are aware that you will be calling their judaism a sect and they see modern pharisee’s judaism as a sect filled with lots of man added teachings. Jesus and the apostles rejected the religion of the Pharisees and the Pharisees emphatically rejected Jesus and His teachings. The reason Jesus strongly opposed the Pharisees is that their traditions contradicted the Old Testament and had been used by the rabbis to replace the teachings of Moses and the Prophets. Jesus said, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?… Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (Jn. 5:45-47).
First, this is not my site, and second, the messianic Jews today are no different from Christian gentiles in terms of their beliefs.
Your website is dishonest, and so by extension, are you.
And then you defend yourself with some slanderous quotes about the Pharisees from your corrupt Scripture. Dishonesty added to dishonesty.
It is really sickening when Xtians come to us and claim to speak for what is True Judaism when they have absolutely NO understanding of Anything Jewish, let alone Judaism.
These so-called messianics who say the “Jewish religion” bears no resemblance to the time of Moshe are ones who are actually totally ignorant of anything related to Judaism. Therefore they have NO authority WHATSOEVER to speak in the name of Judaism. It is a certainty that no Xtian has ever named a Torah-observant Orthodox Jew who ever converted to Xtianity. This is because ONLY the ignorant fall prey to Xtianity and Jsus; which, by the way, was the EXACT SAME with the followers of Jsus. They, too, were the ignorant of THEIR TIME.
It’s even worse to say that the Pharisees “replaced” the teachings of Moshe. The ONLY way anyone can make that claim is if they know and understand all of Talmud. Since you do not, you have no authority to speak on the matter. I can say this because the Talmud contradicts YOU and the very words you utter. Virtually Everything in Talmud, which is the Pharisaic tradition, is ROOTED in Torah. If you had read the arguments in Talmud you would be aware of this, but since Xtianity had for centuries forbid Xtians from knowing; even to the point of burning copies of the Talmud. What were they afraid of? Exactly the same accusations YOU have laid out. What you DON’T realize is that the Rabbi have actually enhanced the relationship of the Jew to G-d. Any Torah observant Jew is aware of this.
A Rabbi once made an eloquent comparison of the Jewish Nation and G-d with the marriage of a man and wife. He had given his own personal examples in the comparison. What he related was; What makes a marriage “Work”. It is a culmination of ALL the little things one does for the other. It is the same way with Israel and ALL the little things that Tradition has brought down. Everything, everything that is done is with Hashem in mind. When a person washes his hands and says the blessing that simple act is DIRECTED to Hashem. Yet Jsus scoffs at this act celebrating Hashem. Do YOU, Eric, consider G-d when washing your hands. In all these things we look TO Hashem and thus taking the mundane and raising it to the spiritual level. Consider this; How would a spouse react if the other did literally EVERYTHING with the thought of that spouse in mind. Would he not be so very pleased in someone’s entire devotion to that person. This is the “Love” that permeates the Jewish soul for his spouse, Hashem. Xtianity speaks of love but really has no realization of Jewish love for Hashem by doing all the little things. Torah commands us to Love Hashem and how better to show that love than having one’s heart directed TO HIM always and in everything, no matter How mundane.
That is so beautiful, Sharbano, and so very true. If you listen to a Jew speak, every other word out of his mouth is about Hashem: Baruch Hashem, im yirtzeh Hasham, b’ezras Hashem, chasdei Hashem. In everything that we do we whisper little prayers of gratitude to Hashem: before and after we eat, before going to sleep and upon awakening, even after using the bathroom we thank Hashem that our bodies are working properly so we can serve Him.
They really have no idea.
I also would like the name of one Orthodox rabbi who converted to Christianity. And, Eric, if you’re reading this, please don’t give me names of rabbis from the past who were forced to convert or who converted out of fear. An American Orthodox rabbi from our own time. Good luck!
You claim you know their meaning but majority of Jews while asked they do not.
“Did you know that the overwhelming majority of sacrifices had nothing to do with atonement?
What was the point of “loss of life” for a sacrifice of thanksgiving? For the festival sacrifices? For the Sabbath sacrifices? ”
Each sacrifice was one of a king to say that majority had nothing to do with one you mentioned or was not as important. I can say the same that majority had nothing to do with a peace offering because the others were not peace offerings but ; burn-, sin-, grain etc. If you want to speak about what characterizes the overwhelming majority of the sacrifices it would be that they involved blood/animal with a few exceptions like grain offering and flour from the poor. Some were obligatory and some not . The thanksgiving sacrifice was willingly presented to the Lord , it wasn’t mandatory. So what’s the problem? That the ‘ loss of life’ was present – an offered animal and the question is why? There is nothing unusual that this type offering accompanied the expressed gratitude to God that could be accepted by HIm, the same the other offerings accompanied the peoples’ restored relationship with God or accompanied the celebration of possibility to continue the fellowship with God or presence of God among His people. It is clear to Christians that restored relationship with God is thanks to Jesus, that there is peace with God also thanks to God’s son, that our thanksgiving and gratitude can be accepted thanks to Jesus through whom God reconciled the world with Himself. And jesus’ offering serves all God’s serving people for the anonment those who lived in the past and those who will come in the future.
Regarding repentance I agree it is prior to the offering. Nobody can really come to jesus without realizing that his life so far was without God and you have to have the will to live for God. That’s why many who claim to be christians by having just heard of Jesus and knowing about his existence do not really live for God.
Eric, this post is incoherent. I can’t make heads or tails of it.
“God tells Cain that he can set himself free from sin through his own effort. Fancy that!”
Fancy that despite your efforts to be good people still fail including the greatests leaders or kings’ Moses, David, etc.
Despite trying there is no person without a sin.
Fancy that despite forgivness God introduced the sacrificial system that would involve life offered for sin according to what He said in Gen; sin brings death. And that’s why we need Jesus to pay for all we failed in. Besides there is a difference between atonment and forgiveness. One has to do with the sins to be covered the other not.
“Gen 3:22-24 This chapter says nothing about eternal life after death or eternal death.”
And it is a mystery for you how I read it that message. If Adam’s sin was to result in only a temporary death the way to the tree of life for eternal life would not have to be banned guarded and secured.
This chapter clearly shows you that God secured the way to the tree of life which purpose was for living forever.
“(…) Now to prevent his putting out his hand and taking also from a tree of life , eating and living forever. Therefore God sent him out of the garden (…) So He drove the man out and He placed at the east of the garden the Cherubim and the flame of th ever turning sword to GUARD THE WAY TO THE TREE OF LIFE. ( which is to guard the way into eternal life) . If Adam ate from that tree he would live forever, so God secured the way .
You admited Adam brought physical death by eating from the tree of knowledge. It was not that the tree of knowledge itself had some mysterious properties but because God said NOT TO DO IT, to leave this tree alone. So by disobedience Adam brings death into the world including himself. Also there is no message in that chapter that distinguishes between spiritual and physical death to determine or make some presumptions that Adam dies just physically and others in the world and that they may function in some spiritual form somewhere else. This way death is not really death. God’s purpose was to have people living on earth and bringing glory to Him. Also death is shown as a from of a punishment , being cut off from life with God not a transfer into another form of existance.
What you said here it is just a partial observation, partial message God made;
You said “All that passage in Leviticus is saying, as has been pointed out to you before, is that we are not allowed to eat the blood of the animal because that is the part of the animal that atones. It does not teach that atonement is ONLY in the blood. Not at all. ”
In this chapter God doesn’t list you atonment options; blood, flour, an animal, prayer, repentance or something else in order to say that blood is simply one of the options depending on availability . God’s main core of the message is not about an animal not to eat his blood because the animal atones for “your souls.” He doesn’t put an animal over the blood as an atoning means. He doesn’t say ‘ do not eat blood because I gave you the animals to atone for you and blood is simply their part.” But He says why the blood is given to atone for the souls v 11 and In v 14 ” For the life of any creature- it’s blood represents it’s life(…). So the represented life that is offered serves for our atonment .
What Ezekiel says in chapter 18 & 33 is the responsibility of us to change and repent. Our part about atonment is to trust Him that he provided the way to our complete atonment. He ‘covered’ our sins through Jesus . More I explained in the previous messages
“Leviticus teaches that a flour offering can replace an animal offering for one who is too poor to buy an animal.” Yet not in the temple and a priest is not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies with a flour.
“Solomon’s dedication prayer talks about forgiveness without sacrifices.” The point Salomon is making is that our prayer and repentance is more important than a sacrifice without a repentance. And for those who obey God( and did ; David, Nathan, Moses, etc ) their atonment is also in Jesus. It is God who offers a life for our sins. Our part is to trust Him about it.
“The sacrificial system will be entirely restored in the Third Temple.”
Exactly so why if you can just repent? You will be back to a lesson that the cost of sin is high and results in death so that people have a sense of how God looks at sin.
Eric, you finally responded to the Scriptural passages I cited–but with speculation, not with substance.
You keep misrepresenting my argument, which is not that sacrifices were wholly unnecessary. God provided other means of atonement as we have seen. You could offer flour instead of blood (what difference does it make where? The point is you could do it; besides, I don’t know if what you said is even true–what is your source for that statement?). You could turn away from wickedness and live, per Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 18 and 33 and your sins will be wiped away; you didn’t answer that, you brushed over it.
You’re saying outrageous things, like repentance and righteousness failed Moses and King David because they still sinned. Are you kidding me? God accepted their repentance and forgave them. And what, Christians who believe in Jesus don’t sin? You can’t be serious.
Your response to my point that the sacrificial system will be restored is moot because I do not believe that the sacrificial system is pointless–you’rethe one who believes that. That’s why you’re the one who has to answer the question: if Jesus was the final atoning sacrifice for all the sins of mankind, then what is the purpose of the restoration of the sacrificial system?
And Again Eric, Xtianity is incapable of reading Torah with more than one idea in mind. You and Xtianity try to dissect Torah into individual parts that have no relationship to anything else that is written.
It is quite specific that it speaks of a prohibition on consuming blood and THEN it says “because” this particular blood has a purpose. NOWHERE does it say or even give the impression that ONLY blood atones but is describing “life-blood”. As I stated previously it has to be “life-blood”, which is what is being taught here, and that because THAT blood is FOR THE ALTAR it cannot be consumed. This is why Kosher meat has to be salted. Under these circumstances we can very easily conclude that Jsus certainly DID NOT meet the requirements of an atoning sacrifice. His death was NOT the result of “life-blood” being the cause of death.
Pingback: Yisroel Blumenthal’s response to Dr. Brown’s response | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
I read your article above. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the righteous minority of Israel atones for the sin of the unrighteous majority.
It would seem we agree in concept but disagree in numbers?
CP Its not only numbers that we disagree about – your world-view (and please correct me if I am wrong) puts belief in and affection for the suffering servant at the center of our lives while mine does not – it puts God at the center of our lives – as God’s prophets taught
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
In Isaiah 52/53 everything deals about a suffering graven image on a crucifix. If the Prophet had prophecied such an abomination he would have been stoned to death.
If the “Servant of the Lord” was Jesus, we could find a proof of it in the context;
KJV: Isa 42:19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’S servant?
So we don’t get bogged in the world views of others I’ll just speak of mine.
Let’s take the Tanach or the Temple, are either God? Many have an affection for the Tanach and a future Temple, even facing Jerusalem in prayer and davening for hours before the Tanach.
Do you think a outsider could perhaps accuse us of worshiping a book or a wall?
We would be quick to inform them neither the Tanach or the Temple is God but are gifts given to us by God to bring us to Him.
In the same way,
I see Yeshua as a gift from God and believe the atoning work of a completed Tzaddik who believed the Tanach, affirmed the Shema and declared Hashem as his God brings me to HIM.
Sure I turn to Yeshua as we both turn to the Tanach and Jerusalem, but none are God themselves, but a concentric spheres around a nucleus that is Hashem. This is why I don’t accuse you of davening to a Book, yet you think I daven to Yeshua.
I feel this is a misunderstanding on your part but I am open for you to show me if this is error.
CP Good question – and there is no question that sometimes Temple, Tanach, Tzaddik get more attention than they deserve – and this in Orthodox Jewish circles. The key is as follows – you have to try to make God the center of your focus – all other love and attention should flow from that center-point. If you love God, you will love His Temple, His book, His righteous ones, His people, His creations etc. – but it will all flow from your love for God. The way to tell if your love for the Tzaddik is an expression of your love of God or if your love of God is peripheral to your love of the Tzaddik is very simple. Compare the way feel toward a fellow follower of the same Tzaddik to the way you feel to a follower of God but who doesn’t think that your Tzaddik is truly righteous (let’s say he/she never heard of your Tzaddik, or that he/she has a false impression of your Tzaddik fed to him/her by other people).
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Also a good question, hopefully I can provide a good answer.
My primary place of worship, fellowship and membership is synagogue. I attend church when invited by others and most times get irritated with their errors.
I’m not afraid to call pastors out on teaching error from the pulpit and usually get in discussions with them after services. I’ve been asked to teach in various christian circles, but I laugh and say; “you don’t want to hear what I have to teach! But thank you for asking”
Yet, I know and have met some very Godly believers in “Jesus” who by their actions show it is for real. I’ve seen among others and experienced the Promised Spirit of God for myself. Not among the hypocritics, but among the real ones the true presence of God can be felt.
As for synagogue I love the fellowship, the tradition, and the prayers, oh, and the food! But have yet to feel the Spirit. It seems odd to me the Spirit would be in some churches where error exists. It has made me reconsider the possibility of what is more important; knowing things precisely or a reckless abandonment to the love of God.
CP Love of God and love of truth go hand in hand – after all He is the God of truth and the spirit of truth is the quiet one – but it is pure and real
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I have a few thoughts on this comment.
The Orthodox Jewish community is diverse like the Christian one. Many people visit multiple churches before they finally find one with the spiritual approach, sense of community, humility, passion etc. that really resonates with them, and even then they take the imperfect together with the parts they love. The same is true in the Jewish community. There are many people who attend mostly for cultural and social reasons, especially in the Diaspora. There are others who are spiritually sincere but express their faith in ways that are foreign to you. Sometimes personal issues also get in the way of a clear light, though the heart within is good. And then, though you may not have met them, there really are Orthodox Jews and communities who have a healthy, vibrant love for God, each other, and others and, additionally, express it in a way you would find familiar.
A lot of the time, when you see people doing something, it means something different to them on the inside than it does to you on the outside. Quietness could seem like lack of joy, but to them it may signify cultural humility in front of others, a privacy about the most intimate experiences with God (so as not to lose the reality in the telling), and/or a commitment that is treading loyally and deeply through pain. And when you see someone reading prayers from a book like rote, you may not know what that means to them.
I would be interested in your thoughts on one more thing. I feel that it is fair to say that you can sense things like unity, joy, hope, compassion, peace, welcome, worship, integrity, love etc. in the atmosphere of a place. You may be right or wrong to a certain extent, but it is still a real perception. However, it seems arrogant when NT believers are taught that they can perceive by a feeling whether someone else, or a community, does or does not have a deep connection with God. Especially when you talk about people who are keeping Torah and have it in their heart, isn’t it better to be humble in front of their experience of God Himself? You may not relate to the atmosphere and you may see faults in personality or belief, but what makes you confident that you have ability to make a call about who has God’s presence with them? How do you know that you aren’t basing that on the atmosphere more generally?
One issue with non_trinitarian Christianity is that if Jesus is not moshiach, then by your beliefs you are demeaning the righteous part of the nation, which is the light of the world. It is a big problem to do that.
Finally, I think I agree with your idea that it is more about the heart than knowledge. Do you think Jesus would agree with us? Look at how he and the apostles spoke about those who did not accept him when they heard about him.
“…Promised Spirit of God for myself.“
I’d be interested in what you think this is*… and where in Torah is that promised.
*i.e. is it a feeling, some way you see others act…?
“*i.e. is it a feeling or some other way you see others act…?”
= The best way i can describe it:
Have you ever walked into a room where unbeknownst to you an argument had just taken place but you can feel the tension in the air?
It’s the exact opposite of that feeling.
“I’d be interested in what you think that is*… and where in Torah is that promised.”
= I think it is the Spirit of God or a spirit from God. This isn’t something new that needs to be promised in Torah. All through Tanach the Ruach Hakodesh comes on people, however the Prophets (Joel 2:29, Isaiah 44:3-5, Ezekial 36:26-27, Zechariah 12:10) do speak of a ultimate fulfillment.
I think what I’ve experienced wasn’t so much the “Love of God and the love of truth” but rather the ‘God of Love and the truth of love’…if that makes sense?
CP sure it makes sense – that’s why you find it where you did – it is much easier for human beings to align with love than it is for them to align with truth – love built on truth stands the test of time, love that defines truth doesn’t
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
That is some pretty deep truth!
For the sake of discussion, perhaps you might consider there is a balance between love built on truth and love that defines truth?
Love built on truth demands we forgive others (for-give = give as before), but the truth is it is not still “before” but after. This would be a case where if we want to forgive from the heart we need love to define truth for us.
But love covers all sins.
And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”
CP I’ve encountered both spirits in the context of Orthodox Judaism – you never need love to define truth – you need selflishness to get out of the way so that your vision not be clouded and selfishness goes out of the way when love comes in – when that love is built on truth – some love is pretty selfish Micah 6:8 puts justice before loving kindness for a reason (and he puts the two of them before walking inconspicuously with God)
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?”
I find knowledge of the divine council, messiah, and eschatology conspicuously absent from this verse. Which for me is uncomfortable and rather pleasant at the same time.
CP Why uncomfortable? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Because deep down I realize it’s not what I know, but what I do which is important. I probably spend a disproportionate amount of time wanting to know things rather than doing Tzedakah. Let’s face it, we are all going to find out the truth in the Olam Habah, so what does it matter here and now? (within reason)
I don’t think there is going to be a quiz after this life by which the results will place me in an appropriate position, but rather, it will be the person I’ve become through the actions I chose in this life. If I acted how God has instructed, or not, will be the defining factor. For if I failed to act, I failed to believe.
CP Jeremiah 22:16 gives expression to your sentiment 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Oh, I said “one more thing” and then added more.
“Sure I turn to Yeshua as we both turn to the Tanach and Jerusalem, but none are God themselves, but a concentric spheres around a nucleus that is Hashem. This is why I don’t accuse you of davening to a Book, yet you think I daven to Yeshua.”
sikhs have guru nanak
You remind me of a 1611 KJVO’er!
My post had NOTHING to do with Sikhism.
However……since you brought it up, I have a theory:
Tradition has it a disciple of Yeshua went to India with the Good News. Sikhis are predominately found in one area and have been heavily persecuted by the Hindus.
I speculate Sikhism is a form of Christianity adapted to India culture over 2000 years. It’s just a guess of mine, someday I’d like to research it. I do know two Sikhis and have had some interesting conversations. Once I took a Bible out and showed one Sikhi his teachings written in the Bible, knowing nothing of the Bible, he was dumbfounded and excited.
Edward, God is so much bigger than we give Him credit for. HE knows we are dust and meets men where they are. Like HE did Abraham!