Dina,
I know you are right that June comments here only infrequently. I hope that you are incorrect regarding her response. I do hope that she was not just venting her spleen, pronouncing her judgments without reason, accusing without evidence. Hopefully she has just been too busy to respond to my inquiry, and she will explain to us why what I wrote is “disgraceful” and “non biblical”. When she has a chance, perhaps she will explain why she does not merely disagree with my reasoning but why it is “disgraceful”.
Sadly, too often the Christian refuses to make honest arguments. Too often he levels accusations at his opponents. It is much easier to make pronouncements than bring proofs. Even a Christian that begins by bringing evidence, quickly retreats to mere declarations of his special insight. The holy spirit has shown him the truth, but the Jew is ‘blind’.
Familiarity makes it no less distressing when a Christian portrays devotion to God as rejection of Jesus and, therefore, rejection of God. If one seeks to fulfill the law of God, he is portrayed as faithless. Obedience is termed “legalism”. It is assumed that if one practices the law, he only keeps the letter of the law. Somehow the Christian knows the heart of every Jew and ben Noach. Being so qualified, they make it their business to sit in judgment, abandoning fair discussion of the issues in favor of issuing pronouncements.
While the Jew must bear up under every kind of accusation, the Christian will brook not so much as illustrating an imperfection in Jesus. The Christian is to be heard; the Jew is to be silent. When a Christian pronounces the Jew to be blind, this is love. When the Jew shows from Torah that a man is not God (nor is God a man), then this is anti-Biblical. When Jesus rails at his opponents as vipers, sons of the devil, murderers at heart, and the like, this is love. When the Jew points out that Jesus broke the law, this is unreasoning hatred, inherited from their fathers. The conversation is one-sided, with the Jew being made the villain at every turn, while every distortion of the Christian is treated as holy writ.
And yet the problem goes beyond the disrespect the Christian gives to the Jewish people (and the hatred that sometimes follows). The pronouncements of the Christian obscure the truth. By writing off one side of the debate, it is impossible to give fair analysis to the arguments. The Christian does himself a grave disservice. By assuming from the start the blindness of the Jew, the Christian cuts himself off from expert testimony. In effect, the Christian blinds himself by refusing to look at the opposing evidence. Having thus blinded himself, he then goes about attempting to blind others by maligning the Jewish people, so that their response will never be considered honestly.
All this said, I do hope that June was doing more than just making a pronouncement. I am more than willing to discuss wherein I may have made an error. She may have only typed the first comment in a rush, hoping to return to it later. I certainly understand how the business of life can limit our typing time. However, if she is unwilling to back up her accusations, then it would have been better for her not to type at all. It adds nothing to the conversation than vitriol.
Jim
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
Well put, Jim. The one thing that might help make sense of this is that Christians also do all of this to each other. The Calvinist claims the Wesleyan is “spiritually blind” at best, and “under the control of the devil” at worst. The same goes between those who believe in the Sabbath vs Sunday, the various views on the trinity, works vs grace, Protestant vs Catholic, Tongues vs no-tongues,etc. Debates between Christians get downright venomous, and often end with each side claiming the other is damned to burn for all eternity.
Thank you for your thoughts, Eleazar.
Jim
Do all Jewish sects agree? Another question. The Supreme Authority is the Word of God. For example, The Word of the Lord came to every Prophet. Then the Word became Flesh and concluded everything in the New Covenant. This includes the Sabbath, the Trinity, Grace vs works, The Body of Christ, Tongues. etc. If you would like to know more about each subject you mentioned, I’d gladly point out what the Word says vs Ideology.
If Jesus proclaimed the trinity, and if the trinity is taught in the NT, then why did it not even exist as a concept for the first 340 years of Christianity? BTW, that is 100 years longer than the USA has been a nation.
Please show me where Jesus said anything about people speaking gibberish and calling it a language.
Finally, the real New Covenant that accompanies the coming of Messiah is plainly revealed, spelled out and prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The “new covenant” of Christianity bears no resemblance.
The “new covenant” taught in the Christian bible, perfection of character and perfect law observance by the indwelling of Jesus’ spirit, has been proven conclusively to be an empty promise; a hollow inheritance. Christians know this. That is why most of them deny the gospel covenant as taught in the NT. Instead of “a new creation” ( Romans), Christians believe in spiritual evolution.
Eleazar
1) Jesus proclaimed the trinity in John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the>>> (Holy Ghost), whom the>>>> (Father) will send in>>>>> (my name), he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
2) Please show me where Jesus said anything about people speaking gibberish and calling it a language? Know what the Holy spirit IS-
“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”
WHen Holy Spirit of (GOD) comes on>>>>>> You?
Numbers 11:29
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I >>>>wish<<<<>>>>>>He also stripped off his clothes<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will>>>>>>> prophesy,
Your old men will>>>>>>> dream dreams,
Your young men will>>>>>>>> see visions.
29“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out >>>>>>>>My Spirit in those days.
Finally,
If you really know> God, you would know that Israel never won a fight WITHOUT God winning it for them.
“I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.”
God fights our battles— we never win by ourselves.
Once again, God in Christ beat transgression by himself to establish his own Righteousness.
This is called Grace.
You either accept His Victory or you try achieve on your own-
Once again, Israel never won without God winning the Battle.
I have accepted and believed like my forefather Abraham-> Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
YHSH won my fight. Amen.
Is this that same ‘Holy Ghost’ that inspired Stephen in the book of Acts. Who would believe or follow such an entity that erred in So Many points of Torah. An entity that doesn’t even know the words of Torah that are written down. And You want Us to believe in such utterly false teachings.
Sharbano:
Why did King Saul strip naked before Samuel?
In all your comments None are related to the discussion. Your posting all non-sequiturs.
You mention the Holy Ghost but fail to understand it. Why did King Saul strip naked before Samuel?
You fail to answer the question. Instead, in typical fashion, you make a statement that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Do YOU follow the Holy Spirit that guided Stephen. If so, then Nothing you say can have credibility simply because That spirit has no credibility.
Wrong Answer
The Spirit caused King Saul to prophesy and get naked.
Clearly you cannot dispute the facts. and thus have lost the argument, and, in essence agree with my statements.
Holy Spirit 101
Why did Moses want everyone to have the Holy Spirit ie. 70 elders?
That has Nothing to do with Stephen. Not only that you don’t even know Torah regarding Moshe and the Seventy Elders.
Wrong Answer
Understanding and a relationship with God.
70 was the limitation.
You need the Spirit.
Once again you have literally PROVED beyond any shadow of doubt you have not read and do not understand even the basics of Torah. Obviously you are under the same spirit that guided Stephen to so very many errors in Torah. The Xtian text is its OWN witness against it and YOU have shown you have fallen prey to the same false witness.
Just opinion and no scripture. At least Jim is giving substance. I’ll move on from Sharbano’s ideology.
Of Course you want to move on. So does EVERY Xtian who is confronted with what contradicts their comfort zone of blissful ignorance.
You know, Bibs, this is why some refuse to even dialogue with you. You never give a direct answer to a straight question without either changing the question to something you feel confident answering, or just changing the subject entirely….and then throwing an out of context verse at someone.
1- You did not even address my question. The question was not about whether you think the NT teaches the trinity. My question is, if Jesus DID teach the Trinity, then why did it not even exist as a practical concept/doctrine in Christianity until 350 years after Jesus died? See the difference?
2-Again , you did not even address the question. The question was not whether the spirit of God can fill or “come unto” a person, and make him dream dreams and prophesy. The question was where did Jesus ever say anything about said spirit “coming onto” a person resulting in speaking random gibberish? Where does Tanach say that? We agree that God’s holy spirit exists ( although you define it radically different). But you are using texts that speak of the existence of God’s spirit and insinuating that somehow these texts teach gibberish-speaking. Are you being dishonest?
As to your final statements, once again you have evaded the issue. My point is that Christianity teaches that if one becomes a Christian “God DOES win the battle”, every time, guaranteed, and this “Win” results your in own actions becoming those of God himself, since it is God who is working in you and not yourself. Are you saying that the Christian’s will is greater than God’s in this battle? If so, then how does the Christian EVER do the right thing, since Christianity teaches that man is altogether evil and never chooses good of his own spirit or flesh? If not, then how does the Christian EVER do wrong if Jesus is the one who “doeth the works” once a person “accepts Christ”? Does Jesus take a day off to let you work in your strength, making poor choices, and then show back up to make the right choices for you?
According to Romans 8- “There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in christ Jesus, who walk according to the spirit and not according to the flesh”…”he has become a new creature”.
If one is a new creature “IN CHRIST” and “CHRIST DOETH THE WORKS” , then Hebrews makes sense when it says that sacrifices are no longer relevant because the Christian will be doing the works of Christ, which according to Jesus are the very works of God himself. But if this is not the case, and the person still sins ( which has a 100% rate) then the point made by both Romans and Hebrews is moot, and the cross accomplished nothing that can be practiced that any unbeliever cannot also practice if he puts his mind to it. The cross, and your religion, is proven powerless because the promise of perfection and stainless obedience made by Romans 1 and Hebrews becomes hollow and empty. The claimed fulfillment of the new covenant is revealed as a lie.
819,
Unfortunately, the Church does not hold that the word of God is the Supreme Authority. As can be seen in their apologetics and missionary works, the Church frequently misrepresents the words of that Supreme Authority, placing its own theology above Torah, replacing the word of God with the word of man. Moreover, when a Christian is shown that his use of Torah is incorrect, he calls his opponent blind and appeals to a special knowledge he has through the ‘holy spirit,’ an authority higher than the word of God apparently.
One can find many examples of Christian scripture abuse on this blog, so I will not go into giving examples. It is by now well-known how Matthew, John, and Paul—especially Paul!—regularly misrepresented the scriptures they quoted. They misquoted and wrenched out of context the words of the Holy One with no consideration for the truth. They had no regard for the Word of God. They used it as a prop to create their own philosophies, their own religion, their own prophecies. God spoke, but they talked over him.
And then the Christian, when his rewriting of scripture is resisted, dismisses those that resist his unjust abuse of God’s Word. If one reads the scriptures in context, without altering the words, such a person has scales on his eyes or blinders on or some such cliché that comforts the Christian, because he will not have to face the objection head on. He can put the objections out of his mind, knowing they come from one to whom God has not revealed the truth. Then, he condescendingly tells his opponent that he will pray for him that God will show him the truth. The Christian does not need to listen to his opponent any more.
In all of this, the Christian will claim that he only believes in the Word of God; he will, as you have done, call it the Supreme Authority. But it becomes obvious that many Christians have a higher, even more supreme authority. That is the holy spirit. You will find that many Christians appeal to a special knowledge from a divine source. This trumps the opinions of others. Many Christians, but not all, will appeal to that higher knowledge when their abuse of the scriptures fail them. So, it is not just that their opponent is blind; the Christian is enlightened.
The Christian does not restrict himself to the scriptures, because his arguments from them are based on misrepresentations. Quickly, the claim that he would restrict himself to the Word of God is proven false, for, his efforts frustrated, he must fall upon his spiritual insight. And it becomes apparent that he has no respect for the Word of God at all. He does not defend it from those that distort it. He does not heed those who show him how it was distort it. And he does not rely upon it to guide his philosophy and action. Instead, he follows after the word of man and rests upon his own infallibility.
Jim
Jim,
I agree that man does distort the Word of God.
As in Isaiah 29:13
The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
As for Paul,
What do you disagree with?
You have taken Isaiah’s words and distorted them yourself. What Isaiah is telling us is that G-d approves and is honored by the ‘words’ of prayer of this people. It is only ‘kavanah’ that is lacking.
Sharbano-
No.
God wants a circumcised heart.
Eleazar,
Please forgive the late response to your question. I was not ignoring it, but I have been busy. You ask on what point I disagree with Paul.
I disagree with his view that the dichotomy he creates between law and faith. I disagree with his misogyny. And I especially disagree with the false way he employs scripture.
At virtually any point that Paul quotes Tanach, he misrepresents it, superimposing his own doctrine upon that given by God. Perhaps no better example of this misrepresentation is when he writes:
“But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’’ (that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim)…” (Rom. 10:6-8).
Now the passage from which he quotes actually means the exact opposite of what Paul writes. Not only is it not about faith in Jesus, it is not about the righteousness of faith at all. It is about righteousness through the law. Moses is telling Israel that the law of God has been given to them that they may do it. In Paul’s contrast between faith and law, he takes a passage about the law and puts his own meaning onto it, going so far as to omit the end:
“Surely this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear and observe it?’ No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe” (Deut. 30:11-14).
The man lacked all respect for HaShem and His Torah. Instead, he offered up his own opinions that were flatly contradicted by scripture. And to make them sound scriptural, he quoted a verse here and there, so that the surrounding context could not make the actual meaning known.
Jim
Jim,
If righteousness could have been attained through the Law; why then did God speak of another Covenant?
A covenant spoken about regarding True Circumcision of the Heart-
My covenant which they (broke), although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33″But this is the (covenant) which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people
Jeremiah 9:25
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised-
for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”…
****Future Tense
As far as Paul, he believes the (God’s WORD) is Jesus. The Law (written Word) is the culmination of Jesus.
All we know of God -is his Word- and that Prophets(Fleshy conduits) spoke Gods WORD. Gods Word was disobeyed, broken, which lead to present time (the Jewish Tribes scattered all around the world.) This indicates the broken Word. The LAW Covenant is broken.
Abraham my forefather accepted God’s Word and set out for a location unknown. But he believed in Gods Word, and through that belief he attained Righteousness.
Believing Gods Word is Righteousness. The LAW brought God’s wrath on Israel. But righteousness was attained before the- Law given and thus Paul refers to Faith in God’s Word/Jesus which was Crucified which is to be in the Abyss. But with Grace, is to believe that Christ rose from the dead to bury sin once and for all. Otherwise the Law would be broken by Israel time after time after time. Represents human nature. A new covenant is mentioned to reconcile the wrath of God through the Law.
819,
I do not have time to answer your comment right now, and it may be a day or two. But I do think it is important to point out that you have not addressed Paul’s abuse of scripture. You side-stepped the issue entirely, and began discussing Jeremiah.
You have misunderstood Jeremiah, which is not your fault–the Church has misrepresented it to you. When I have time, I will address Jeremiah and the notion of Jesus as the word. But in the meantime, you have not addressed the issue.
Jim
Eleazar,
You raise many points. I will not address them all in one post, because of time and ease of reading.
I think the first point I would like to address is the notion that Jesus is the Word of God. This notion is found nowhere in Tanach; it is a later invention. That means for over 1,000 years, no scriptures spoke of an eternal being through whom God made the world, who existed with God and was God.
In fact, the Church has been so desperate to find reference to this, one reads absolutely silly proofs from Christians—silly, because the distortion is so obvious. For example, not that you would do this, but one fellow argued that Jesus was present in Genesis 1, because God spoke things into existence and Jesus is the Word. To bolster his case, instead of calling Jesus the Greek ‘logos,’ he used the Hebrew ‘dabar’. But, not only is ‘dabar’ never used in such a way in Tanach, the word does not even appear in Genesis 1. It only says that God spoke, using the word “amar”. So his ‘great proof’ does not even appear in the text, he has to infer that God spoke something, and that thing must have been a word, and that word must have been the Word. This is silly. Torah does not make any reference to a preexistent Word, but he wants it to be there, so he tries to force it in.
This is important, because, if the Church had a verse that spoke of the Word in this manner, they would not go to such great lengths to ‘interpret’ the texts to find it hidden in there. They would just point to the verse that reads like John 1:1. But, because no such verse exists, they must look between the verses to find him there.
And while looking between the lines, they overlook what is said outright. Deuteronomy 4 says openly that God took on no physical form at Sinai, so that the Jewish people should associate him with nothing in creation. And, as the chapter continues: “To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him” (v.35) and again: “So acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other” (v. 39). The Torah states explicitly that God is alone, and it said so for more than 1,000 years before Jesus was born.
So, one must now consider carefully two opposing positions. The Church says that God is not alone, that Jesus was the Word that was “with God”. And the Torah says that God is alone, that no one and nothing is “with God.” To whom shall one incline his ear?
It is obvious that the Church’s position is incorrect. The Church affirms that the Torah was given by God and that it is true. The Church defeats itself by then teaching something in contradiction to the Torah. Moreover, the method in which it finds its proofs in the Torah—through misquotations, hidden meanings, and the like—reveal that it could not find open statements in support for its theology. The Church affirms the Torah with their lips, but their hearts follow after their own imaginations.
Jesus is not the preexistent Word of God. He did not create the world. This invention of the Church is not Torah; it contradicts the actual Word of God. It is the word of man, and any who seek to know God will find the doctrine is a hindrance. They will stop short of reaching God, ensnared by their devotion of a man. Jesus is not a bridge between God and man, but a wall separating them.
Jim
Excuse me, I meant to address the above to 819, not Eleazar. Forgive the mistake, and that I did not catch it until right after I hit “Post comment”. My apologies to both of you.
Jim
819,
Because of Romans, you write that Abraham is your father, and that he achieved righteousness through faith. As you know, Paul writes that one cannot be justified by the law but only through faith. This is incorrect.
Though it does say in Genesis that Abraham’s faith was counted for righteousness, it does not say that this is all that counts for righteousness. Paul’s deduction is unsound and is not based upon that passage in Genesis. Rather it is based upon his misrepresentation of Psalm 14, from which he quotes that none are righteous. However, he omitted the beginning of the verse which tells the reader that the topic is the fool that says in his heart that there is no God.
In fact, the promise in which Abraham believed came due to his righteousness through the law. God tells Isaac that the reason he made the promise to Abraham was “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Abraham is rewarded by God because of his righteous obedience to God’s law. This does not mean that his faith was not also counted for righteousness, but that it was not through faith alone that Abraham was counted as righteous. Paul has left out an important part of the story, the part that does not fit his own conclusion.
Moreover, it is important to note that the promise that Abraham believed that was counted to him for righteousness was not a promise of the Messiah nor atonement for sin. It was the promise that Abraham would have a son and not just a son, but innumerable descendants. This cannot establish the kind of faith Paul is preaching, a specific faith in Jesus.
The dichotomy that Paul has created is false. Though faith can contribute to one’s righteousness, so does one’s adherence to the law. It was through such adherence that the promise came to Abraham. He was blessed due to the righteousness under the law, which Paul denies is possible. The Church, in following this teaching, does not heed the voice of God but the voice of a man.
Jim
Larry, are you still compiling Jim’s comments for his book 🙂 ?
Jim
When was the Law given? Before or After Abraham-
Point being, Righteousness was attained before.
Before and while the Law was given- God wanted to wipe Israel out and start over.
We hold that the Law was given for the recognition of Sin.
Abraham believed God of the unknown. We Believe what God says regarding his Son.
The Law states this is SIN and don’t do it.
Grace and Faith says its not from you but Righteousness is attained from some greater than you.
I.E. Law = Israel still exiled around the world.
Torah was created Before heaven and earth were created.
Dina
Lol:). I got this one!!!
Very good, Larry, keep it up :).
Bible819,
Your post showcases a problem with this Pauline thought interpreted as Torah had not been given.
In Genesis 7 it says:
“Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. 2 You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two…….”
You notice the text speaks of “clean” and “not clean”? And knowing the word ‘Torah’ can be translated as “instructions” we can be sure Noah had been instructed or ‘given Torah’ before Abraham. Later on in Genesis we see sacrifices to G-d. How did they know what to do and not to do when making a sacrifice unless G-d had given them some sort of Torah?
Just something to think about
819,
You asked when the law was given, implying that since Abraham came before the revelation at Sinai, his righteousness preceded divine law. Therefore, his righteousness did not come through obedience to the law but through faith. While this is Paul’s argument, it is entirely faulty.
Paul ignored the evidence that did not suit his theology. And forgive me for saying so, you are guilty of the same. Genesis 26 clearly disproves the thesis that God gave no laws before Sinai. This you ignored. I requote: “…Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (v. 5). Because Paul ignored this verse does not mean that it does not exist. It is clear that God gave laws before Sinai, and that Abraham followed them. And it is clear that this is why he received the promise.
This does not have to mean he kept the 613 commandments given later. But he would have kept the Seven Laws of Noah. Moreover, he obeyed commands directly given to him. The added commandment to circumcise himself and his children, he fulfilled with alacrity. Abraham fulfilled the laws of God that applied to himself at that time, but of course, not laws that had not been given yet. Laws would be given to his offspring to create a nation of priests, a witness for and of God, and a light to the nations.
At Sinai, God gave the world his firstborn son, Israel. Because these laws had not yet been given to Abraham, he was not liable for them. But the laws that he had received, he kept. God’s Word says it openly, however the word of man might contradict it.
To this point, you have not addressed the distortion of Deuteronomy 30. Paul dishonestly represented Moses’ teaching, and yet you continue to quote from Paul as if he is correct. Certainly Paul argues that the law was only given to label sin as such. This is philosophically incoherent, but that hardly matters. What matters is that this is not what the Torah says on the matter. Deuteronomy 30 tells us that the law is not too hard to be kept. And it tells us that keeping it brings life and not keeping it brings death. You and I have a choice, to listen to Torah or to Paul, to the Word of God or the word of man. Their teachings are not compatible. Paul was naught but a man, a man who misrepresented the Word of God.
Jim
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”e and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
(James 2:20-24)
819,
Forgive the length between comments, please. I am now finally getting around to addressing the new covenant of Jeremiah. I hope that you have read the preceding comments in response to you, because they are important for understanding Jeremiah 31. You have asserted that the new covenant is one of faith in Jesus, and yet this is not at all supported by the text.
The idea that this is a covenant of faith is eisegetical; you have read it into the text. You make the common error of introducing a question to which you assume the answer. You
asked: “If righteousness could have been attained through the Law; why then did God speak of another Covenant?” By phrasing the question this way, you have implied that righteousness could not be achieved through the law. But, I have already shown that this is not so. In fact, the unrighteous can become righteous, not through faith, but by returning to the law.
And in fact, we see this in Jeremiah 31:18-20:
“Indeed I heard Ephraim pleading: ‘You disciplined me, and I took the discipline; I was like a calf untrained. Bring me back, let me come back, for you are the Lord my God. For after I had turned away I repented; and after I was discovered, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed, and I was dismayed because I bore the disgrace of my youth.’ Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he the child I delight in? As often as I speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore I am deeply moved for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord.”
Here we see God accepting Ephraim back, but not because of faith in the Messiah. Instead, Ephraim repents, and because God is loving and merciful, he takes him back. This pattern is repeated in scripture. It is in Ps. 51. It is present at the dedication of the temple. It is in Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 18 and 33.
Very importantly, this is the pattern of Deuteronomy 30:1-10, which appears to be a parallel to Jeremiah 31. Here Israel will be brought back from exile after it repents. And then God will circumcise their hearts, and they shall keep the Torah. “For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors, when you obey the Lord your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (vv.9-10). Once again, we see God delights in the keeping of his commandments, and faith in the Messiah is nowhere to be found.
The reason you are left asking a question with an insinuated answer is because you cannot find faith in the Messiah in Jeremiah 31. You cannot even support the idea that one cannot be counted righteous through the deeds of the law. This Pauline invention is a denial of Torah. It is a denial of God’s promise.
That the Church denies the promise of God while attempting to steal it is rather bizarre, but that is the way of the Church. But it is clear that Jesus did not bring in the new covenant. First, it does not have anything to do with non-Jews like you or me. The covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31). The law will be written on the hearts of the Jewish people, and they will observe it (v.33 and Deut. 30:8). At that time, there will be a universal knowledge of God (v.34). It is clear that Jesus has not brought any of these things about and Christians are not under the new covenant. In fact, it has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians, even though they believe it does. It is also clear that the Church does not keep the commandments of God any better than Israel did. Nor do they have the law written on their hearts; many Christian believers do not even know the basics of the law. And the fact that the Church continues its missionary work shows that there is no universal knowledge of God.
Therefore, you have badly misunderstood this covenant. But as I say, this is not your fault. It has been misrepresented to you. Paul lied. Recall that you have not yet addressed his misrepresentation of Deut. 30. The passage he makes out to be about faith is actually about the law. One can be counted righteous through the law. And one need not despair—indeed must not despair—because, if he has lived unrighteously and not followed the law, the merciful God will accept his repentance. If one will just return to the law from which he departed, he can be counted as righteous, not through faith in Jesus but through the ‘deeds of the law’.
Jim
To emphasize Eleazar’s comment, I will add this:
These types of Christians are smugly self-righteous but they have no right to be. Christianity promised to lead its followers down a moral path way, way, way superior to Judaism (see the Sermon on the Mount). But the pages of Christian history are soaked with blood, and not only the blood of the Jews that Christianity fiercely persecuted. Christians killed each other in the millions over the course of the last two millennia.
If you compare the behavior of the Jews to Christians in that same period of time, you get a completely different picture. While Christians were stringing each other up for petty crimes like stealing a loaf of bread, for trumped-up charges like witchcraft, for practicing the wrong brand of Christianity like Catholicism or Protestantism and so on, and also while they were doing their very best to make life and even death miserable for the Jews, what were the Jews doing?
The Jews were busy helping each other survive, studying Torah, engaging in acts of charity and kindness, and generally being model citizens who didn’t drink, carouse, get into barroom fights, rape, or otherwise get into trouble with the law (except for the crime of being Jewish).
Christianity failed spectacularly to lead her followers down the high road, so Christians have no right to look down their noses at us.
Christians have said to me in response to this argument that Jews behaved so nicely because they were downtrodden and if they had power they would be just as bad or worse. To this I say, piffle! If Christianity had made good on her promise, the Jews would never have been downtrodden in the first place. The fact is, Christians have behaved badly and Jews have behaved well and there are no two ways around it.
And by the way, Christians who were persecuted by each other did not behave well so it’s just wishful thinking on their part. (For example, Catholics being persecuted for being Catholics didn’t stop getting drunk and brawling.)
Following.
Dina,
Moses: ‘Art thou jealous for my sake? would that all the LORD’S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His spirit upon them!’
Don’t be jealous, you can receive the Holy Spirit as well. Just as my forefather Abraham: And he (believed) in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.
We Christians: (believe) and like Moses desired (His spirit is on us.)
Praise YhSH
Oh, it’s Bibbles again, the preacher who talks but doesn’t listen. I think it’s very kind of Jim and Eleazar to respond to you when you have zero desire to engage.
As a Christian you violate the basic commandment of love: what is hateful to you do not do to others.
Dina
Wasn’t that Hillel? Maybe that’s why some ignore it 🙂
Maybe it just one of those hermeneutic things?
Lol, that was Hillel indeed, but Christians teach the same thing but inverted (treat others the way you want to be treated).
Dina,
What does this mean-
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit upon them all!”
Joel 2:28 for understanding God’s intent.
Pointless to talk to people who don’t listen.
Dina,
Why did Moses want all of the Lords People to have the Holy Spirit?
Jim,
I respectfully find your ‘note article’ very one sided, not for the facts but for the inability to understand why a Christian does exactly as you’ve posted. They have been raised in a peculiar environment, spoon fed all they know about Jews and Judaism from a Gentile religious system founded by anti-Semitic forefathers using the Bible to back their view. Their Salvation depends on their being right, so passionate, even perhaps fearful debate is to be expected.
Why would you assume it to be any different?
Amongst Jews the same principle holds true. Their views reflect the exact same attitude as polar opposites. If one researches closely, many doctrines, practices and prayers of both Christianity and Judaism can be traced to a knee jerk reaction to the others doctrines, practices and prayers so as to differentiate themselves from the other.
However, I appreciate the opportunity to post and am happy to discuss anything you would like to discuss without leveling accusations, pronouncing judgements or calling you disgraceful. Proverbs 18:17
Shalom
Zech
CP
“If one researches closely, many doctrines, practices and prayers of both Christianity and Judaism can be traced to a knee jerk reaction to the others doctrines, practices and prayers so as to differentiate themselves from the other.”
…..Would you be more specific as to what “many” of Judaism doctrines practices and prayers, are reaction to Christianity. Inflammatory claims should be followed up with specifics. Please include all three and more than one if possible. I would truly like to know.
Larry, I don’t mean to speak for CP, but I think I know some of the things he may refer to.
1. The Two powers controversy, and Judaism’s solutions to various problematic passages via the doctrine of agency contrasted with Christianity’s solutions to those passages proposed via the doctrine of the logos. Prayers such as the Birkat Ha Minim are in response to the beliefs of various sects that held ideas at least partially similar to the Christian notion of the logos.
2. In Christianity, there was the clear phenomenon of anti judiazing which sought to remove references to Jesus’ and his disciples’ Jewishness in spite of the clear evidence.
– certain anti semitic legislation of the Church is a kind of parody of certain biblical norms meant to distinguish Jews and pagan non Jews, now being applied to relations between Jews and Christians.
On the Jewish side, you have the polemical toldot Yeshu literature which is clearly a parody of Jesus’ life as described by many early christian exegetes. In other words, the rabbis parody a tale of an antinomian Jesus, and the Church embraced an antinomian Jesus, even though that is not a historically accurate depiction of Jesus as contained in the texts.
3. Certain books which were widespread in second temple times among various groups, (which may contain ideas that either tradition relies on,) are disavowed or accepted to degrees for one or other reasons by either group in certain cases. Canons and order are different for example, and this changes each group’s approach to interpreting the Bible, to determining what is and isn’t acceptable. For example, consider how Judaism and Christianity answer the following questions quite differently.
1. Has prophecy ceased? Depending on the answer, the interpretation of scripture will differ accordingly.
2. Can a prophet innovate religious practices? Depending on your answer, that influences the approach to interpretation.
3. In line with questions of the continuing relevance of prophecy, is a hermeneutic of contemporization in light of scriptural texts normative or not?
4. Is Daniel a prophetic text or not?
The phenomenon CP is referring to is simply pointing out that these communities differentiated themselves from each other, even when such action was forced and went against the evidence.
CR
Thanks but I’ll wait for CP’s response.
Larry,
Concerned Reader went more in depth than I ever planned on going, but cited some very solid examples, yet examples embroiled in differing degrees of controversy.
I’m a bit simpler, so let’s take a benign example:
The kippah; don’t you think it’s odd it was never the thing to do (except for Temple Priests) until after Paul’s words became popular? (“For a man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and the glory of God, but a woman is the glory of Man.”)
A obvious but less benign, actually very serious example in the other camp is Saturday vs Sunday. Early Christians kept Shabbat on Saturday, so why the change?
I think both examples have little to no Scriptural backing but are more of an anti reaction to differentiate from the other.
The problem is this same thing has worked its way into some serious things and it takes digging through centuries of dung to uncover the truth of second temple Judaism and Christianity.
CP Do you have any evidence that this is the source of the custom of wearing a kipa? The historical record of the council of Nicea (by Eusubius) tell us exactly the sentiment of those who moved Sabbath to Sunday and who moved away from the Jewish calendar. How could you compare a people whose writings make almost no mention of Christianity to a people whose writings are obssessed with describing and denigrating Judaism?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Larry,
Concerned Reader went more in depth than I ever planned on going, but cited some very solid examples, yet examples embroiled in differing degrees of controversy.
I’m a bit simpler, so let’s take a benign example:
The kippah; don’t you think it’s odd it was never the thing to do (except for Temple Priests) until after Paul’s words became popular? (“For a man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and the glory of God, but a woman is the glory of Man.”)
A obvious but less benign, actually very serious example in the other camp is Saturday vs Sunday. Early Christians kept Shabbat on Saturday, so why the change?
I think both examples have little to no Scriptural backing but are more of an anti reaction to differentiate from the other.
Larry, I’m sure you see it. Do you think we’d be just a little naive to think this “anti” hasn’t crept into more serious doctrines? Doesn’t it seem if one can try to blatantly change Shabbat they might stop at nothing?
CP
Those are two examples of Christians “knee jerk reactions” although I wouldn’t call it that.
Not covering the head is a Christian thing, even if I concede Jewish men started wearing kippah all the time after Pauls words, Paul wasn’t talking about that.
I specifically asked “Would you be more specific as to what “many” of Judaism doctrines practices and prayers, are reaction to Christianity”. I suspect you are Christian?
Larry, is there is something specific you are thinking of? If you are thinking it was more pronounced in Christianity, I would agree. However do you think Judaism after the second temple was 100% immune? I think it is obvious when comparing the Babylonian Talmud with the Jerusalem Talmud some ideas became taboo, such as “two powers” or the idea of “two messiahs” but if you’re wanting something a little more specific and concrete a good example is the Shemoneh Esreh
As for suspecting I’m a Christian, please let me know when you find out, cause I’d like to know also!
CP
I asked what your thinking of. You might want to re-read what I asked. I’m ok f you don’t want to.
Dear Phariseefriend,
I have absolutely no evidence kippah tradition began as a indirect reaction to Paul’s words, nada, zilch, nothing. But never felt it was important enough to research. It is merely a observation which fits the time line, nothing a fellow could hang his hat on : ) If it were true I see absolutely no malice on the part of the Rabbis in such a decision. In fact it would be more of hedge around traditional Judaism. Wouldn’t you agree?
My Phariseefriend, I chuckled reading “How could you compare a people whose writings make almost no mention of Christianity to a people whose writings are obssessed with describing and denigrating Judaism?” As I’m 100% sure you know, in Jewish culture making no mention of someone or something is the ultimate rejection. Any discussion on the matter might mean they or it is ‘worthy’ enough to discuss. Yet I do agree the organized Church have been more than mud slingers ever since the Gentiles took over. If you would permit me another mere speculation; I’d say human nature is human nature, Jew or Gentile. What makes them act different is the Jew has Torah which Christians didn’t acquire until later and even then a fair amount dismissed Torah as no longer applicable. This would account for the different ways both handled opposition to one another.
My Phariseefriend I’d love the opportunity to discuss more relevant things than Kippah tradition. I’m here to learn not debate or get people to see things my way, that holds no interest for me. There is currently one thing on my mind: What is this Jesus fellow??? If the record of his words are to be believed then one cannot know ‘who’ he is because he said; ‘”…no one knows who the son is except the Father…” but perhaps one can know ‘What’ he is.
For instance if the record is true, one can know he was a Rabbi because he taught Torah. One knows he was a prophet because what he said came to pass. And one also knows he was a healer because he healed people.
Now this this is where things start to get sticky. He said to a samaritan women he was “messiah”. But being a messiah doesn’t narrow it down very much since there are many interpretations on what messiah is supposed to be and do.
I see his message currently bringing many back to Torah. And it is nearly impossible for me to believe Hashem would allow the second temple to be destroyed and Israel dispersed without giving us some kind of warning. Could it be this Jesus was one who was ‘anointed’ to warn us?
Thank you for allowing me to post here
Shalom
CP Making no mention of someone cannot be compared to demonizing and dehumanizing. I attribute the difference between the two approaches to the fact that one’s rejection is rooted in insecurity while the other is not. And finally – I wrote about what I think we can know about Jesus in my article entitled “Kosher Reality”
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP, you wrote: “And it is nearly impossible for me to believe Hashem would allow the second temple to be destroyed and Israel dispersed without giving us some kind of warning.”
The Torah is plastered with warnings. I suggest you read it.
My Phariseefriend,
Thank you for the reply. I am in agreement that mainstream Christianity has its roots deeply imbedded in Anti-Semitism. It is incontestable that Judaism has been more honorable handling the split than mainstream gentile Christianity. However, obviously ignorant of their past, few modern day Christians realize this. IMHO at some point we need to move past these injustices to more important things.
It is my personal opinion we need to handle this Jesus thing head on and honestly. What I mean by honestly is accepting there is a number of speculations in historic Judaism concerning moshiach(s). Yet now in modern Rabbinical Judaism there seems to be only one acceptable view given to the public at large. While I reject Christianity’s view of Jesus I can not deny there is something big Hashem is doing here and think it has something to do with the diaspora. The best way I can describe it is like a software program has been created and sent out to the nations. It was created to be very desirable so as to be accepted, shared, downloaded by many and travel through out the world. However imbedded within this program is a virus written by the finger of G-d which targets the descendants of Abraham who have become like gentiles and brings them back to Torah and ultimately to Hashem and Israel. I see this phenomena currently taking place in our time and feel it should be embraced. One can’t steer a parked car, these Christians are ‘moving’, looking for the truth. I think we should steer them in the right direction rather stopping them by telling them Jesus has absolutely no relevance in Judaism when it is obvious it is the message given through Jesus that has brought them home.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
Thank you for directing to me to “Kosher Reality”, I’m headed there now!
Shalom
CP My understanding is that Christianity is a mix between good and bad and people are moving toward the good (just look at the way replacement theology became unpopular) – may I be so bold as to suggest that you read Christianity Unmasked – you might find it helpful
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP, I’d like to respond to two things you wrote.
One is that Jews handled the split “more honorably” (this has got to be the understatement of the century) but it’s time to move on.
As long as Christians refuse to confront their immoral legacy of anti-Semitism and understand the roots of it (their own scripture), moving on will remain a pipe dream. Most Christians are blissfully ignorant of the depth of anti-Semitism and how very recently it receded, though it is still alive and well in some quarters. I recommend Thy Brothers Blood by Malcolm Hay and Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls to give you an idea.
The second thing is that I agree that Christians need to tackle this Jesus problem honestly. And by honestly, I mean they should read the Hebrew Bible and study the implications of Deuteronomy 4, 13, and 30 as well as Ezekiel 18, 33, and 37:15-28.
CP, you are impressed with Christianity because you “can not deny there is something big Hashem is doing here.”
With over a billion adherents, Islam today is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
So what gives?
Thank you again My Phariseefriend for your reply. As you suggested, I read “Kosher Reality” and enjoyed it immensely being in agreement with your characterization of Christian dogma . I left a comment and question in that section. I surely hope you will point me in the right direction for the answer.
The reason I haven’t read “Christianity Unmasked” is because I have little interest in Christianity, rather I am more interested in the real historical Jesus since he was the last big thing in Judaism before the destruction of the second temple. In my mind this has to mean something because; “For the Lord G-D will do nothing, But He revealeth His counsel unto His servants the prophets.”
However, I did enjoy Kosher Reality so I look forward to reading Christianity Unmasked, I’m on my way right now!
Shalom
CP, I don’t think Jim is intentionally harsh, I think he is going off of what he knows to be true (vis his experiences.) The thing is though, there are plenty of different Christians who haven’t experienced Christianity the way Jim did. Different people have different experiences, biases, perspectives, etc. I think some of Jim’s statements are very heavy on rhetorical flourish, (because this is an anti missionary blog,) but often what you said about people on either side doing the “same thing” to each other holds true.
I have dug into this material quite extensively, and there is indeed a lot of overlap between both faith communities, but a lot of it is buried under centuries of resentment and pain.
Why do people react so strongly to commonality between these communities then? Because that overlap endangers the group’s identity. The reactions you spoke about are far from knee jerk, they are more like a manifestation of very real traumatic stress.
Christian authorities in Medieval times used to actively censor Jewish texts, would forcefully preach to Jews in Synagogues, and if not welcomed to do so, would burn the synagogues down. Legislation prevented Jews from gaining any upward mobility in society. Jews were effectively 3rd class citizens in Christian theocracies. Picture Jim Crow, Dhimitude, and constant racial caricature rolled into one, all aimed at one group of people.
Even if this heinus behavior happened in the past, the effects of those experiences are not easily lost, nor has society completely moved past them. The Shoah shows that evil people can even seize on these horrible caricatures, even in modern times to disastrous effect.
There is a reason that when I write on the blog, I speak about some of the common core ideas in Judaism in Christianity. There is a reason I focus on the Jewish ethical core of Christian writings. The reason is, its the best way to get Christians to move forward, to see Jewish people as having legitimate criticisms of the Christian religious system, and not just as being “blind.”
Because the Christians see Jewish people (who many gentiles have never even met in real life,) through the theological grid of the Christian Bible, there are no grounds for equal discussion. The average Christian coming to discuss thinks he “knows” Jews and Judaism because of what some 1st century Jews said about some other 1st century Jews. At best, that situation is a recipe for oversimplification, at worst a recipe for extreme violence and arrogance.
Dear Concerned Reader,
I must concede the use of “knee jerk” reaction was a extremely poor choice of words as it would appear to trivialize 2000 years of bloodshed and hate. This was not intended.
Jim’s intentions I do not presume to know. I do know I am instructed to love him and Hashem will not consult me as to Jim’s righteousness. Even though he has posted is truth, it is an obvious truth anyone at this level of discussion knows is true of certain ‘individuals’ on both sides. So I ask; what merit is there in repeating it? One can accuse a Christian of worshiping ‘Jesus’ as an idol; so what? One can accuse a Jew of worshiping the Torah as an idol so what? What does any of this accomplish? “Where no wood is, the fire goeth out……” (Proverbs 26:20)
I’ve perused this forum occasionally finding a patch of common ground here and there, but what I’d really like to see is some space for loving respectful interaction between those holding to different faiths. Who knows? Perhaps we might learn something from one another and deepen our relationship with Hashem.
Shalom
CP, you ask, “What does any of this accomplish?”
Only the search for truth, my friend, only the search for truth.
You yearn for loving, respectful interactions. We all aspire to that, but in exploring topics that inflame passions, the debate will inevitably become heated. And that’s okay, because we are all seeking the truth.
I have observed, and it is just my opinion;
The amount of drama being expressed is usually inversely proportional to the amount of truth being listened to.
Like I said it is just my opinion.
CP, and another point: this blog exists to counter missionaries who aggressively target Jews for conversion. The conversation here will cease when Christians stop trying to convert us.
It’s not loving and respectful for Christians to come here and try to convert us. We don’t do that to them. We respectfully leave them to worship as they please. So if you seek love and respect, perhaps you can convince your Christian brethren to return the favor. After 2000 years, we deserve that much, don’t you think?
Knowing what they believe it is exactly the most loving thing they think they ought to do and their ignorance should not be confused with disrespect.
If the Christian is your enemy, don’t you think it wise to ‘know your enemy’?
CP
Enemy? Where did that come from? Speaking of drama.
Larry, it is just a saying, why would read to more into it? Don’t you think if it is wisdom to know your enemy, how much more is it to know those with differing opinions lest you make them your enemy? Would you agree in this arena there are many in both camps talking, but few listening?
CP
I didnt read anything into it. Words mean things. If you didn’t mean enemy then you have some explaining to do. You talk about civility and then call people with differing opinions an enemy. You asked: “Would you agree in this arena there are many in both camps talking, but few listening?”. No I would not agree. I believe you generalize way to much. Many people here truly wish to help people, think of the time it takes to not only write these responses, but to explain it in a way the others can understand. Something you, in my opinion, have completely failed to do up to this point.
Shalom Shabbat Larry,
We can pick this up on Sunday, and you can let me know exactly what you’d like me to be specific about. I’ll be happy to oblige
CP
Have a great weekend. No need to discuss anything further. You never answered my previous questions. Why go in circles?
Dear Larry B,
I apologize for not being able to answer you questions. Perhaps this vvv is the kind of thing you are looking for?
1)The Birkat ha-Minim
ברכת המינים
Blessing on the heretics
“For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant”
(Nozerim = Christians)
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02999.html
2)The Council of Jerusalem decided Gentile converts need not be circumcised, they just need to avoid “pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood” (Acts 15:20) Around the same time Judaism made its circumcision requirement of Jewish boys even stricter. The Rabbis, probably after Bar Kokhba’s revolt, instituted the “peri’ah” (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6).
Larry, I don’t like posting this kind of stuff because I believe it is generally counterproductive when taken in the wrong spirit. I fully realize the destruction of the second temple was devastating to Judaism requiring a restructuring about the same time Christianity (then a sect of Judaism) was experiencing it first big growing spurt. One might say the current Rabbinical system was born about the same time as Christianity. I did not mean to imply a radical change in the doctrines of Judaism, so my use of the word “many” was a bad choice of words and an over exaggeration. However as to be expected under the circumstances there were “some” things the Rabbinical system incorporated as a reaction to Christianity so as to distance themselves from Christians. I’ve alluded to a few. However I do notice what was accepted debate in the Babylonian Talmud is no longer comfortable for many. (Yes this is a generalization and if you’d like me to pick one of these Babylonia Talmud topics to discuss, I’d be happy to if not, that’s ok also).
Shalom
CP, if I understand you correctly, Christians’ aggressive targeting of Jews for conversion is, in their ignorance, an act of love.
In fact, it is a violation of the Golden Rule. If the shoe were on the other foot, meaning, if Jewish missionaries were to knock on their doors, distribute literature, and preach to them about their great sin of idolatry, they would not like it not one little bit. (Even couched positively: We bring you good news! Save your souls by rejecting Jesus and embracing true monotheism! Christians would still feel affronted by this.)
Aren’t Christians supposed to empathize with others? If they don’t think first how they would feel if someone did the same to them, then they are violating the rule of love.
Therefore, proselytizing is not loving. It is obnoxious and disrespectful.
CP, you wrote, “If the Christian is your enemy, don’t you think it wise to ‘know your enemy’?” Why on earth would you assume the Christian is my enemy? God forbid! My enemy is falsehood. I have no problems with Christians who try to lead moral lives and love their neighbor (including Jews). I have no desire to preach to them or tell them how to worship. I am here to defend Judaism against the tide of misinformation spread by missionaries.
Con, you write that the reason you post here is to get Christians to understand the Jewish perspective in a fair way. Lately, however, you have been posting to show us how unfair it is for us to reject Christianity on the grounds of idolatry.
Who are you kidding?
It is beyond presumptuous of you to speak for Jim when you have clearly not grasped his perspective or answered his arguments directly, for the most part. And it is beyond arrogant for you to present yourself as above the fray because you “have dug into this material quite extensively.” Once again you seem to think that you are the most objective and the wisest and can present both sides of the issue in the most fair-handed manner. Perhaps you don’t mean to, but you come across this way at least to me (and I suspect to Jim as well).
In fact, you are every bit as biased due to your own experiences as those of whom you speak.
Lately, however, you have been posting to show us how unfair it is for us to reject Christianity on the grounds of idolatry
Dina, I in no way think it is unfair for you to reject Christianity. I have no problem with your rejection of Christianity in favor of the Torah. When I write, it is to show that the Christians have a basis for their argument, that’s all. A person can accept or reject either way.
when I do that, I try to back it up with clear evidence, not just with my words. Always.
Even within the tradition the Meiri teaches that neither Christianity nor Islam should be characterized as idolatry. I feel that there is historical evidence to at least support that there is a discussion to be had on that point.
I don’t respond to Jim directly because he often imputes motives for why I do what I do without knowing me. I have answered the questions put to me several times, I cannot help that the answers I offer are not good enough.
I apologize if I come off as arrogant, but I likewise think it is arrogant to say “we only seek the truth,” when many pieces of information are outright dismissed because they don’t agree with your conceptions or the blog’s purpose. Its a problem I’ve seen among both Jews and Christians when presented with information that offers counter perspective.
I don’t mean that to be rude, just to note that Christians and Jews both approach “truth” with a bent. I try to get above the frey, that’s true, though in no way am I actually above it.
I’m not familiar with the Meiri’s position but I suspect you are misunderstanding it. The dispute among rabbis about the status of Christianity is not whether it is considered idolatry but whether this type of idolatry is permitted for gentiles who don’t know better (avodah zara b’shituf). It is still idolatry and always expressly forbidden to Jews.
I think you’re being unfair to Jim. He has made some devastating arguments against your positions and you don’t want to refute it because of your hurt feelings? If you cared about the truth you would answer him.
what positions has he brought that aren’t addressed here on the blog?
He responded to your argument that the rabbis established how to read a text some 200 years after Jesus and that before then it was pretty much a free for all. I don’t know where that comment is.
Also, to your point that you are showing that Christians have a basis for their argument:
That makes no sense to someone who believes the Torah is the word of God. If both Jews and Christians have a basis for their argument, then both religions are true. But both religions can’t be true. Jesus either is God or is not God, he can’t be both at the same time. He is either the messiah or not the messiah, he can’t be both at the same time.
Therefore, if the Torah is true, then one of us is misusing the text. And it sure as heck ain’t the Jews.
Finally, from your tone it is evident that you want us to accept that Christians have a basis for their argument.
Dina
This cannot be said to often.
Dina,
Here is the link you want:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/oh-how-tricky-they-are/#comment-29019
Jim
Thanks, Jim. Con, please take note.
Con,
I do not believe I am the only one surprised to read that you wish Christians to see that the Jewish people have legitimate criticisms. In fact, I find the idea hilarious.
Constantly you tell the Jewish people that they are foolish and hypocritical. You have come to a Jewish blog to erase the differences between the doctrines of the Jewish people and the Church relying on homonymous terms and similar sounding ideas to emphasize their sameness. You have accused us of “ripping” the NT. Even last week you accused R’ Blumenthal of judging unfairly the hearts of Christians, though he judged them not at all. And you have said that the existence of counter-missionary blogs such as this one are problematic because they might lead Christians into doubt; nevermind the damage done by the Christian missionary.
This is helping the Christian see that the Jew has legitimate criticism?
Even recently, your writings have shown a disdain for Torah and Torah scholars. You write that the rabbis unfairly omitted long existing and legitimate hermeneutics (the legitimacy assumed by its antiquity.) This only gives ammunition to the Christians to see that the Jewish criticisms are not legitimate and that modern Judaism was invented by the rabbis. Moreover, you imply that the Pharisees were legalists who did not know how to sanctify the Sabbath, but fortunately Jesus came and taught the proper sanctification.
This is helping the Christian see that the Jew has legitimate criticism?
One wonders what you would say if you wished to delegitimize Jewish criticism. The mind boggles at the possibilities. Of course, one expects that you will dismiss this as mere rhetoric. But a sound reader will see that this is not rhetoric. If they have followed your writings on the blog, they too must be confounded by your mission.
Jim
Con, I too am incredulous. Your recent comments have sounded like politely and scholarly worded and thus veiled attacks on traditional Judaism. I don’t think that people who disagree with us are attacking us. But people who impute nefarious motives to the rabbis are definitely suspect. (I refer to your assertion that the rabbis codified a new way of understanding the Bible in response to Jesus.)
Con,
You say that you attempt to bring clear evidence for your arguments, that you try to back them up. This is false. In fact, what you do is cherry pick sources to find the conclusions you want.
This will be evident to those who read your work, but I will give a few instances.
You write that Paul believed a Jew must be circumcised, because he circumcised Timothy. You ignore the evidence in the text. Instead you quote Rabbi Emden. You do not adduce proof; you bring someone who supports or seems to support your position. When it is brought to your attention that you have misrepresented the verse in ignoring the second half, you appeal to Rabbi Emden, rather than show why that part of the verse is not significant. (Funnily enough, just after you and I ‘discussed’ this, Rabbi Skobac quoted something like 6 Christian commentaries that agree with me. How do you know to whom to listen, Rabbi Emden or the Christians?)
You ignore the testimony of the Church that it was built by largely ignorant Jews and ignorant non-Jews. The learned Jewish community rejected the gospel. And so the gospel was taken to the gentiles. You ignore this testimony and try to make a case for the education level of Jews in the Church from other movements, the education level of which you assert but do not prove. Moreover, you ignore the steady testimony of history. It is almost, but probably not quite, universally true that the Jews that convert to Christianity through a means other than force were not Torah knowledgeable. Then you pretend to represent the historical view, while ignoring this evidence.
You argue that eisegesis is to be considered a legitimate hermeneutic. The argument eschews reason altogether. It rests on the obviously incorrect notion that the antiquity of a practice proves its virtue. Being educated, surely you know the difference between “is” and “ought”. You also consistently ignore that the Church does not merely read Jesus into texts but alters texts outright, thereby excluding evidence that does not fit your predetermined conclusion.
It is not merely that your arguments are unsound. Too often they are not even arguments. You just quote a source to delegitimize the opinions of others. Even on this page you do this. Why do you quote Meiri and not Rambam? How do you know whose opinion is the better? You do not analyze the sources at all; you merely use them as a bludgeon. The proofs you adduce are not actually arguments, but quotations of those that support or seem to support a viewpoint. Never do you show why the person quoted is correct.
An astute reader will see that mostly you muddy the waters. You ignore distinctions. You assert the ignorance of others and put forward your expertise. But that expertise is often irrelevant. Your idea of proof is that someone somewhere said something. This is not proof. Such arguments do not command the assent of the mind, because they make no appeal to reason.
Jim
It is interesting that there was a denial by him that follows the comparison of Mithraism and Zoroastriansim to Xtianity. There is actually MORE evidence for this than his assertions.
One thing that perturbs me is when non-Jews use what Rabbis have said in Talmud as if they “know” something. These people seem to think they can “read” Talmud and know what it’s about. The best way I could put it is it has to be studied and “deciphered”.
Sharbano,
That non-Jews makes use of the Talmud greatly perturbs me as well. I think you make a great point.
Jim
It is interesting that there was a denial by him that follows the comparison of Mithraism and Zoroastriansim to Xtianity.
Yes, Sharbano, and this denial by me is based in part on my actually speaking with real living Zoroastrians, reading their polemics against Christianity, and based on me realizing that there is in fact a Paucity of evidence regarding Mithraism and its practices. These things make the alleged comparisons nonsensical.
Many claim Mithras was virgin born. Factually incorrect, He was born from a rock.
Many claim Mithras was born on December 25th
Irrelevant as the gospel texts show that its unlikely that Jesus was even born in December
Zoroastrian Dualism influenced Christian views of Satan
Second temple texts show that Dualistic ideology existed in Judaism well before the Christians. If dualism actually came from Zoroastrianism (via exile in Persia,) it was thoroughly naturalized and incorporated into Jesus’ Judaism before Jesus even existed.
Thanks, you made my point.
Con, idolatrous tendencies existed among Jews since the sin of the golden calf. Just read the books of the Hebrew prophets to see how widespread the problem was. The fact that some Jews believed in dualism, therefore, means as much as the fact that some Jews worshiped the Baal and Ashera idols–in other words, nothing.
I am surprised how quickly you forget Jim, the blog posts I have written where I defend Judaism’s position, such as
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/idolatry-by-concerned-reader/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/why-i-left-jesus-by-concerned-reader/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/what-does-the-resurrection-prove-by-concerned-reader/
The fact that you say, “I do not believe I am the only one surprised to read that you wish Christians to see that the Jewish people have legitimate criticisms. In fact, I find the idea hilarious.” shows that you do not actually take the time to digest what I write!
“Constantly you tell the Jewish people that they are foolish and hypocritical.”
Oh yeah? Where? Show me where I have called rabbis hypocrites or fools. I have merely pointed to evidence that shows that the way both groups handle scripture can be traced to something ancient, and I’m cognizent of the fact that various reasons are used to dismiss this information out of hand. I am merely commenting on the material fact of their existence. I am not accusing rabbis of being nefarious.
“And you have said that the existence of counter-missionary blogs such as this one are problematic because they might lead Christians into doubt; nevermind the damage done by the Christian missionary.”
Let me clarify and unpack this a bit. I mean to say that since Christianity has certain ideas/concepts in it that we can independently historically trace to Judaism, when you criticize the Christian usage, you thereby also open up the Torah itself to criticism too, especially in the eyes of atheists and agnostics. It is that aspect alone that I find problematic.
The blog is so dedicated to the anti missionary mission, that it forgets that some (few) concepts are common between the two religions. When you encourage someone to criticially evaluate Christian claims, you open the Bible and Judaism up to the same lens of critical assesment. G-d forbid that I believe that you are wrong to defend Judaism against missionaries. I have never stated such a thing, and my own words in the above blog posts demonstrate that I too want to defend.
“Even recently, your writings have shown a disdain for Torah and Torah scholars. You write that the rabbis unfairly omitted long existing and legitimate hermeneutics (the legitimacy assumed by its antiquity.) This only gives ammunition to the Christians to see that the Jewish criticisms are not legitimate and that modern Judaism was invented by the rabbis.”
Unfairly ommited? No. Let me clarify. Ommited in an effort to bring stability and cohesiveness to their own religious movement and its opinions amidst many different ones? Yes. As I said yesterday, certain fundamental questions that Jews and Christians have very different answers to, can fundamentally alter how the two faiths approach the scriptural text.
Take a question like, Has prophecy ended? If a group answers no to that question, something like the contemporizing interpretative method employed by the Qumran community or the “fulfilled” passages in the Christian community’s text at least make sense historically in light of that. Is it right? I don’t know. Is it present as a method historically verifiable that Jews engaged in? Yes.
When I say the rabbis employed a “new” hermeneutic, this isn’t to say that their method isn’t ancient. All I am saying by new is that Judaism of Jesus’ day was by nature more diverse and sectarian. People disagreed. There was not a unified single codified set of rules and proper belief enforced by one single group until the mishna’s codification in 200, at least that’s what evidence indicates. Does that mean the rabbis had no authority? No. Does it mean they were nefarious or innovating and inventing out of cloth? NO!
There really is a difference of method going on. Dina said that someone who considers Torah to be the word of G-d would find my arguments nonsensical. I agree with you Dina. If you are coming at the Bible as the perfect inerrant document, then yes, my arguments might not resonate at all.
Jim said: “You write that Paul believed a Jew must be circumcised, because he circumcised Timothy.” Not only for that reason, but for this one too. 1 Corinthians 7:17-19
“Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” I never said, MUST, although I believe Paul didn’t have a problem with circumcision in and of itself, or Jewish identity in and of itself.
Paul’s central thesis is that the Church is a community made of people both Jewish and non Jewish, (who can preserve their identity,) who are united in faith in G-d. His thesis is that Community affiliation and status, (IE works of law,) are less important to him, (but not irrelevant to him.) Have you read Paula Fredriksen’s books? Here is a video lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53PDO7OQSTs
Why do I believe Paul was indifferent to practices like circumcision and wouldn’t balk? Because we know from patristic sources that Jewish Christian groups who maintained theirTorah observance (and had fellowship with gentile Christians,) were around for at least 200 years after Paul.
Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho believed that people could keep the traditions and Jewish identity, so long as it wasn’t deemed a prerequisite of salvation or being loved by G-d. He notes that he held fellowship with this Jewish Christian group.
When Chrysostom writes his homilies against the Jews, his targets (by his own statements,) are Christians who are following Jewish traditions whilst believing in Jesus. This shows me, (between the lines,) that Paul needn’t be read as having eschewed Jewish identity, because there were clearly people in history, Jew and gentile who read Paul’s works, and yet didn’t understand him as eschewing Jewish identity. Therefore, I am not ignoring textual evidence, I am noting that we can verify that there is more than one way to read Paul.
“Con, I too am incredulous. Your recent comments have sounded like politely and scholarly worded and thus veiled attacks on traditional Judaism.”
Dina, consider that for a moment, I have some disagreements with the perspective here, from an academic standpoint, but I am not making “veiled attacks.” A different opinion is not an attack.
“It is almost, but probably NOT QUITE, universally true that the Jews that convert to Christianity through a means other than force were not Torah knowledgeable.”
Jim, exactly. Its not quite true. I think the fact that Christian like Messianic ideology has recurred in later Judaism (without the help of Christians or their dogmas,) makes it somewhat necessary to re-evaluate the claim that only the ignorant and uneducated can accept these ideas, if only for empirical reasons.
“Your idea of proof is that someone somewhere said something. This is not proof.” Jim, I did not say this is proof, I have said this demonstrates that there is compelling verifiable evidence to account for an opinion.
Con,
I will not answer the entirety of your comment, so we do not go round and round again. I only wish you to know that I did not forget the posts you referenced at the top of your page. I only say that they only tell half the story and you give many comments that give license to Christians to misrepresent Torah.
Jim
Con, you wrote, and I quote: “Dina said that someone who considers Torah to be the word of G-d would find my arguments nonsensical. I agree with you Dina.”
I’m glad you agree with me. Since the Christians and Jews arguing on this blog share the common ground of belief in the inerrancy of the Hebrew Bible, your arguments really only interest dusty old academics who don’t really care one way or another.
For the rest of us, we’re interested in hashing out who possesses the correct understanding of God’s will as expressed in His Torah.
Your reasons why Christians are right to believe what they believe (and we Jews ought to accept that they are right to believe what they believe) are therefore irrelevant.
Zech,
Whatever the reason a Christian behaves as he does, it does not change the facts that his tactics are unsavory. My aim is not to judge the Christian, for I understand that he has been lied to for two thousand years of Church history. The Church was built up on ignorance, taking particular advantage of the non-Jewish world that did not know Torah but wanted to know God. And I empathize with those people who have been misled. I have little desire to throw stones at them. However, in order that others not be misled, it is important to point out the various unsavory tactics of the Church, particularly missionaries who, whether they believe they are doing well or not, are misleading more people and erecting between them and God another barrier.
I have taken several lines of discussion in order to show the emptiness of the missionary claims, none of which is unique to me obviously. One is to show that the Church has misrepresented various prophecies. Another is to show that Church doctrine contradicts that of Torah, and, in building those doctrines, the Church misrepresents various other Torah passages, a practice that goes all the way back to the NT.
I have also undertaken to show that the arguments regarding various beliefs about Jesus are not credible. For example, I write that the claim that Jesus was resurrected is not credible, not because there is no historical record of the fact, but because of when and how the story was spread according to the NT. The article to which June responded that my writing was “disgraceful” and “non Biblical” showed from the NT that the claim that Jesus was morally perfect is also not credible in light of the way his hometown received him. Because we are told to put our faith in Jesus, I think it is only fair to ask if this is a reasonable request.
But I also explain the injustice and one-sidedness of the discussion. Regardless of the reason, the Christian wishes to impress upon others his points while not listening to others. He does not follow the rules of proper conduct for an argument. Though he tells us that he can prove Jesus to us through the Bible, he changes the rules. He begins with that, but when he is answered with scripture, he appeals to his special insight via the holy spirit or the spiritual blindness of the Jew. He is not arguing fairly. And people should recognize that. They should know that the debate is dishonest and one-sided. They should know that the Christian is not out to educate but to propagandize. Knowledge of Torah is the missionary’s greatest enemy.
The tactics of the Christian are important, not just because they reveal the injustice, but their appeal to the emotions can be powerful and override reason. When a Christian disguises his religion in the trappings of Judaism, for example, he attempts to make Christianity more palatable to the Jew. He is not educating; he is propagandizing. One should be aware of this. He should also be aware that the discussion with the Christian is unequal, because the Christian is not listening.
It may not be ‘nice’ to write these things. But many things that are true are not nice. And if one cares about the truth, he cannot sacrifice it on the altar named, “Let’s all get along.” I write directly, because these truths matter.
Jim
P.S. Here is the article that June finds so terrible: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/invisible-perfect-by-jim/
Jim,
thank you for your reply. I am in agreement with most everything in your reply and will read the article you linked to.
However, I have a question;
You wrote; “Because we are told to put our faith in Jesus…” Im not sure exactly what this means. I’m not interested in what the “Church” or ‘Paul’ or the Protestant reformation says it means, but what could it mean in context of Torah? In other words, could there be a 1st century meaning that aligns with Torah?
Hi, CP. Nice to meet you here. Can i join this conversation? i find your question very interesting and also this corresponds to what i have been studying these days. “To put our faith in Yeshua in the context of Torah.” What a lifelong topic for both Jews and Christains to discuss and learn from each other!
I hope these will help my Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters to understand the message that Paul tried to deliver to Jews and Gentiles in his letter to ‘Romans.’ He was an orthodox Pharisee and has met Yeshua through the light and the word from heaven. The radiation blinded his eyes at first, but the eyes were later opened by Annania’s words that had been given from Yeshua .(Acts 9:18)
Let us notice “his eyes being opened” has nothing to do with conversion to Christianity, neither occurred after baptism; actually, before baptism, his eyes were opened. So do i. I come here not to convert Jews to Christianity because my understanding of the Old and New covenant (testament) does not allow me to do it. I don’t have to. Both people are the descendants of Abraham, the covenant people, and the beloved by HaShem for eternity.
As far as i understand, the mission of the apostle Paul was not to present ‘brand new revelation of God contradictory to Torah’ but to help Jewish people to see what God of the Jews has done in Yeshua to fulfill the covenant He had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants! Sorry gentiles, that good news is for Jews first (Paul says…) What is the meaning of the “first-ness” of the Jews? I confess i used to misunderstand this. I have thought that Christians have to preach the gospel “First” to the Jews and then gentiles. Jerusalem first, Judea second, Samaria, next… and to the ends of the word, etc. But this was not about the priority of Christian church’s mission. It was about the priority of God’s action. God has done amazing grace in Yeshua on the behalf of Jews “First,” and “then” on the behalf of gentiles!
Since it seems that my argument can be heard and discussed only here, not expecting to be welcomed in Christian circle, i am gladly sharing here what i have seen in the Paul’s letter.
Romans, there are three phrases that often are misunderstood by Christians and Jews. 1. Faith(-fulness) of God 2. Faith(-fulness)of Yeshua Messiah 3. Faith (-fulness) of us. The problem is NO.2. Common people interpret no.2 as “people’s believing or faith in Jesus Christ,” as something like Christian conversion. NO. The Greek text does not say that. Throughout the Romans, we should not be confused of “Faith of Yeshua,” with “Faith in Yeshua.”
So, Romans 3:20 – 22 says literally this: (and once this is understood, the entire Paul’s letter makes sense)
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(– my own interpretation: how thankful God has given us the Torah, the good, righteous and holy commandments of God! It opens our eyes to see that we all are sinners and need God’s grace, His forgiveness and His salvation)
21. But now the righteousness of God APART FROM (=koris) the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
(– God has manifested His righteousness through the Torah, and additionally (=koris)! He has manifested His righteousness through the Messiah being witnessed by the Scriptures)
22. Even the righteousness of God which is by Faith OF Yeshua Messiah ‘Unto All’ AND ‘Upon all them that believe’: for there is no difference:
(– What is the righteousness of God? He promised with Abraham and established the covenant with Jews, but because they broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31), God cannot do as He promise? He should annul the covenant? Then God is liar, no right, impotent to keep what He has promised. But because of what one Jewish man- Yeshua has done in his perfect faith and righteousness before God, He would vindicate “unto all= unto all Jews” and renew the covenant and put the convenant in effect, and PLUS, unto all gentiles who believe in Yeshua.
This is what i believe the “firstness of Jews” in the good news. Romans is not about “Jews! put faith in Yeshua to be saved!” It is about “Jews! God saved you by faith of Yeshua!”
It is not about “salvation depends upon how faithful we are to God.”
It is about “salvation depends upon how faithful God is to His people.”
Hey Gean,
Nice to meet you!
Although I am in 100% agreement with your last statement I am suspicious of some of Paul’s writings because they are ambiguous and easily lend themselves to misinterpretations. Currently I’m just sticking with the teachings of Yeshua as they align with Torah.
However since you brought up the Jews first thing, I’d like to add that I think this is the intended meaning behind Jesus’s parable of the Prodigal Son:
Lukas 15:11-32Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
11 And Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach said, A certain ben Adam had shnei banim (two sons).
12 And the younger of them said to his Abba, Avi, give to me the share of the estate that falls to me. And his Abba divided his wealth between them.
13 And not many yamim later, having gathered together everything, the younger ben went on a journey to a far away country, and there he squandered his osher (riches) with gilui arayot (sexual immorality) and loose living. [YESHAYAH 59:2]
14 And when he had spent everything, there came a severe ra’av (famine) throughout that aretz, and he began to be nitzrach (needy).
15 And he went and became associated with one of the citizens of that aretz, and he sent him into his fields to feed chazirim, [VAYIKRA 11:7]
16 And he was longing to fill his mogen (stomach) with the pods which the chazirim were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.
17 When he came to his senses, his seichel told him, How many of my Abba’s sachirim (hired workers) have more than enough okhel (food) and I am perishing here with hunger.
18 I will get up and go to my Abba, and I will say, Avi, I sinned against Shomayim and in your sight. [VAYIKRA 26:40; TEHILLIM 51:6(4)]
19 I no longer have the zchus (merit) worthy to be called a ben of my Abba. Make me as one of your sachirim (hired workers).
20 And when he got up he came home to his own Abba. And while he was still a long way off, his Abba saw him, and was filled with rachmei Shomayim (heavenly mercy, compassion) and tears, and fell upon his neck and kissed him. [Gn 45:14]
21 And bno said to the Abba, Avi, I sinned against Shomayim and in your sight. No longer do I have the zchus (merit) to be worthy to be called your ben. [Psa 51:6(4)]
22 But his Abba said to his avadim, Shnel! (Quick!) Bring out the best kaftan and clothe him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals for his feet, [ZECHARYAH 3:4; BERESHIS 41:42]
23 And bring the fattened calf, and slaughter it, and let us eat and have a simcha,
24 Because this ben of mine was dead and now he has returned l’Chayyim! He had been lost and now he is found. And they began to make a simcha.
25 But the Abba’s alterer ben (older son) was in the sadeh (field). And as he was coming, he drew near to the bais, and he heard the zemirot (table songs), and the sound of the klezmer (musician) and the [chasidic] dancing,
26 And having summoned one of the avadim (servants), the alterer ben (older son) was inquiring what these things might be.
27 And the eved said to him, Your ach is present, and your Abba sacrificed the fattened calf, because your Abba received him back bari v’shalem (safe and sound).
28 And the alterer ben was filled with ka’as (anger), and he did not want to enter. But his Abba came out and was pleading with him.
29 But in reply the alterer ben said to his Abba, Hinei, so many years I serve you and never a mitzvah of you I disobeyed, and never for me did you give even a young goat that with my chaverim I might make a simcha.
30 But when shows up this ben of yours, the one having devoured your property with zonot (prostitutes), you sacrificed for him the fattened calf. [MISHLE 29:3]
31 And the Abba said to him, Beni, you are always with me, and everything which is mine is yours.
32 But now it was necessary for us to have lev samei’ach and make a simcha, because the ach of you was dead and he has returned lChayyim! He has been lost and now is found. [MALACHI 3:17]
Gean, when you are debating Jews who don’t believe in Jesus, quoting Christian scripture is not very useful since we do not attribute to it any authority. The common ground we both stand on is the Hebrew Bible, so may I suggest limiting support for your theology just to that? I say this although you addressed your comment to CP, a believing Christian, because you also wrote that you want to help Jews understand Paul’s teaching. Please know that Jews will only ever accept a teaching from anyone anywhere if it conforms to the Torah and not the other way around.
Now onto your arguments. I think we can gain some clarity by defining our differences, since we understand basic theological concepts so differently. What is salvation? The Hebrew Bible and Christian scripture define that word differently. Furthermore, what is the mission of the Davidic messiah? Again, the Hebrew Bible and Christian scripture define that differently.
Salvation in the Hebrew Bible is used in the context of redemption from exile, oppression (political or physical or both), and persecution. The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that each individual is 100% in charge of his own spiritual destiny (Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30:11-15,19; Ezekiel 18 and 33). The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that God will circumcise our hearts only after we take action to repent and return to full Torah observance (Deuteronomy 30:1-6).
For the Christian the meaning of the word salvation changes from the physical to the spiritual. The Christian believes that your actions count for nothing but that only faith in Jesus can save you from your sins. Repentance will get you nowhere without accepting Jesus as your lord and savior. And so on and so forth. For example, see Romans 10:5-18.
The Hebrew Bible assigns a different role to the messiah than the Christian. According to the prophets, the messiah is a descendant of King David on his father’s side who will reign in Israel during a period of universal knowledge of God, world peace, rebuilding of the Third Temple, ingathering of the exiles, national resurgence of Torah observance, vindication of Israel in the eyes of her enemies, and her exaltation before all the world. For example, see Ezekiel 37:19-28.
We have already shown you how you have abused the new covenant prophecy in Jeremiah 31 to make it fit your theology. It is a further problem for you that the Hebrew Bible teaches a contrary teaching concerning your notion of spiritual salvation and the role of the messiah.
It is also a problem for you that the Hebrew Bible is not all concerned with the personhood of the messiah but with obedience to God through observance of His commandments.
>>>>>I see his message currently bringing many back to Torah.<<<<<
No, Jesus's message is not what is doing that. The Information Age is what is doing that. People can now more easily see other sides to stories, can research things previously held from their view. How many Christians know that there was no trinity doctrine until 381 CE? They all think Jesus taught it and the first Christians followed it, because that is what their church leaders tell them. But now, they can learn all about the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople via the net, by people posting links to facts Christians knew nothing about prior to the internet.
Trying to "trace the roots of Christianity" is mostly what is bringing them to Torah.
I know just as many agnostics and spiritualists, who are not Christians, that are finding interest in Torah. Just this last week, an agnostic friend of mine shared with me his desire to "eat more humanely" after learning the cruel methods of slaughter used in the meat industry. I mentioned the laws and methods of kosher to him and he now is going to go out of his way to buy kosher meats. My sister is a spiritualist and came to her first Torah service a couple of weeks ago.
My late father in law ( ex), a pioneering genetics scientist, once said, "I was raised Christian and remain Christian, but Judaism has better answers to life's most difficult questions. Judaism's answers just make more sense."
Ahhh, the “Information Age”
No big surprise for Daniel!
“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.'”
I agree, many are using the Internet to trace the roots of Christianity, but why?
Could it be they see their dogma does not align with the recorded words of Jesus?
Words such as:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Or…
“And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Elezear, respectfully I have a question for you;
Do you think it wise to judge a Jewish prophet by contrived gentile systematic theology heavily influenced by a pagan political culture for 2000 years?
Shalom
CP, it all depenmds which Jesus you are quoting. Are we to judge Jesus as a prophet by words like the ones you posted or by the entire body of work and words attributed to him? Are we to believe that the Jesus who said “Keep the commandments” is the same Jesus who said “There are some here who will not taste death before the coming of my kingdom”? Which Jesus are we talking about? You mentioned both.
You stated that your interest in Jesus is that he was the “last big thing” in Judaism before the destruction of the second temple. Then you mentioned the Jesus of contrived Gentile theology/christology as the one we should not be judging the “real” Jesus by.
Here’s the problem with that, CP. The “real” Jesus was not a “the last big thing” before the destruction of 2nd temple. That would be the Gentile/contrived Jesus. The Jewish church of James and company did not grow much and in fact died with the 2nd temple. Paul spent much of his ministry attacking and debunking the “letter of the law” Jewish followers of Jesus, the so-called “judaizers”.
Were it not for the Gentile/contrived Jesus of Paul and John, you would scarcely even have heard of the Jesus of James. The Jesus of James had nothing to offer after his death except some teachings, no different from most any other Jewish teacher ( and much of what Jesus taught was borrowed anyway). And yes, both of those Jesus’s, the kind Jewish one and the hateful/insulting one,both the one who said the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat and the one who said he was greater than Moses and Abraham, are to be found in the pages of the New testament.
The NT presents several versions of Jesus, each growing more prominent depending on the date the particular gospel was written: Mark has Jesus primarily as a Jewish teacher, Matthew makes the case for him as the Jewish messiah, John has Jesus as the very son of God or even God himself, the source of any and all eternal salvation. The legend grew with each new writing over a 200 year period.
James, who uses the word “synagogue” in his epistle, hardly mentions Jesus at all and pushes the importance of the law and social justice. Nothing about salvation through Jesus, nothing about Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, son of God or God himself. In fact, most of it is a repeating of some of Jesus’ moral views found in the book of Mark. The words “our lord Jesus Christ” are found twice, but are not defined, and in fact could just as easily have been added by the church later ( based on the use of the word “cristos” instead of moshiach).
BTW, have any interest in Shimon Bar Kokhba? He was the first “big thing” after the destruction of the Temple.
Thanks for the reply Eleazar,
I believe what Jesus said about some seeing the Kingdom is true, although it be the Kingdom it is not the Kingdom in its completeness, that is yet to come. I see this Kingdom beginning on the first Shavuot after the death of Jesus.
Yes, I heard this theory before; ‘that if it weren’t for Paul’s Jesus…..’ Its just a theory, mere speculation what ‘could of’ happened. Although I agree it is a logical assumption in the light of history it is not logical in light of the power of G-d.
I also agree which the records of Jesus growing theologically more sophisticated proportional to the date written. However this is nothing a little textual criticism and application of Torah can’t remedy.
Ahhh yes, Shimon Bar Kokhba. Now this was the kind of Moshiach Israel was looking for! Unfortunately he became the kind that brought complete devastation. Although to his credit, for a few years he did very well against the Romans.
Hashem said through Moses:
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
You may choose to believe this be Jesus or not, however one of the accusations that contributed to his death was the prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. As history proves, Jesus had not spoken presumptuously.
Thanks for outing yourself as a Christian, CP. That didn’t take long, but is a common missionary tactic: make them believe you are seeking information and an objective dialogue in order to gain the trust of your audience, then work your message in slowly. Oh yes, I learned that one myself when I worked as an evangelist.
“You may choose to believe this be Jesus or not, however one of the accusations that contributed to his death was the prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. As history proves, Jesus had not spoken presumptuously.”
Except that the gospels were written AFTER the destruction of the temple. But even so, Jesus said not ONE stone of the temple would lay upon another. That is proven false as well.
“I also agree which the records of Jesus growing theologically more sophisticated proportional to the date written.”
Like Bibs, you changed my question to make it answerable for yourself. I said nothing about increasingly sophisticated theology. I spoke of the changing identity, office, nature and calling of Jesus… according to JESUS before they written, as reported in said gospels. He literally went from teacher, to messiah, to son of God to God Himself in a little over 100 years and four books. The gospels themselves have Jesus’ claims about himself changing with each new, later, version of the story. The problem is not one of gaining a deeper understanding of the text over time, but the reported story itself and the reported claims of its subject changing with each new report.
“I believe what Jesus said about some seeing the Kingdom is true…”
Yes, you believe. No evidence, but you believe. Fair enough. But he did not say anything about “some seeing the kingdom” in the sense of some seeing it and others not seeing it. Now you are even changing Jesus’ own words. He said some would STILL BE ALIVE to see the kingdom when the kingdom came. This would necessarily imply that some would be dead when that event took place. Can you tell me when the 2nd coming took place where some of Jesus’ disciples were alive and others dead at that time? Or are you of the school that says the transfiguration fulfilled that prophecy? If so, then who died before the transfiguration?
“Although I agree it is a logical assumption in the light of history it is not logical in light of the power of G-d.”
With all due respect, that is as empty of an answer as could have been given, and is pure speculation as well. You already posted to Gean that you do not trust Paul’s writings. So you cherry-pick the NT to create your own…personal…Jesus… So is the “real Jesus” the one who called Gentiles dogs and his own Jewish leaders “vipers”, assaulted the traders in the temples and publicly slandered the Pharisees?
“Ahhh yes, Shimon Bar Kokhba. Now this was the kind of Moshiach Israel was looking for!”
Yes and no. Some thought so, others didn’t. But notice nobody believed that once he died and failed. Nobody insisted that he succeeded in an invisible realm or that he was really still alive and part of a trinitarian godhead.
CP,
It’s interesting that you raised this passage in Deuteronomy 18. Please note the following.
First, the verse says “a prophet” and not “the prophet”; Moses is not speaking of a specific prophet. This passage more easily applies to Joshua and those who followed him. If the people requested a prophet now (presumably so they won’t be left leaderless after Moses dies), how does it make sense for God to say that he’ll send one along in 1500 years?
Second, the people are to take a true prophet seriously, but how will they know who a true prophet is? You mention the prophecy about the temple, but as Elaezar pointed out, Christian scripture was written later. Furthermore, as Eleazar also pointed out, Jesus said that not one stone would be left standing; this did not happen.
Eleazar pointed out Jesus’s false prophecy of his return during the lifetime of some of his disciples, and I would like to point out yet a third. Jesus promised the Pharisees the sign of his resurrection after three days. Therefore, it behoved him to present himself, fully resurrected, to the Pharisees three days post mortem. This he neglected to do.
So here you have three false prophecies.
But Jesus failed yet another prophet test. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warns us of a prophet who can perform miracles but urges worship of foreign gods. Jesus fits this passage perfectly.
Why do you still cling to a false prophet, liar, and charlatan?
Dina,
As for Deut 18
The verse says you shall listen to “him”. The verse does not say listen to “them”.
You asked; “how does it make sense for God to say that he’ll send one along in 1500 years?”
Because these words were written down as Torah to be preserved and protected until the end of time. Don’t you and I cling to words written 3500 years ago wanting to know if they will be fulfilled in our life time?
I am unaware of any stone left standing. I’ve heard when the Temple was burnt the gold overlay melted and ran down into the cracks and others virtually left no stone unturned to extract this gold. However if you know of a section of Temple still standing, please educate me.
As to Jesus’s return; I think the text is being misread. The Kingdom “started” with Shavout. As for the Pharisee’s not seeing the resurrected Jesus; no evidence does not constitute evidence. If I were to make a guess, I would guess Nicedemous may of seen him but it was just not recorded, obviously not everything was.
Your last contention; saying; “Jesus urges worship to foreign gods”
Can you at least give me a scripture reference for this?
Considering you used the words “false prophet, liar and charlatan” I think that is the least you could do?
Thank you in advance.
CP,
If you could read this passage in Hebrew you would see that your argument holds no water, as in Hebrew not using a definite article is common for generalities even expressed in the singular. In Biblical Hebrew switching from plural to singular and back again is common as well.
But if you want it to be singular, I can still argue that this passage refers to Joshua. The people asked for a prophet so they would not be left leaderless after the death of Moses. Moses is reassuring the people that that will not be the case. That is why it makes no sense to say that this can be talking about a prophet thousands of years later. The prophecies that we do cling to for comfort, as you say, often contain words such “at the end of days,” so we know they will happen in the distant future, or the context at least implies that. Deuteronomy 18 read in context is obviously talking about the immediate future.
If Moses were talking about a specific prophet, he would have used the definite article. But there is also another disqualifier for Jesus. Moses says the prophet will be like him. Jesus was as unlike Moses as it is possible to be.
As for the prophecies. Let’s start with the Temple. Take a look at Matthew 24:1-2: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
So, my dear friend, I think it’s time for a trip to Israel. Take tour of the Old City of Jerusalem. There you will see the Western Wall, one of the Temple’s outer walls, still standing. You will also see other ancient buildings in the area from that time period still standing. Jesus shot himself in the food by including other buildings with the Temple.
Seeing is believing, so if you don’t believe me, hop on a plane and check it out for yourself. Don’t take my word for it.
As for the second prophecy, I don’t really care, and neither should you, about personal interpretations of the text. The text says what it says. Anyone can come up with any explanation to explain anything away. But all we really have are the words that were written. And the words plainly say that some of Jesus’s generations will still be alive when he returns. Except they weren’t. Because he never came back. So your speculations are irrelevant, and, may I suggest, wishful.
Third prophecy, if you read all the Hebrew Scriptures, you will see that if a prophet gives a sign, Scripture records the results. It’s no evidence to make an argument from silence, and the only people who find that worthy are people who want to believe it. It’s the equivalent of saying that just because we’ve never seen mermaids doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe they do, somewhere, and just haven’t been discovered yet. You’re arguing that Jesus gave a sign to the Pharisees, and he really did appear to them after three days, it just doesn’t say so. Give me a break! How on earth could the gospel writers have missed recording such an important and earth-shattering event? You would think they would triumphantly write about it as a proof of the Pharisees’ intransigence.
As for the foreign gods thing. So here goes. Deuteronomy 4 teaches us that we are to worship God only according to the knowledge He imparted to us at Sinai. Verse 2 in that chapter tells us we are not to change any of the laws. Deuteronomy 13 tells us to reject a prophet and miracle worker who presents a new type of worship. Jesus is a foreign god. He encouraged worship of himself, or at the very least, placed himself at the center of worship, constituting a new type of worship. He also changed laws. (Please don’t pretend that he didn’t. I’m so tired of pointing out all the laws he changed to Christians who refuse to face facts.)
Try this thought experiment. Suppose someone today were to come along and perform miracles. Then he says that he is the only way to God and you must accept him as your lord, savior, and messiah. Forget about Jesus, he says. I’m the real deal. Please tell my why you would reject him.
One more thing. You said you take Maimonides’ 12th principle seriously. Why are you picking on the twelfth? Be consistent and accept them all. I’ll give you some examples:
Number Four: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is the First and the Last.
Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13).
Number 5: I believe with perfect faith that one may pray only to the Creator, blessed be His name, and to no one else.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).
Number 5: I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was true, and that he was greatest among the prophets, to those who came before him and those who came after him.
Christians believe Jesus was greater than Moses.
Number 9: I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed and there will not be another Torah from the Creator, blessed be His name.
Christians relegated the Torah to the “Old Testament” and created a new scripture they call the “New Testament.”
You know, cherry picking isn’t honest. The reason Orthodox Jews view you with suspicion just because you take the 12th seriously is that you don’t take the other ones seriously at all. By clinging to Jesu, you make a mockery of them. Therefore, you have no right to be sore at them.
Oh my goodness, I just reread this and it’s full of typos. I hope you can make sense of it. Sorry!
matthew writing decades later said that even though the pharisees did not see the resurrection, they believed the report of the pagan romans and told them to spread lies.
it seems to me that matthew knows of no stories about shape shifting jesus appearing to the pharisees.
“You’re arguing that Jesus gave a sign to the Pharisees, and he really did appear to them after three days, it just doesn’t say so. Give me a break!”
the gospels seem to be arguments against each other. if there was a meeting, later jews could have said that he survived the cross or escaped the cross and was convicted criminal on the loose. matthew writing decades later would have to address these problems, but he doesn’t.
Dina:
CP
“If you could read this passage in Hebrew you would see that your argument holds no water, as in Hebrew not using a definite article is common for generalities even expressed in the singular. …………………Moses says the prophet will be like him. Jesus was as unlike Moses as it is possible to be.”
* Dina, So you’d have me reject the son of man because you think a slightly ambiguous prophecy written in a different Hebrew script than we currently employ, in a different culture 3500 years removed from us doesn’t line up excatly perfect from your point of view.
With all due respect, your going to have to do better.
“As for the prophecies. Let’s start with the Temple. Take a look at Matthew 24:1-2: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”……”
* You’ve made the assumption that YOU know which stones he was referring to 2000 years ago. I think there was enough destruction to validate the prophecy as very probable.
“As for the second prophecy, I don’t really care, and neither should you…..”
* That’s fine, I’m not here to prove anything to anybody, rather I am here respectfully requesting you to PROVE something to me. I’m open minded, but that doesn’t mean I’m accepting everything just cause someone says it is so, I’m just like you, it needs to be PROVED from the text.
Third prophecy, ……..How on earth could the gospel writers have missed recording such an important and earth-shattering event? You would think they would triumphantly write about it as a proof of the Pharisees’ intransigence.
*They didn’t have TV, Internet or phones, the record we have 2000 years later is sparse and doesn’t record every thing that happened, in fact the book of John says excatly that. I’m not saying he did or didn’t appear to the Pharisees, I’m just saying we don’t know.
“As for the foreign gods thing. So here goes. Deuteronomy 4 teaches us that we are to worship God only according to the knowledge He imparted to us at Sinai. Verse 2 in that chapter tells us we are not to change any of the laws. Deuteronomy 13 tells us to reject a prophet and miracle worker who presents a new type of worship. Jesus is a foreign god. He encouraged worship of himself, or at the very least, placed himself at the center of worship, constituting a new type of worship. He also changed laws. (Please don’t pretend that he didn’t. I’m so tired of pointing out all the laws he changed to Christians who refuse to face facts.)”
Please show me where Yeshua set himself up as a foreign God and told people to worship him? As to the mitzvahs he changed; please indulge me, I’ve never heard it from you.
“Try this thought experiment. Suppose someone today were to come along and perform miracles. Then he says that he is the only way to God and you must accept him as your lord, savior, and messiah.”
* I did, and I would look to see if he fulfills the requirements of messiah son of David since messiah son of Yosef has already come.
“One more thing. You said you take Maimonides’ 12th principle seriously. Why are you picking on the twelfth? Be consistent and accept them all. I’ll give you some examples:
Number Four: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is the First and the Last.
Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13).”
*Dina, this is a excellent point, by far the best you’ve ever made to me. I will have to look into this. I have a few thoughts on this but do not want to speak presumptuously in ignorance..
Number 5: I believe with perfect faith that one may pray only to the Creator, blessed be His name, and to no one else.
“Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).”
*First, note the phrase “come to the Father” second Yeshua is considered a living walking Torah example. Whould’nt you say Torah is the way, the truth and the life?
“Number 5: I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was true, and that he was greatest among the prophets, to those who came before him and those who came after him.”
From where does Rambam back this statement?
“Number 9: I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed and there will not be another Torah from the Creator, blessed be His name.
Christians relegated the Torah to the “Old Testament” and created a new scripture they call the “New Testament.””
*Yeah, Christisns have done s lot of stupid ignorant things, but what does that have to do with Yeshua?
“You know, cherry picking isn’t honest. The reason Orthodox Jews view you with suspicion just because you take the 12th seriously is that you don’t take the other ones seriously at all. By clinging to Jesu, you make a mockery of them. Therefore, you have no right to be sore at them.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean to cherry pick, I can’t discuss everything at once. As to Orthodox Jews, I’m not sore at them at all. In fact I really like them a lot. There is just a little friction because I’m observant but accept Yeshua for who I think he said he was. I don’t try to push it on anyone, but sometimes questions come up and it is then I’m viewed with suspicion. So that’s EXCATLY why I’m here, so I can discuss these matters freely without freaking people out. And I appreciate the opportunity you all have given me here. Thank you!
CP, we’re addressing a lot of topics at once so this thread is becoming unwieldy. We should probably pick one point to hash out and then move on to the next. At any rate, I won’t be able to respond to this lengthy post for a good few days. Please forgive me for the delay.
Hey CP,
Responding to your comment https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29246:
Deuteronomy 18: You say you should not reject Jesus on the basis of an ambiguous prophecy. Why don’t you hold yourself up to your own standard? You accept him on the basis of an ambiguous prophecy! One upon which you imposed an interpretation that makes sense only to people who already believe in Jesus (this is called circular reasoning, by the way). Does it not disturb you that all the theological underpinnings of your belief are supported by ambiguous prophecies which are easily disputed?
The three prophecies:
The stone prophecy: Jesus speaks quite plainly this time. He says the Temple and all its buildings will be torn down, not one stone will be left on the other. It’s not my assumption to point to the Western Wall as evidence that this prophecy was not fulfilled. It’s common sense. I’m just looking at what Jesus supposedly said and checking to see if it’s true. I think you’re having a problem adjusting to the notion of understanding a text in its plainest sense. Christians generally have a hard time grappling with this concept since they are so used to bending and twisting scripture, both ours and even their own, to suit their purposes.
The return prophecy: I proved it to you from the text, so what more needs to be proved? Jesus said he would return while some of his generation still lived. We know he didn’t. This is textual proof. Why deny it?
The sign of Jonah prophecy: Please reread what I wrote because you missed my point. If a prophet gives a sign and people record the giving of the sign but not the result, that’s as good as not coming to pass.
This is so silly I can’t believe it was even raised. Imagine if people recorded prophets giving signs. Later, others believe these prophets although no one recorded the result. So we don’t know if the sign came to pass. That’s as good as anything! That’s not what Deuteronomy 13 is all about, come on!
The foreign gods thing: Jesus pointed to himself as the way to God. This was an entirely new way of worship that was not imparted to us at Sinai nor subsequently taught by Moses.
By the way, what is your proof that Jesus is Mashiach ben Yosef? Show me the criteria from the Hebrew Bible to qualify someone to be Mashiach ben Yosef and then please show me how they apply to Jesus.
Maimonides’ principle of faith that one may pray only to the Creator: You said one may pray through Jesus because he is “a living walking Torah example.” I can’t believe you would say that about the man who was the single greatest cause of Jewish death and suffering in the Christian world in the last two thousand years (not to mention millions of Christian ones). Furthermore, if someone, anyone, is a Torah example, should one pray to God through him? Say Moses? David? Maimonides? Rabbi Moshe Feinstein? God forbid!
But you went even a step further. You said, “Whould’nt you say Torah is the way, the truth and the life?” Are you saying Jesus is the Torah? Do I understand you correctly? Are you joking? How can a person be the Torah? This smacks of a very bizarre sort of idolatry.
And last point on this topic, the Hebrew Bible does not teach anywhere that one can access God only through an intermediary. In fact, the opposite is true: see Psalm 145:18 for example.
Maimonides’ principle of faith that Moshe was the greatest prophet of all: You asked what that is based on. Please see Deuteronomy 34:10, Numbers 12:7, Numbers 12:3.
Maimonides’ principle of faith that the Torah will not be changed or that another Torah would be added: I said that’s what the New Testament has done, and you said who cares what Christians do? But you accept their scripture at least to a certain extent, so you did not really answer the argument. The fact that you do accept parts of Christian scripture makes what Christians also do highly relevant.
You know, CP, you really have it all backwards. God appointed us to be His witnesses. He promised we would always bear testimony to His truth no matter how much we rebelled, and that His word would never stray from our mouths for all our generations, forever (Isaiah 43:10, Psalm 78, Isaiah 59:21). So if you want to accept Judaism and also accept the foreign deity Jesus which all Jews reject, the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders to prove your claim is true, not ours. Even so, we have easily and decisively proved that your belief is based on wishful thinking and not evidence.
Please forgive my typo, I cringed when I saw a capitol G when referencing “foreign god”
Ahhh…..it just happened again; predictive text has no conscience!
*They didn’t have TV, Internet or phones, the record we have 2000 years later is sparse and doesn’t record every thing that happened, in fact the book of John says excatly that. I’m not saying he did or didn’t appear to the Pharisees, I’m just saying we don’t know.
it is possible that the author of the gospels already know of the temple destruction and may have been discussing with listeners all “fulfilled” prophesies which did not get recorded in the nt. apologists use argument from silence which could be used to prove that mark already knew of destruction and put the prediction in jesus’ mouth after the fact. the problem is all these books are very later and first available manuscript bet authorship and mark = 300 years and within those 300 years we know christians have been fiddling with prophecies
Mr heathciff,
Being no stranger to textual criticism, I sympathize with the position you put forward. However, we have what we have and do the best with what we have. I think if Matthew is a fabrication after the events the pseudo writer could of done a much better job, such as we discussed; a ‘resurrected Jesus sighting by a Pharisee’ would of been included. Believe it or not, it’s lack of perfection testifies to it authenticity. While I think the first two chapters of Matthew are an addition, (for obvious reasons) the rest for the most part is fairly accurate with a few exceptions.
CP lack of perfection is more often evidence of clumsiness than it is of authenticity
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP, over at “Christianity Unmasked” I posted two comments in response to you:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/christianity-unmasked/#comment-29240
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/christianity-unmasked/#comment-29258
Just letting you know because for some reason the comments on this article don’t show up in “Recent Comments,” so I thought you might have missed it.
In general, if you want to follow the conversation on a particular article, click the “Notify me of new comments via email” box before posting your comment. You will then receive an email inviting you to subscribe to that article. Once you subscribe, you will receive every comment on that article via email.
My Phariseefriend,
I agree, I think the early Christians were very clumsy with their text, therefore the need to apply some textual crictism to their text using the Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim as a standard purging them of inaccuracies. For a man educated in Torah as yourself this would be a fairly easy thing to do. After all, it was initially a Jewish text.
CP I suggest you read The School of Matthew (search for it using the search option)
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“I think if Matthew is a fabrication after the events the pseudo writer could of done a much better job, such as we discussed; a ‘resurrected Jesus sighting by a Pharisee’ would of been included. ”
is it your belief that the dead saints appearing to many is a later addition to matthew because some christian had to do a better job ? or do you believe that the resurrected ancient jews appeared to the pharisees, but jesus didn’t?
mark doesn’t know that the meeting took place. mark doesn’t know anything about a jesus waiting around the corner from the empty tomb or that peter received the details . i mean if peter was marks informant how is it possible that peter did not tell him that the women were the first to reach him before they ran into jesus? “they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid”
it seems to me that mark knows of no details of any reunion. maybe mark is receiving some kind of pauline revelation which did not have any physical jesus appearing?
so your argument can work for mark. mark would have done a better job and have women inform the disciples and talk about flesh and blood jesus appearing near the tomb.after all if mark can inform about events which have no witnesses, why not about the biggest miracle which allegedly had witnesses?
Dear Mr heathciff,
The ending of Mark is lost. There are a number of accepted endings found in many Bibles, however in reality it amounts to a number of guesses which perhaps none are correct.
As far as I am concerned Mark has no ending, it is lost.
Mr Heath cliff,
I am arguing no such thing, I’m merely explaining the following truth:
“No evidence does not constitute evidence”
Then I gave a example.
(If the example is getting in your way, then just embrace the truth)
CP, I responded to a couple of things here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29241
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/christianity-unmasked/#comment-29240
Eleazar,
thanks for the reply and a good laugh cause it actually makes me sad.
“Thanks for outing yourself as a Christian, CP. That didn’t take long, but is a common missionary tactic: make them believe you are seeking information and an objective dialogue in order to gain the trust of your audience, then work your message in slowly. Oh yes, I learned that one myself when I worked as an evangelist.”
Eleazar,
For the record, I’m not here to evangelize anyone and if I was I’m not sure what I’d evangelize them to!
>>>If you were curious about me all you had to do was ask<<<
My father was made fun of as a child for being a Jew, my mothers maiden name is 100% Jewish, however I was raised Catholic, we're talking Baptism, Catechism, Catholic school, 1st communion, alter boy, confirmation the works! I became involved with the Charismatic movement as a teen, accepted Jesus and was filled with the Holy Spirit. At 27 I began really studying the Bible and walked away from the Catholic Church never looking back. I became a evangelical Christian and missionary to Mexico, Nepal and India. Became educated in the so-called cults of Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses as a counter-missionary. Received the 'gift of tongues' and been involved in Exorcisms (yes demons exist). I switched to the "Grace" movement, although I agreed with the premise, something wasn't right. From there I dabbled with the Seventh Day Adventists but just couldn't swallow the Ellen G White thing. However the Sabbath and dietary laws continued to haunt me.
I quit Church completely and instead used my Sabbaths engaging in intensive self study of the Scriptures or more correctly Holy Spirit directed study. I started keeping the Sabbath by the moon since I figured this was Gods calendar and began keeping the Torah dietary laws. I finally acquiesced to Rabbinical authority and began keeping Saturday Sabbaths. I became a member of the local synagogue, began conversion and Hebrew classes. That was a few years ago, I'm still a member and still attend.
However apparently my belief in Yeshua makes me not a candidate for conversion. I've been told such a belief is incompatible with Judaism. I was told to talk with a Rabbi about this, I did and explained my position from the Babylonian Talmud and the Rabbi agreed with me. That wasnt good enough so I was then directed to find a anti-missionary Rabbi to speak with. I emailed Jews for Judaism and Rabbi Skobac called me back and graciuosly spent over three hours on the phone me. It was one of the most exciting conversations of my life; finally someone I could really talk with about stuff but I would'nt budge on Jesus. He suggested I get on some Forums and here I am. I believe there is a Torah correct and Judaism compatible way to view Yeshua without having to totally reject him.
I find it kinda odd in a telling kinda way that something is not quite right when I have traveled all this way, through all this religiosity, rejecting Catholicism, mainstream Evangelical Christianity, Pauline Christianity, the Trinity, eternal torment, Sunday keeping, the Deifying of Jesus, and instead embrace the Shabbat, the Feasts and Only One God but I am still viewed with suspicion because I take Maimonides 12th principle seriously.
Because I see Yeshua as a type of Mashiach ben Yossef is to act as precursor to Mashiach ben David who will prepare the world for the coming of the redeemer I am rejected by Rabbinical Judaism.
So Eleazar, that's why I'm here.
CP, if you are seeking answers, then pay attention to those whom God appointed as His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10) and to whom He promised that His truth and His testimony would never veer away even when they rebelled (Isaiah 59:21 and Psalms 78).
You are wrong to say that Orthodox Jews view you with suspicion because you take the 12 principle of Maimonides seriously. I do not know if you are being disingenuous or simply bitter, but, forgive me, that’s ridiculous. All Orthodox Jews take that principle seriously. They view you with suspicion because you insist on clinging to a false prophet and a false god.
If every traditional Jew you encounter tells you you are wrong and shows you why, perhaps it’s time to consider that your attachment to Jesus is emotional and based on zero evidence.
Jesus is completely irrelevant to Judaism. He is as irrelevant as Mohammed, Krishna, and Buddha. Period, end of story.
If you are really Jewish, then I hope you will come home soon. We are waiting with open arms! May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth.
The only reason why a Gentile knows who Israel is would be due to my Jewish God.
Israel is 1948. Where were they before that?
United States stands with Israel because of the Evangelical base in Christ. Otherwise, the current state of Israel is embanked on all sides.
I love Israel through Christ to the Glory of the Father.
As with the Promise was in Abraham’s Son. The promise in God’s Holy Son.
Dina- would make think Israel was right with the Father?
Lastly, you complain about Christians but write about them.
Believe me, Christians marvel at Israel’s rightful inheritance.
But deny, 1 Hebrew Man as if he were a gentile.
Light and Truth is in his Son.
Praise Him!
Dina,
Why did Moses want all of Israel to have Gods Holy Spirit?
Well put, Dina.
CP. your journey is not too different from my own. You can read my story on this blog. “Why I left Jesus” by Fred.
This time last year, I was in the midst of my conversion. Now I have converted, which is why I go by my Jewish name, Eleazar, on this blog.
The biggest obstacle you still have is the idea that “the holy spirit” as an objective study aid. That was apparent when you wrote, ” I agree it is a logical assumption in the light of history it is not logical in light of the power of G-d.” That takes the discussion from reason and evidence to esoteric subjectivity. My old charismatic “apostle” was of the mind that the holy spirit can show you something in a Bible text that directly contradicts the plain reading, but is just as spiritually and doctrinally viable as the plain reading. Even as a pastor in his church, I could not accept such “reasoning”, since it made the word of God as it was written meaningless.
It is possible that the Holy Spirit is in fact providing a lamp to your feet, but God will not force your steps. But one cannot be a Jew AND a Christian. If you reject the trinity, and reject Jesus as God, then the Noachide path is a good one for you. With regard to your “Moshiac ben Yosef”, please look at the entire picture in context. Even where that concept was floated, there was no indication that Moshiac Ben Yosef and Moshiac Ben David were to come thousands of years apart.
We have both been involved in Christianity, especially charismatic Christianity, long enough to know that “led by the holy spirit” usually means “led by my feelings”. For me, “led by the holy spirit” is only ascertained in then past tense, when I can look back and objectively consider events that guided my path and shaped my reasoning.
You are on the path that most Christians take when they leave the church. As Rabbi Tovia Singer put it, “Christians let go of their faith one finger at a time”. The thought of “rejecting Christ” is a tough obstacle to overcome, being as how Christians are taught from their youth that it is the ultimate act of rebellion against God, and the guarantee of eternal damnation.
Thanks for hanging with me on this long post, but I have one more point to make. Finding truth is like playing chess against yourself: You cannot root for or against either position. Look honestly and objectively.
Good luck!
CP,
You have experienced the Holy Spirit.
Look at The reason why Moses wanted the 70 elders to have the Holy Spirit;
Remember, he had the burden to provide understanding in which Spirit could only decide,
Why only a set number of people could have the SPIRIT? Why was Moses so burden?
Remember Joel-
That I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions;
HOW DO THESE PEOPLE GET THE SPIRIT? ALL FLESH????
The Grace of Christ was provided for ALL FLESH.
Why Saul was naked before Samuel.
The Law provided guidance but was broken over and over again.
Only the Prophets had understanding because of (Gods Spirit and Word). Outside of that it was nothing in mans eye IE( David)
David would have never been chosen if it wasn’t for the SPIRIT. Israel rejected him initially.
But the LORD said unto Samuel: ‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him; for it is not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.’
Christ the Hebrew is the rejected Stone.
Christ is the Mashiach.
God worked through Christ because Christ always existed.
Elijah couldn’t take the punishment and ascended into heaven.
CP if you disagree with me. Provide Truth.
Dina,
Thank you for the reply, to respond:
“CP, if you are seeking answers”…
* Yes I am, shouldn’t we all?
—
“…You are wrong to say that Orthodox Jews view you with suspicion because you take the 12 principle of Maimonides seriously. I do not know if you are being disingenuous or simply bitter…”
* A little bitter, disheartened and disappointed.
—
“…but, forgive me, that’s ridiculous…”
* It’s not ridiculous once they hear the “J” word.
—
“…All Orthodox Jews take that principle seriously. They view you with suspicion because you insist on clinging to a false prophet and a false god…”
* Perhaps you just skimmed the post you are answering and missed the part about ‘rejecting the Trinity and the deification of Jesus’?
—
“…If every traditional Jew you encounter tells you you are wrong and shows you why…”
* Well I’m here with a open mind but that doesn’t mean it’s turned off, so show me why.
—
“…perhaps it’s time to consider that your attachment to Jesus is emotional…”
* Yes it is emotional; I am a human being. Do you think emotional connections to anything but G-d is wrong?
—
“…and based on zero evidence…”
* I can say absolutely without a doubt this is not the case. Zero is a much bigger number than all the other numbers put together.
—
“…Jesus is completely irrelevant to Judaism…”
* “Irrelevant”? Such a statement about the most famous Jewish person in the world for the last 1500 years defies all logic. Even if Jesus is all you say, this would make him good for a bad example. Torah’s treatment of history testifies to the correctness of this statement. Such a radical leap of logic reveals a decision seeped in emotion.
—
“…He is as irrelevant as Mohammed, Krishna, and Buddha. Period, end of story…”
* They were also observant Jews living in Israel at the end of the second Temple?
—
“…If you are really Jewish, then I hope you will come home soon. We are waiting with open arms! May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth…”
Thank You!
CP,
You have experienced the Holy Spirit.
Look at The reason why Moses wanted the 70 elders to have the Holy Spirit;
Remember, he had the burden to provide understanding in which Spirit could only decide,
Why only a set number of people could have the SPIRIT? Why was Moses so burden?
Remember Joel-
That I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions;
HOW DO THESE PEOPLE GET THE SPIRIT? ALL FLESH????
The Grace of Christ was provided for ALL FLESH.
Why Saul was naked before Samuel.
The Law provided guidance but was broken over and over again.
Only the Prophets had understanding because of (Gods Spirit and Word). Outside of that it was nothing in mans eye IE( David)
David would have never been chosen if it wasn’t for the SPIRIT. Israel rejected him initially.
But the LORD said unto Samuel: ‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him; for it is not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.’
Christ the Hebrew is the rejected Stone.
Christ is the Mashiach.
God worked through Christ because Christ always existed.
Elijah couldn’t take the punishment and ascended into heaven.
CP if you disagree with me. Provide Truth.
Bible 819,
Thanks for the reply.
You asked about my agreement;
I agree modern day Israel is not right with G-d, I think many Orthodox Jews would agree. It’s a good thing the faithfulness of G-d has never depended of the faithfulness of Israel but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to get worse before it gets better.
As to the Ruach Hakodesh; This belongs to the secret things of G-d. As to the Joel verse, I feel this belongs to the Messianic age which is yet future. As you well know we have only received a ‘deposit or down payment guaranteeing that which is to come’.
Yes, I agree Yeshua is the rejected stone.
Shalom
CP,
Thanks Brother.
I think as the world continues to become more wicked will result ( Like Pentecost) spoken by the Prophet Joel; with flow like we’ve never seen before.
I have spoken in Tongues the Spirit as well. Like you, I know Satan is real. The Law couldn’t save me from him because knowing what sin is doesn’t stop us from sinning. But the Spirit of Christ protects us from all demonic forces. Especially, the spoken Word never falls to the ground “No weapon forged against us will prosper in Yeshua’s Name. Amen.
Yeshua is our Precious Corner Stone.
bible819,
I’m curious what do with Matthew 5:17-19?
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [i]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [j]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
——-
17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Neviim. I did not come to abolish but to complete.
18 For, omein, truly I say to you, until Shomayim and haaretz pass away, not one yod, not one tag (ornamental flourish), will pass from the Torah until everything is accomplished.
19 Therefore, whoever annuls one of the least of these mitzvot (divine commandments given by Hashem to Moshe Rebbenu) and so teaches Bnei Adam, shall be called katon (least) in the Malchut HaShomayim; but whoever practices and teaches them, this one will be called gadol (great) in the Malchut HaShomayim.
Hi CP,
I’m responding you your response :). Yes, we are all here to seek the truth. But the truth is the truth. In other words, the truth is objective and not subject to our emotions. Therefore, in our search, we must put our emotions aside and evaluate the evidence. Kudos to you for admitting that you have an emotional attachment to Jesus. I hope this will help you realize that emotional attachments cloud our judgment. Once we realize this, it is easier to tell where our emotions end and objective truth begins.
Hopefully, now you understand that I did not mean that one cannot have emotional attachments to anyone but Hashem. Obviously, we have emotional attachments to those we love, such as our spouses, children, and friends.
In the Orthodox Jewish world, we date for the purpose of marriage. Dating is never casual but purposeful and goal-oriented. This makes it easy to evaluate whether the prospective mate is suitable. Once that certainty is reached, it’s “safe” to fall in love. Otherwise, you can easily fall in love with the wrong person. And once that happens, it’s impossible for anyone to convince you that this woman is wrong for you, because you will keep making excuses for her behavior.
The analogy is obvious. If you are “in love” with Jesus, it’s possible that you will keep making excuses and not really hearing what we have to say. I suspect this might be the case, since you have heard all the reasons why Jesus cannot possibly be the messiah and what he taught that was so wrong (you must have if you spoke to Rabbi Skobac for three hours), and yet you still feel bitter to Orthodox Jews who tell you that if you believe in Jesus you are Christian and not Jewish.
I urge you to put your bitterness aside. Put your emotions aside. And evaluate the evidence.
I already responded to several of your posts to show you what Jesus did that was against the Torah. I showed you lies and distortions from the Sermon on the Mount. You did not respond, but perhaps you did not see it. The comment is here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/christianity-unmasked/#comment-29201
I showed you three false prophecies to which you also did not respond. That comment is here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29205
Allow me to clarify my position on the irrelevance of Jesus to Judaism. Please not that I did not say that Jesus is irrelevant to history. I did not even say that Jesus is irrelevant to Jews. In fact, the Jews of Europe were painfully aware of the relevance of Jesus to their lives, a relevance that manifested itself in a death toll that over centuries mounted into the millions, a relevance that revealed itself in enforced poverty and expulsions, a relevance that showed its hand in an attitude of contempt that still lives on.
Jesus is, however, irrelevant to Jewish worship. He barely enters the consciousness of Jews except perhaps as a perfunctory mention in history lessons at school. Most Orthodox Jews have never heard the word “trinity,” don’t know what a “gospel” is, or even know why Christians worship Jesus or why they believe he’s the messiah. They could not care less. Traditional Jews study the Torah and the Talmud and strive to serve God according to those texts, and Jesus is simply not in the picture. He really does have has much relevance to Judaism as Mohammed and Krishna. And so what if he was Jewish? So was Karl Marx. So was Shabbetai Zvi. So was Bar Kochba for that matter. So what?
Furthermore, Judaism is not concerned with the personhood of the messiah. You may have noticed that the Hebrew Bible doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about the messiah but rather the messianic expectation. We don’t care who he is but rather what he does. That is why the question of who is the messiah is also irrelevant.
Your attachment to Jesus is emotional and based on zero evidence. I still stand by that statement.
I challenge you to show me the evidence that is greater than zero.
Jesus failed all the messianic criteria including the simple one of genealogy.
One more thing. I did not miss your statement that you rejected trinitarianism. Making a man the focus of your religion is still idolatry. That focus belongs to God and God alone.
Dina,
Thank you for your response and for explaining, I do understand you better now.
Yes I did miss your posts. The “reply” stream is a bit confusing here, lol, but I’m getting it figured out. Thanks for linking to them for me, I will visit them when I get my work done and respond.
Dina,
I’ve responded to both the posts you linked to in the appropriate section following your linked posts.
I will try to pay closer attention and not miss posts in the future but please feel free to remind me if I missed anything, thanks.
Thank you Eleazar,
I will search out your blog.
In all honesty there is something to really consider;
Hashem did not allow the destruction of the Temple and Israel on a whim, weakness or lack of attention. Israel’s leadership had to of led the people along the wrong path. Why else would Hashem allow such a thing?
So when I’m asked to submit to to a religious leadership, I feel the correct thing to do is question. One question is did the G-d appointed Sanhedrin or Levites appoint the Rabbinical system? From where do they get their authority?
But that’s not the “BIG” question. I need to know exactly what Jesus did or said which qualifies him for 100% rejection. This DOES NOT include what others said about him or his teaching. Or things others did in his name. Sloppy scholarship will not fly here nor interpolation. Let’s keep it simple, clean and to the point.
He was a Rabbi. He taught Torah. He never said he was G-d. He taught Torah. He did not take take credit for his words but gave ALL credit to G-d. Did I mention he taught Torah? So exactly what did he do that was soooo wrong as to kill him and change his name to Yeshu?
Honestly, I’m listening
819,
According to Paul, because one cannot be righteous through observance of the law, one can only be counted righteous according to faith. His argument is riddled with holes. He misrepresents Tanach. He comes to unjustified conclusions. Almost anything he says about righteousness through the “deeds of the law” could just as easily be said about righteousness through faith. However, I only wish to address (for the sake of brevity) the answer that Torah gives to the question of how one achieves righteousness if he had previously not kept the law.
In quoting Deuteronomy 30, Paul misrepresents it, as I have pointed out earlier in this dialogue between you and me. He also skips over the very beginning, which is extremely relevant to this question. Moses tells the people that after they have experienced the blessings and the curses that if they will repent “and return to the Lord your God, with all your heart and soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you” (Deut. 30:1-5). First take not of what is missing, faith in the Messiah. In fact, though Paul tries to find it there, reading the chapter without his interjections and omissions, one sees that faith is not at all mentioned as the answer to sin. Restoration does not come through faith but by returning to the law, practicing God’s Torah. Contrary to the doctrine of Paul, God rewards obedience.
Ezekiel tells us the same. In 33:10, he has the people asking how they can live with the weight of their sin oppressing them, smothering them. And again, faith in the Messiah is nowhere to be found. God’s answer is much different than Pauls: “Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live: turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (v.11). And He says that if the wicked heed His voice and “turn from their sin and do what is lawful and right…they shall surely live, they shall not die” (Ez. 33:14-16). In a similar passage in Ezekiel 18, he says of those that repent of their wickedness: “None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live” (v. 22). Note that this righteousness is according to the deeds of the law, even for those who once were violators of that law.
This is the promise of God, and it is an act of faith to turn from one’s sin and return to HaShem’s Torah. As Ezekiel makes clear, one’s wrongdoing may weigh heavily on him, and he might think that God would never accept him as righteous again. What good would keeping the law then do? The promise of God is that one can become righteous. If he truly turns from his ways, God will count him as righteous. He will no longer hold against him the wickedness of the past. Trusting in this promise is faith in God.
Faithless Paul has denied this promise. He says that obeying the law justifies no one. The law, according to him, only reveals how wicked people are. It gives no recourse for becoming right with God. Paul disagrees with God. Again, the word of man, the word of Paul, is on one side and the Word of God is on the other. To whom shall we incline our ear? In whom shall we put our trust? I cannot deny the promise of God. He provided a remedy for the consequences of disobedience, a return to the law, a return to obedience. The law does not offer only death, but life as well. If one denies this, he denies the promise of God–just as Paul did.
Jim
Reminds me of the garden of Eden story. This time Paul is the snake. Did God indeed say, ‘They shall surely live, they shall not die?” VS. 4And the serpent said to the woman, “You will surely not die”.
CP,
The task that you have set for yourself is not an easy one and requires courage and steadfastness of purpose. You are to be commended for investigating whether or not one should be attached to Jesus. Such an investigation runs counter to the emotions. First, one must face his ego. None of us likes to consider seriously the possibility that we are wrong. Of course, because you have already revised your understanding of Jesus before, this will present less of a challenge to you than it would someone else. Second, one must face with the affection for the idea of the person to whom he is attached. Such attachment clouds one’s vision. Even if you become ever more convinced that Jesus is the Messiah—or rabbi and prophet—you will wish that belief to be grounded in reality rather than be induced by emotional prejudice. However your investigation goes, I wish you well in your endeavor to discover truth.
If you do not mind a little advice, I would heed the words of Dina if I were you. She is both wise and knowledgeable, and her words are not to be lightly dismissed. Her analogy to misplaced love is worthy of consideration. To often we believe something is good because we are attracted to it. Our emotions precede our understanding and pervert our judgment. It is proper to first discover what is good and true, and then attach our emotions to that object.
And I would read the words of R’ Blumenthal. I would if I were you—and still do myself—go back over his posts. Much can be learned from considering his words. His wisdom is deep, and I believe that one who does not merely read his words, but ingests them, will learn a new appreciation for Torah. I do not mean to accept them uncritically but to think them over, study them, and determine if they are true.
If you will permit me just a little more advice, compare their words to those of Matthew and those of John and see who is more trustworthy. You will find that R’ Blumenthal and Dina will take great care to fairly represent the NT. And you will find that they will take great pains to quote faithfully the Hebrew Scriptures, Tanach. Matthew will not be so careful. You will see that he misrepresents Isaiah. He misrepresents Hosea. He misrepresents the Psalms. He does not merely misrepresent; he rewrites. I submit to you that Matthew’s testimony is untrustworthy. If he was willing to misrepresent the holy words of the prophets, then he may just as easily misrepresent Jesus. You cannot trust his testimony. Nor can you trust that of John, who claimed that Jesus was divine.
I wish you well on your mission.
Jim
Thanks, Jim! 🙂
Thank you Jim,
Your first paragraph literally brought tears to my eyes, the eyes of a grown man. I appreciate your sincerity and kindness. And yes, I fully agree with you; this is more than just a intellectual struggle, emotions run deep as the message of Hashem came through Yeshua to me. I am currently reevaluating if I have any ‘misplaced affection’. This is not a easy thing to do. But I must stress, I am not looking to make a emotional decision on matters. Things must be proved according to Torah and then my emotions should follow.
This is exactly why I am interacting and with Dina, Yourself and R’ Blumenthal, not just rolling over. The only way I’ll know for sure is you all need to take me down in a fair fight (so to speak). I have to fight. I promise I will fight fair. Any cheating on my part will totally derail the reason I’m here. Test me that I may know what is true.
Again Jim, thank you for the kind words.
You have the wrong attitude, dude. This ain’t a fight. It’s a search for truth. You only fight if you are determined to believe what you believe no matter what you hear. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, don’t fight it.
God is the Father of all of us, and may He grant us all the clarity to do right by Him.
You’ve completely misread, misinterpreted and misunderstood my post. Why would you disregard an entire post saying just the opposite of what you make it out to be by cueing in on just one word not fully understanding the meaning behind it?
Perhaps it is a gender perspective which causes you to misunderstand the word “fight”.
Or perhaps you haven’t ever had to truly and I mean truly question everything you’ve learned and know about G-d. If you haven’t then you would know nothing of the fight and are ill equipped to understand what I’m going through. That is fine, I don’t need any coddling how words as your last post are counterproductive to BOTH of our goals and intentions.
No worries, all is good between us, I just thought it prudent to point that out.
CP,
You asserted a few days ago that Jesus was a rabbi because he taught Torah. Certainly, Jesus did say some things that were in line with Torah, at least according to the gospels. So did Joseph Smith, but no one would call him a rabbi—at least not that I have ever heard. But Jesus also taught deviations from Torah, and these things are troubling and not minor.
One of these items is his teaching on divorce. While the Torah does not laud divorce, it does allow it and not just for adultery. However, Jesus adds to the Torah by creating a greater prohibition than is in the Torah. In Matthew 5:32, he creates a new category of adultery, actually two new categories. In Jesus’ teaching, if a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery (presumably if she marries again). And if a man marries a divorced woman, he commits adultery. However, the Torah permits a divorcee’ to remarry, and it is clearly not adultery.
(A side note: Jesus taught that his yoke was light. However, it is clear from the extremity of his teachings that this is not true. His standard is stricter than that of the Torah, and is quite burdensome to many people. Many people stay trapped in horrible marriages, because Jesus forbade it, living miserable lives. And those that do get divorced and remarry carry to burdens of guilt. A marriage of twenty years, following a divorce, produces twenty years of guilty feelings, twenty years of feeling their sexual relations, not forbidden by Torah, are adulterous. His stricter standard also makes little sense in that he taught that Moses allowed divorce because of the hard-heartedness of the people. Yet Jesus came to ‘an adulterous generation’. The people of his time, then, were no better equipped to adhere to the stricter demand of Jesus’ code, but he inflicted it upon them anyway. This is not a lighter yoke.)
(Side note to the above side note: Moses did not invent the Torah. It was not his permission to the people that they could divorce. That permission was granted by God. Jesus is denying the divine origin of the Torah.)
Jesus does not just rewrite marriage, but the duties of a child to his parent. In Matthew8:21-22, a disciple wants to accompany Jesus; only he needs to bury his dead father first. Jesus tells him to let the dead bury the dead. The obligation to honor one’s parents is not unimportant. It is obedience to God, service to God. Jesus, who often aggrandized himself, placed following him above this precious, and sometimes difficult, duty of the Torah.
These are not the only two places in which Jesus’ teaching contradicts or violates Torah, but it is getting late. I will continue with other instances as I have time.
Jim
sir, you wrote before about healing on sabbath.
are you familiar with the words of geza vermes?
quote:
it’s well known that the Pharisees did not forbid healing on the Sabbath,
yet they are depicted as arguing this with Jesus repeatedly, when the arguments put in the mouth of Jesus are actually the same Rabbinical arguments used by the actual Pharisees themselves (e.g., see Geza Vermes’ discussion in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, pp. 46-47)
end quote
so do you think matthew was using a pharisee argument and putting it into the mouth of jesus or do you think pharisee forbade healing on that particular day
Mr. Heathcliff,
Being a ben Noach, the Sabbath is not my specialty. It is my understanding that healing on the Sabbath is not forbidden. I am sure you will recall that one of my criticisms of Jesus healing on the Sabbath was the making of a mixture, not the healing itself. Of course, that story if from John, and you were asking about Matthew. Matthew is a little more careful about having Jesus not break the Sabbath directly, if I recall correctly. The question of the healing is in part Matthew’s way of discrediting the Pharisees, and really the Jewish people in general.
The question of proper Sabbath observance in Matthew actually begins with the disciples breaking it by threshing grain to eat it because they are hungry. The Pharisees ask Jesus why he allows them to break the Sabbath, as you know. And then Jesus responds in a way that shows that he was no Torah scholar.
Jesus argues from the emergency situation of David, regarding the showbread. But the disciples are not in an emergency. They are not starving; their tummies are rumbling. Moreover, David had not planned to leave when he did. His situation arose suddenly. But one does plan for the Sabbath. At least he is supposed to do so. Yet, Jesus’ disciples were unprepared. Jesus’ comparison is a false equivalency. Then he appeals to the sacrifices in the temple, saying that the priests that render the sacrifices are not considered guilty, though they break the Sabbath. But, of course, they have not broken the Sabbath, and his disciples have. This argument is entirely empty, and any breaking of the Sabbath, including by the man collecting sticks, would be justified by this argument, which means it is clearly absurd. But the sacrifices in the temple do not, of course, break the Sabbath. Then Jesus quotes a wholly irrelevant passage: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” And he concludes by making a grandiose declaration that he is the lord of the Sabbath. (In fact, this seems to be a conclusion that follows from his arguments, but does not in any way.) It will offend Christians when I say this, and for that I apologize, but the last statement is megalomaniacal.
It is after this that Jesus performs the healing. According to Matthew, the Pharisees are hoping to trap Jesus. But this event is unlikely, because Torah does not forbid healing on the Sabbath. Moreover, if they wish to dissuade people from following Jesus, provoking him to perform healings is not a sound strategy. Perhaps they just had not thought of that. Matthew certainly wishes us to believe that the Pharisees are easily flummoxed. They are not terribly clever. And Jesus is supposed to be clever. So he will get out of their trap, this one and all the others.
But Matthew also wants to show that the Pharisees are petty. They are worried about small details like the threshing of the grain. This is supposed to be only a minor violation, hardly something with which to trouble oneself. But they do not care about human life. When they ask if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus asks if they would abandon their sheep in a pit on the Sabbath. Because a human being is more valuable than a sheep, one should also heal. Matthew wants to portray the Pharisees as straining at gnats while swallowing camels. That is the purpose of the healing in Matthew.
It is important for Matthew to discredit the Pharisees, because one of his purposes is to explain the Jewish rejection of Jesus and why it is a gentile movement. In Matthew, Jews are villains, largely, except for those few followers of Jesus. The Jews in general are rather wicked, but the non-Jew is noble.
At the beginning of the book, therefore, you have astrologers coming to pay their respects to Jesus. Through illicit means, the non-Jewish sage knows that the king of the Jews is born. But it is a surprise to the Jews, themselves. And the people of Jerusalem are distressed by the news. One could understand, of course, why Herod would be troubled. But Jerusalem is troubled with him. This presages the choice of Barabbas over Jesus later in the book.
And of course, at the end of his life, it is the Jews who persecute Jesus and the non-Jews who see his goodness and wish to deliver him. According to Matthew, you have the Jews running a kangaroo court to kill a man who was the epitome of goodness, walking about healing people. They have to manufacture evidence and cannot even do that properly. But Pilate is a noble and good man who is pressured by the Jews and must give in to their demands for Jesus’ blood. Even Pilate’s wife is having visions of Jesus and sending him messages about “that innocent man”. But while she pleads for his life, the Jews scream for his blood. The frenzied Jews cry out that they accept guilt for his death, not just for themselves but for their children. The contrast is stark.
Matthew also has to insert into Jesus’ mouth some words about preaching the gospel to all the nations, this too to explain why the non-Jewish world accepts him. It is unlikely Jesus ever said these words. And I do not say this just because they come after the resurrection, which I have shown to lack all credibility. It is unlikely because in Acts, it is clear that the disciples have no idea about carrying the gospel to the nations. Peter has to have a vision to show him that it is acceptable to teach gentiles. And then, they do not even know what it means for a gentile to join the movement. They were clearly unprepared for this. Moreover, Paul is the one who really started going to the gentiles, and that was because his teaching was rejected by the Jews. He starts preaching the gospel to the non-Jewish world. This is a problem for the early church, because one must ask why the Torah educated rejected their supposed Messiah, yet is was embraced by the Torah ignorant. So then, it all became part of the plan. Jesus wanted his disciples to go into all the world.
And this is the same reason the Jews must be made to look petty. The Torah knowledgeable Jew rejected Jesus. Matthew has to explain this. So the Jew must become the villain in his gospel. He has to show him rejecting goodness. He has to make them out to be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. What comes out, though, is that these men were not Torah scholars. They could not make sound arguments, so they had to appeal to the emotions. They needed good guys and bad guys. The Jews must be the bad guys. They do not even understand their own Torah. They are hypocrites and all the rest. This is the reason for the concern over healing on the Sabbath. Jesus will be the good guy restoring a withered arm, and the petty Jew will scheme to destroy him.
Jim
Thanks Jim,
To answer your queries;
CP,
“You asserted a few days ago that Jesus was a rabbi because he taught Torah. Certainly, Jesus did say some things that were in line with Torah, at least according to the gospels. So did Joseph Smith, but no one would call him a rabbi—at least not that I have ever heard. But Jesus also taught deviations from Torah, and these things are troubling and not minor.”
*First allow me to clear up this Joseph Smith thing. I’ve applied the same test to the Book of Mormon as I have the Christian testament and it wasn’t in isolation. Some Mormon missionaries came to my door, we talked, they offered to do a weekly Bible study at my home, I accepted. Three weeks in they gave me a Book of Mormon and asked me to read it and pray asking G-d to show me if it was true. I said yes and did so earnestly. The following week they asked if I had read, I replied yes, they asked if I had prayed and I replied yes, they asked what G-d had shown me. I showed them, they were speechless. They came back the following week with pages of hand written notes but no conclusion. I pointed out their notes supported what G-d had shown me. The following week they showed up accompanied by three gray haired gentlemen in their 60’s or 70’s, they listened to what God had shown me. The next week the missionaries came back to inform me they were no longer allowed to visit my house. I haven had another Mormon missionary come to my door in over 20 years.
“One of these items is his teaching on divorce. While the Torah does not laud divorce, it does allow it and not just for adultery. However, Jesus adds to the Torah by creating a greater prohibition than is in the Torah. In Matthew 5:32, he creates a new category of adultery, actually two new categories. In Jesus’ teaching, if a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery (presumably if she marries again). And if a man marries a divorced woman, he commits adultery. However, the Torah permits a divorcee’ to remarry, and it is clearly not adultery.”
*Yeshua explains it was Moses who relaxed this mitzvah because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not this way in the beginning. (And I would agree and think the Torah in Genesis does also)
“(A side note: Jesus taught that his yoke was light. However, it is clear from the extremity of his teachings that this is not true. His standard is stricter than that of the Torah, and is quite burdensome to many people. Many people stay trapped in horrible marriages, because Jesus forbade it, living miserable lives. And those that do get divorced and remarry carry to burdens of guilt. A marriage of twenty years, following a divorce, produces twenty years of guilty feelings, twenty years of feeling their sexual relations, not forbidden by Torah, are adulterous. His stricter standard also makes little sense in that he taught that Moses allowed divorce because of the hard-heartedness of the people. Yet Jesus came to ‘an adulterous generation’. The people of his time, then, were no better equipped to adhere to the stricter demand of Jesus’ code, but he inflicted it upon them anyway. This is not a lighter yoke.)”
*Yeshua’s teaching is lighter because it comes from the heart. For example, tell me which is easier: To stay faithful to your wife while lusting after other women, but not cheat because you know adultery is a mitzvah from G-d.
Or
Staying faithful to your wife because you love her and G-d, knowing lusting will lead you down the wrong path.
It is obvious to anyone who has ever dealt head on with sin which way is lighter!
“(Side note to the above side note: Moses did not invent the Torah. It was not his permission to the people that they could divorce. That permission was granted by God. Jesus is denying the divine origin of the Torah.)
* This is speculation not knowing what transpired between G-d and Moses. Genesis clearly teaches ideally a man and women should not separate. Yeshua taught it as he saw it.
“Jesus does not just rewrite marriage, but the duties of a child to his parent. In Matthew8:21-22, a disciple wants to accompany Jesus; only he needs to bury his dead father first. Jesus tells him to let the dead bury the dead. The obligation to honor one’s parents is not unimportant. It is obedience to God, service to God. Jesus, who often aggrandized himself, placed following him above this precious, and sometimes difficult, duty of the Torah.
* This is a hebrewism for sticking around waiting for your parents to die before going any where. It was being used as a excuse, the legal wrangling of the law to justify ones own desires and actions. Let’s say a individual left his parents to join a yeshiva or perhaps back in the day dedicate themselves to the Temple, would you apply the same judgement to them as you do to those who left home to study under Rabbi Yeshua?
These are not the only two places in which Jesus’ teaching contradicts or violates Torah, but it is getting late. I will continue with other instances as I have time.
CP, where in Genesis does the Torah command a husband and wife to never divorce?
Furthermore, the example Jim gave of burying the parents is one in which the parents are already dead.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
CP
I suppose that when the abused wife with children that also may be abused, just have a hardness of heart when she wants a divorce. Yep, it’s probably her fault. That’s sic.
“Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
God was telling us why marriage and male/female relations exist, not that people should never divorce. That interpretation maintains the unity of scripture. Jesus’ explanation divides the scripture and creates a “trichotomy” of authority between God, Moses and himself…putting himself in the place and authority of God.
Honesty, CP, where in this verse do you see a commandment to never get divorced? It sounds like a commandment to get married. There is a difference, you know.
CP,
I am alarmed that you believe it to be speculation that Moses did not amend the Torah, because we were not privy to their meetings. With such a statement, you deny the whole of Torah!
Can you tell us what other emendations Moses made to the Torah? Can you tell us when he faithfully transmitted the teaching of God, or when instead he passed on his own ideas? Surely you know the purpose of the Sinai revelation: the mass revelation was performed so that the people would know they could trust Moses as a prophet (See Ex. 19). If Moses had the temerity to alter God’s law, he would have been removed. He would have to be, or we would always be left speculating if we were obeying God or following Moses.
Please understand that the speculation is yours and not mine. The Torah says nothing about Moses granting a leniency. Therefore, you have had to speculate that this is what has happened. That speculation is based on the teachings of a man over 1,000 years after the giving of the Torah. You have interpolated what is not in the text. This is speculation.
Of course, no one denies that it is ideal for people not to separate. No one is saying that divorce is ideal. But that is not the question. The question is whether or not God permitted divorce. And He did.
Actually, the question is much larger. It is prohibited to add or subtract from the Torah. And that is what Jesus has done. He has created a prohibition not found in the Torah. And worse, he created a new category of adultery.
The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. The Torah takes adultery quite seriously. It is a crime that carries the death penalty. By Jesus altering the law, he is making people liable to the death penalty for a practice previously allowed. Jesus has created a new category of a capital crime.
On a related note, you should question Jesus’ reasoning. He bases his argument on Genesis 2. But note how selectively he uses it. His disciples recognize that his stringency regarding divorce is difficult, and they say that it is better that one should not marry. Jesus affirms their conclusion, though acknowledging that not everyone can follow the teaching. But then one must ask, does not Genesis 2 teach that man should not be alone? Genesis 1 teaches that God made humanity to be male and female. If Jesus were consistent, he would teach that a man is not wholly complete until he has married. But Jesus is not consistent. And he has not thought through these matters very well.
I hope you can forgive my tone. It may seem a little harsh, but these are weighty matters and I do not wish the truth to be lost in the name of niceness.
Jim
Moses was in the desert with G-d and changing circumstances for 40 years. Even the stone tablets were written twice! Did any except two who left Egypt enter the promised land? Do you think that was G-d’s original plan?
Yeshua never said Torah has been changed. He reads Torah like you or I would and gives his teaching on it. This is clear in what you quoted : if anyone can accept this TEACHING”.
Is Yeshua not allowed his own Mishnah or Gemara on the written Torah?
CP,
No, Jesus is not allowed his own Mishnah. I do not know why you would think that he should, could, or would be allowed his own Mishnah.
In any case, you have not addressed the main issue in any way. Jesus created a new definition of divorce (and marriage as well). He altered the Torah. He forbade what was permitted. Moreover, by attributing the law to Moses, he denied its true origin. This makes it seem like he is only rewriting Moses, a man. But he is actually rewriting God.
Jim
glarryb,
What is sick is choosing to ignore more of Hashem’s instructions to manipulate circumstances to offset the consequences of previous sin rather than choosing repentance in which are found mercy, grace, forgiveness and second chances, and sometimes a fresh start.
CP, that is really sick. I can’t believe the callousness and cold-heartedness in that statement. I challenge you to find a woman whose husband is an alcoholic who beats her regularly and who beats their children. Not only that, he also sexually abuses them. You know, these people do exist. Then I challenge you to tell this to her face. Tell her she has to forgive him and stick with him and give him second chances. Tell her it was her previous sins that got her into this mess. Let’s see you be so “loving and compassionate!”
I truly hope I misunderstood what you wrote. Please set the record straight because I can’t believe you would be that cruel.
Xtians fail to understand or some even realize that Torah was given by G-d, each and every word. Evidently many think Moshe just came up with all this on his own. Since it was “given” by Hashem any alterations are moot.
Yes, you misunderstood. We all can pull out our little true stories about abusing spouses who stick through it with happy fairy tale endings and spouses that stick through it which end in murder. Stories of those who divorce to only repeat the same mistakes again and again and those who divorce and remarry happily for life.
It doesn’t change the fact that sin is sin and Hashem is merciful!
Sharbano,
I don’t know what Christians fail to understand or realize. I do know the Torah was given by G-d, however “each and every word”, I doubt it. There are texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which testify to a proto-Masoretic Text(s) It is common knowledge there has been a redaction.
Don’t take my word for it, look it up.
Do I believe Torah is the Word of Hashem? YES! But I will say it is more important to know Hashem that to know Torah. Obviously it’s pure synergy to know both!
CP,
Continuing to consider Jesus as a teacher of Torah:
One of the ten statements and a commandment unique to the Jewish people is the commandment to keep the Sabbath. Through the Sabbath, the Jew testifies that God creates the world. Moreover, it is a sign between God and the Jewish people. It is holy. One cannot exaggerate its importance to the Jewish people, I think. Yet Jesus, did not instruct his disciples to keep it and even broke it himself, uselessly even.
In Matthew 12:1-8, one reads that Jesus’ disciples were hungry as they passed with him through some grainfields. So they plucked some grain and ate. Luke mentions in his version that they threshed the grain between their hands, which would be prohibited on the Sabbath. “The Pharisees” saw it, and they asked Jesus why he allowed the disciples to break the Sabbath. Jesus’ response to them is bizarre.
Before analyzing what Jesus does say, it is important to note what he does not say. Jesus does not dispute that the threshing of the grain breaks the Sabbath. This is not what is in dispute. He accepts that the disciples are breaking the Sabbath, but he is going to try to justify breaking the Sabbath by appealing to related—or not—cases.
It is here that one can see that Jesus is not a rabbi, and he has no head for Torah. His first argument is wholly irrelevant. He compares the disciples threshing grain on the Sabbath to Jesus taking the showbread when he and his men were hungry. Jesus is making a tenuous connection between the disciples and David’s men through hunger. However, the cases are wholly dissimilar. David was in an emergency situation. He was fleeing for his life from the maddened King Saul. The disciples of Jesus are not in dire straits. They are not starving. There is no emergency. They are just being careless of the Sabbath.
(Others can speak more to the overall situation of David and why Jesus is wrong about it being unlawful for him to eat the bread, as well. Perhaps Dina or Sharbano can speak to this, if they have the time.)
The next case to which Jesus appeals is the sacrifices in the temple. He says that the priests break the Sabbath but are considered guiltless. This is nonsense. Those sacrifices are prescribed by the Torah, i.e. they do not violate the Sabbath. Jesus’ argument is particularly absurd, inasmuch as any violation of the Sabbath would be justified this way. The man gathering sticks, who was killed for his violation of the Sabbath, would have been able to make the same case, if only he had thought of it. In fact, Jesus is making every prohibition of the Sabbath valid in his judgment. The argument is specious.
But his poor justification of his disciples’ bad behavior is made worse by his self-aggrandizing statements. Jesus, in effect, says that the law does not apply to him. Disturbingly, he proclaims himself to be the lord of the Sabbath. Such a statement should make one feel extremely uncomfortable. Imagine if I had said such a thing. You would think that the cheese had slipped from my cracker. You would, hopefully, not be signing up for my seminar on spirituality. Jesus has worked himself into quite a frenzy by this point.
It is bad enough that Jesus does not understand the term, “the Son of Man,” and so misapplies it to himself. (In Daniel 7, the likely source of Jesus’ ‘title’ the one like a son of man is Israel.) But now he invents a new title, lord of the Sabbath. This title appears nowhere in Tanach.
And Jesus’ disrespect of the Torah is not restricted to this incident. While Christians have a hard time understanding the problem with John 9 and the healing of the blind man, Jesus makes a serious breach of the Sabbath. Here the severity of the crime will not be the enormity of the act but the meaning of it, the vanity of it.
Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath. But before doing so, Jesus makes a mixture of dirt and spat that he smears on the eyes of the blind man. Here the problem is not the healing. It is the mixture, the making of which violates the Sabbath. It must be understood that the mixture is wholly unnecessary. Jesus has healed many people. They can just touch him and his power flows into them, even. And of course, it is not a property of mud to restore sight. If Jesus wished to heal the blind man, he could have just done it.
But he made a deliberate choice to violate the Sabbath. He made an entirely useless mixture. Such an act is a pure act of rebellion. This is what makes the action so horrifying. If making the mixture produced some good, one might be able to find some justification for it. But the mixture does nothing. Jesus made it only to break the Sabbath.
These are not the acts of a Torah scholar. His arguments show him to not understand Torah well. His actions show that he did not respect Torah. His grandiose statements are disturbing. It would be a dangerous thing to learn Torah from such a man.
Be well,
Jim
P.S. A few months back, I compared Jesus’ defense of the disciples’ breaking of the Sabbath to a man being pulled over for speeding, which might clarify my argument. You can find that here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/the-speeder-commentary-to-matthew-12/
Jim,
First the obvious; the accusation may of been technically correct however it was a bogus nit picking accusation. I grew up in the country and live there still, I’ve harvested barely. Picking a hand full of barely to eat, rubbing it to knock the beard off can hardly be considered threshing barely on the Sabbath. In your parable you linked to it would of been more accurate to have the driver doing 35 1/2 mph in a posted 35 mph mile zone. However to those who unscrew the light bulb in the refrigerator I suppose it makes perfect sense.
One would expect a teaching on what constitutes “work”. However, to my surprise Yeshua comes at this from a unexpected angle. At first the two examples given seem unrelated until one sees it was “who” David was and the “position” the priests . These are the common thread in the examples. This is summed up nicely in the last statement “lord of the Sabbath”.
Basically you’ve some religious leaders nit picking the law and Yeshua points out exactly who they are nit picking with. In other words, if they knew he was Messiah (son of Joseph for your clarity) they wouldn’t be making this lame accusation.
Yes Yeshua was a Rabbi, but just not any Rabbi.
Yes, CP, that is the standard Christian response to Jesus’s failings: “He was not Christ because he was right, he was right because he was Christ.” The same circular rationalization is applied to assaulting sellers in the temple, accusing people, calling Gentiles “dogs” and Jewish clergy “venomous snakes”. In other words, the same words, actions and motivations would be sinful rebellion for anyone else, but because he was “Christ”, and “God”, then he was above the law.
The leaders were not “nitpicking the law”. They were holding Jesus and his followers to the same standard as everyone else. Remember, Jesus himself said, “Listen to the Pharisees and do as they, because they sit in Moses’ seat”. This apparently applied to everyone but him.
That is why the Jesus narrative HAD to evolve over time. The more Christians were held to account for Jesus’s insolent actions and words, the more divine authority Jesus had to be given to justify those actions. By the time we get to this issue, Jesus HAS to be a deity of some kind, otherwise his excuses do not work, since they would NEVER be accepted coming from a normal person. You just made that case for him. So you came to this forum saying you did not believe in Jesus’ deity, but now you are applying that deified authority to defend his actions and words.
You’ve come full circle here, CP. Maybe you need to go back to a nice Christian forum, so you can take the counterpoint there and be reminded of why you questioned your Christian beliefs in the first place.
Clearly you, nor your “rabbi” understand the 39 Melachot. A Real Rabbi doesn’t use straw man arguments to further his case, as when he says “You’ve heard it said”. Without doubt, when a man uses the argument regarding “eye for an eye” he has shown he is incapable of even reading a text and understanding the contextual reference.
This man says of the Pharisees to do ALL they tell you, Yet when he is confronted on this he follows with a specious argument. His teachings have NO merit whatsoever. You CANNOT follow a majority of “One”.
CP, nobody is above the law and nobody has the authority to change it or to thumb his nose at Sabbath observance. The fact that Jesus did that because he thought he could (i.e., because he thought he was the messiah) automatically disqualifies him from being a Jewish leader of any sort. That is why his movement did not survive as a Jewish one.
Jim,
2nd Paragraph,
Paul states that the 2nd covenant doesn’t proceed the 1st covenant. Obviously, God did not need to teach Abraham the Law to attain righteousness. But, gave a covenant of Promise because of his faith.
> 1st Covenant of Faith, Righteousness, and Promise
> 2nd Covenant Rules and Laws to abide by. But if you don’t (Like Adam), you are to be cut off.
“Restoration does not come through faith but by returning to the law, practicing God’s Torah. Contrary to the doctrine of Paul, God rewards obedience.”
3rd Paragraph-
Yes (if) you do (obey, repent, and deeds)-is contingent on doing something. But being told to do something without restriction like Abraham- is righteousness. Faith in God is righteousness .
“Note that this righteousness is according to the deeds of the law, even for those who once were violators of that law.”-
4th Paragraph-
The Promise was given to Abraham by Faith in what in he did. Blessing
The Law also brought curses which represents Present Day Israel.
5th Paragraph
If the Law justified Israel- why then did God say the Law was broken?
-Jeremiah 11:10
Both Israel and Judah have broken the covenant I made with their ancestors.-
-Remember Esekiel 14:14
Even though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord GOD.
-Apparently, Something went wrong????
Yes, the Law has justified no one. Otherwise God would have never spoken of another Covenant-
A law written on your heart. Is not the LAW given to Moses.
Paul, also states- the 1 who follows the Law will live by them. Blessing and Curses.
But with no Law no Wrath. No curses.
God desires Mercy and not Sacrifice. The acknowledgment of God.
Isaiah 53:11
..” Did justify the Righteous One to the many, And their iniquities he did bear”
The Righteous 1, bear (Sins,Curses) to JUSTIFY MANY.
Yeshua is the (Rejected) Jewish (Stone)
“The law does not offer only death, but life as well. If one denies this, he denies the promise of God–just as Paul did.”
Paul lived Like Abraham. According to a Promise. Which is not contingent by a righteousness attained by himself but was already attained but by God himself-
We maintain we have no righteousness but God gave it to us by faith in Christ.
819,
I shall keep my comments brief, because you have not really answered what I wrote. You have recapitulated disproven points, but fervent insistence upon a point is not proof. Nor is argument comprised of rhetorical questions, the answers of which are to be assumed. You have yet to establish that righteousness comes only through faith, while I have shown that it comes through obedience to the law.
In fact, verses that you quote prove my argument and disprove the folly of Paul. When you quote Ez. 14:14, you fail to notice that the three men mentioned would be saved by their righteousness. Only, because of the problems of that generation, their righteousness would not be enough to save the whole generation. One certainly cannot take from this that one is not righteous through obedience to the law. The verse clearly belies that notion.
I am amazed that you continue to ask rhetorical questions that you think imply what they clearly do not. Because someone breaks a covenant does not mean that they could not have kept it. This is like someone flipping a coin and assuming because it comes up heads, tails was not a possibility. Your argument—forgive me, I know it is not yours—is empty.
In your brief comments, you have not yet addressed even the first point. Paul misrepresented Deut. 30. This point you have not addressed. You have only recapitulated his arguments, as if they will become true through your affirmation. That Paul’s argument had to be based on misrepresentations is telling. That you have failed to address his misrepresentations shows the weakness of his argument. By avoiding it, you make an eloquent argument against Paul and his theology.
Jim
Eleazar,
Thank you for responding. If I may….
Eleazar : Yes, CP, that is the standard Christian response to Jesus’s failings: “He was not Christ because he was right, he was right because he was Christ.” The same circular rationalization is applied to assaulting sellers in the temple, accusing people, calling Gentiles “dogs” and Jewish clergy “venomous snakes”. In other words, the same words, actions and motivations would be sinful rebellion for anyone else, but because he was “Christ”, and “God”, then he was above the law.
>>>CP: With the utmost respect and reverence; one needs to come to grips with the destruction of the Temple, Israel and first century Judaism. Would it be ludicrous to think Hashem let this happen on a whim, this is a serious event, wouldn’t you agree? According to Torah shouldn’t one expect Hashem to provide a prophet spewing similar verbiage as Jeremiah, Ezekial, Hosea and Isaiah to appear on the scene just prior to such devastating destruction. Just as Ezekiel laid on his side for a number of days, did not Yeshua accurately prefigure in his own flesh at the hands of the Romans the same fate Israel was to endure at the hand of the Romans? Yeshua paid with his life as did the other prophets to give Israel a most important message. Has not Hashem’s only son risen from the dead 2000 years later. Look! Israel is alive!
But I digress.
Judge fairly. Judge Yeshua by the same standard as you would judge the earlier prophets fiery words.
Eleazar: The leaders were not “nitpicking the law”. They were holding Jesus and his followers to the same standard as everyone else. Remember, Jesus himself said, “Listen to the Pharisees and do as they, because they sit in Moses’ seat”. This apparently applied to everyone but him.
>>>CP: I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it to be a honest mistake that you posted mistranslation.
Mattityahu 23
“….Upon the Kisei Moshe (Chair of Moses) sit the Sofrim and the Perushim.
Therefore, everything whatever they may tell you, be frum and be shomer, but according to their ma’asim (works) do not be shomer, for they do not practice what they preach.”
“……The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them”
Don’t WE see this kind of thing even today among “religious leaders of many faiths”?
Eleazar: That is why the Jesus narrative HAD to evolve over time. The more Christians were held to account for Jesus’s insolent actions and words, the more divine authority Jesus had to be given to justify those actions. By the time we get to this issue, Jesus HAS to be a deity of some kind, otherwise his excuses do not work, since they would NEVER be accepted coming from a normal person. You just made that case for him. So you came to this forum saying you did not believe in Jesus’ deity, but now you are applying that deified authority to defend his actions and words.
>>>CP I think you may be confusing the words “Deity” and “divinity”? >!There is Only One Diety!< A entity does NOT to be Diety to hold authority over men.
Exdous 23
"Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression"
Elezar: You’ve come full circle here, CP. Maybe you need to go back to a nice Christian forum, so you can take the counterpoint there and be reminded of why you questioned your Christian beliefs in the first place.
CP, Christians call me a Jew and the Jew calls me a Christian. I suppose such things are to be expected when searching the secret things of Hashem beyond the confines of mankind's orthodoxies.
Shalom
Yes, it was a typing error.
““……The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them”
Don’t WE see this kind of thing even today among “religious leaders of many faiths”?”
So did you ignore my point of purpose? Yes, we see hypocrisy, but Jesus hypocrisy was so bad that he made no attempt to fulfill his own words: “therefore all that they tell you, do and observe”. The point is that Jesus told this to others, but ignored for himself. He put himself above the law, which is okay for Christians because they believe he had the authority to ignore the law in favor of his own wisdom, being the originator of the law.
” Christians call me a Jew and the Jew calls me a Christian. I suppose such things are to be expected when searching the secret things of Hashem beyond the confines of mankind’s orthodoxies.”
No sir, such things are to be expected when you make it a point to be contrary to whomever you are discussing these things with. I know many people like that; some even on this forum. As for the second part of your statement, it is very arrogant to assume that the Jewish sages never searched the “secret things of HaShem”. They have a 3500 year head start on you. In the end the choices you will make will be based on simple things, not “hidden things”:
1- Did all of Jesus’ predictions come true AS STATED? No.
2- Was he perfect and sinless as Christians claim him to be? No.
3- Do the events that transpired associated with Messiah/Messianic bear any resemblance to the world during or after Jesus? No, even though Hebrews 8:8-10 says it would/does.
4- MOST IMPORTANTLY- Does Christianity “work”? Does it deliver on its promises in a way that is experienced by any number of believers? When you become a believer is Jesus, do you become perfect to the point of not needing a sacrifice, as per Hebrews? Then entire supposed purpose of Jesus and the gospel is found in the book of Hebrews, and this either happened or it didn’t. Read Hebrew 8 and Hebrews 10. Sobering. Reality proves that Christianity is a Hollow Inheritance.
Comparing obscure sayings, mistranslating and twisting otherwise simple texts will not bring you to truth, but to cognitive dissonance.
CP, you wrote,”Judge fairly. Judge Yeshua by the same standard as you would judge the earlier prophets fiery words.”
Consider this. The same people that accepted the fiery words of the Hebrew prophets into the canon of Hebrew Scripture rejected Jesus.
If you accept their testimony regarding those prophets you ought to be consistent and accept it regarding Jesus.
Sharbano,
A gift for you:
A New Proposal Matthew 23:2-3 as translated from Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew text:
“Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and Sages sit, and now, all which HE (Moses) will sayVII unto you-keep and do; but THEIR ordinances and deeds do not do, because THEY say and do not.”
The Hebrew of Shem Tob’s Matthew allows for a clear distinction to be made between what HE (Moses) says and what THEY (the religious leaders) say. While admitting that the Pharisees and Sages “sit upon Moses’ seat,” the Hebrew of Shem Tob’s Matthew does not demand that the “people and his disciples” do and keep what THEY say. Rather by using the singular –“He will say,” his hearers are directed to keep and do whatever Moses says unto them, but NOT to do according to the ordinances and deeds of the religious leaders. This proposed solution, based upon a variant reading found within Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew text fits within the interpretive framework of Matthew as a whole, and it provides a sensible solution to the apparent contradictions which the Greek texts present to scholars.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/nichols357923.shtml
There is No Hebrew text of Matthew. It is nothing but a con job.
Careful brother, you are on a slippery slope ; )
A con job compared to what? Do you accept the Greek testament as accurate? I suspect you would call it a con job also. So then your post about contradictions in a con job Greek text would not accurately represent the true historical Yeshua.
To show my hand; I do not believe the Greek Testament text is pure as the driven snow. What I do, (and I’m not advocating this to anyone, but it is what I do) is use the Torah, Prophets and Writings as a standard of textual criticism applying it to the Greek Testament. Quite simply most of what falls away rightly falls away, that which stands, rightly stands. Yet there remains a portion which neither falls or stands, the very reason we are blessed with each others company on this forum.
Do I see enough evidence Messiah son of David has not accomplished all? YES!
Do I think Yeshua was some kind of prophet/rabbi/Messiah son of Yoseph sent just prior to the destruction of Israel for 2000 years? YES!
I’m here because I value the content of the discussion here. I cannot demand others be intellectually honest, all I can do is do my best to be intellectually honest so that clear vision will not be impaired.
Xtians like to “claim” they have a complete contemporary bible but that is hardly a case. Much was written a generation and more later. We also cannot discount the many variations of the same texts. There is simply no way to actually know what is authentic and what is not. Who would want to trust their soul to such ambiguity.
It’s a con job the son of a con job :).
Sharbano & Dina,
I’ll be the very first to admit early Christians were very clumsy with the their texts.
Yet you act as if the Torah had never seen a redaction? Nor are you aware of the sources which testify to a proto-Masoretic text?
I’ll say no more.
There’s no “acting” as if Torah never seen a redaction. It hasn’t. The rules of writing a Sefer Torah are numerous.
CP, again you assume too quickly the ignorance of your interlocutors. Yes, I am aware of proto-Masoretic texts that pre-date the period of the Masoretes. The variations were written by non-traditional sects of Jews (like the Essenes and the Sadducees). We know we have the original because of what Sharbano said, the numerous rules and laws for copying a scroll. Furthermore, we have God’s promises in Isaiah 59:21, Isaiah 43:10, and Psalm 78.
If we don’t have an authoritative text, the whole thing is a joke. It might be instructive to reflect on the fact that the only strain of Judaism that survives each generation is Pharisaic Judaism, the hated Judaism of Christian scripture (today called Orthodox Judaism). Every other sect fell to the wayside, and we see this happening with the other branches of Judaism with their 80% assimilation rate as opposed to the 3% rate for Orthodoxy.
This, despite enormous pressure to cave.
God has a way of keeping His promises.
Dina,
Sigh,…No one said we don’t have a authoritative Text, what was said is there was a redaction at the beginning of the Masoretic tradition. This doesn’t mean G-d is not faithful or keep His promises or the current Text is corrupted leading people astray.
Okay, CP, thanks for clarifying.
So now you are down to searching for a [ very poor] mistranslation to back you up? Great, that is why all those new hundreds of [mis]translations are out there! Be sure to grab the pro-LGBT and “egalitarian” translations too!
On top of that, you are now accusing the 1st century Orthodox Jews of having a different law than what God gave through Moses. …all to defend a false prophet whom a world religion considers a god-man. Wow.
Again, you are revealing that you did not come here with the purpose of learning ANYTHING, but to try to defend your private version of Christianity. BTW, every Christian here has their own version of Christianity. Not sure when I have even seen someone come here who is a normal Evangelical or Catholic.
Eleazar,
Peace,
Your accusation is incorrect. I use the most literally accurate translations I can find, even these have proven insufficient, so I’ve started taking Hebrew classes at my synagogue.
Have you ever thought why you see no “normal Evangelicals or Catholics”? Because they feel warm and secure bundled up in their orthodoxy. They have no interest in the Truth, their interest lies in being warm and secure. I’m not here or anywhere trying coax people out of their fuzzy warm bed on a cold morning. I’m walking from bed to bed enduring the cold to learn from those who have it all figured out. I’m not going to jump in bed with just anyone. I’ve slept with the Catholic Church, with the Charismatic Movement with the Evangelical Church, with the Grace Movement, the Messanic/Hebrew Roots Movement and currently it is the Ruach Hakodesh and me diligently searching the Scriptures, Judaism and History. So please forgive me if I don’t seem anxious to jump in bed with you, it’s nothing personal, I just want the real thing.
Right, change things around so they make more sense. Sure.
By the time I arrived things already had been changed around by others, I’m just trying to change them back.
You’re trying to change them back? Ha! What, your “ruach hakodesh” tells you what the original said?
It’s all guesswork, my friend, with the guesses friendliest to your position winning out.
Dina,
You don’t live your life by Torah?
You don’t apply Torah to situations in your life so as to choose the right and reject the wrong?
So why can I not apply Torah to the Greek Testament to know the truth and reject the wrong?
CP, you are very slippery.
Wait a minute. We were talking about something else. You said you use the Torah to decide which parts of Christian scripture are true. You also said or at least implied that you know what you know thanks to the guidance of the holy spirit.
I challenged this by saying that you can then conveniently decide which parts of Christian scripture to accept and reject based on what fits comfortably with your theology. I also poked fun at the notion that you should accept as truth what your holy spirit tells you because of the great convenience of what it happens to tell you.
You can study Torah to find out what God wants from you. You cannot use Torah to check which statements Jesus said and which he didn’t say. It would be like using the Torah to find out which parts of Little House on the Prairie happened and which didn’t.
It’s a whole different matter to live your life according to the Torah than to cynically abuse it to decide which parts of Christian scripture are true. You deflected by asking me an irrelevant question.
It’s also a whole different matter to humbly ask God for guidance and clarity than to arrogantly claim that you know what you know through the holy spirit. Again, you deflected by asking me an irrelevant question.
I can’t have a fair debate with someone who plays tricks. I respectfully ask that you talk to me straight. Ultimately, whether we have a productive conversation is up to you and how honest you can be with yourself and with those you talk to.
Hashem gave Torah so we would know the truth and reject the wrong.
Dina, do you use Torah in your everyday life situations to know the truth and reject the wrong?
So why would you fault me for applying Torah to the Greek Testament to know the truth and reject the wrong?
You think it wrong to ask Hashem to give His Spirit to led one into all truth?
CP, you are very slippery.
> if this means you are having a difficult time categorizing, stereotyping, or finding a box for me to snugly fit in, you’d be right. From what I’ve read of your posts, you favor a broad brush unfortunately for you a broad brush is not the appropriate brush for all tasks, sometimes a small narrow brush is needed when one desires precision.
Wait a minute. We were talking about something else. You said you use the Torah to decide which parts of Christian scripture are true. You also said or at least implied that you know what you know thanks to the guidance of the holy spirit.
> Yes, you are correct.
I challenged this by saying that you can then conveniently decide which parts of Christian scripture to accept and reject based on what fits comfortably with your theology. I also poked fun at the notion that you should accept as truth what your holy spirit tells you because of the great convenience of what it happens to tell you.
>No, one can NOT “conveniently decide” when they’re using a ‘standard’ in this case the standard is Torah. From your posts I assumed you were an educated woman. Do you know what it means to use a ‘standard’?
You can study Torah to find out what God wants from you. You cannot use Torah to check which statements Jesus said and which he didn’t say. It would be like using the Torah to find out which parts of Little House on the Prairie happened and which didn’t.
> You are clearly not grasping what is being said. Allow me to explain; if you start with the premise Yeshua taught Torah correctly then whatever is anti-Torah is to be expunged. One can also compare variant readings of said passages looking for an explanation for the contradiction. There are other aspects of textual crictism to length to go into here, but I hope this explains it for you.
It’s a whole different matter to live your life according to the Torah than to cynically abuse it to decide which parts of Christian scripture are true. You deflected by asking me an irrelevant question.
In Jewish style the question is meant for you to make associations on your own, rather than me just telling you. The question is far from irrelevant as Torah IS used in ALL aspects of life dividing the good from the evil. Using Torah to judge a text with a plethora of quotes from it and which claims to be a continuation of it is far from cynical, in fact it is the wisest thing to do. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-d, then why not use His words to judge another text which claims to be His words?
It’s also a whole different matter to humbly ask God for guidance and clarity than to arrogantly claim that you know what you know through the holy spirit. Again, you deflected by asking me an irrelevant question.
>It’s funny, I claim to depend on G-d for wisdom and you call it arrogance. You claim to depend on God for wisdom and call it humility!
I can’t have a fair debate with someone who plays tricks. I respectfully ask that you talk to me straight. Ultimately, whether we have a productive conversation is up to you and how honest you can be with yourself and with those you talk to.
>You asked for me to talk to you straight. Here it is: You see “tricks” because you refuse to take things apart, identify the parts, leave them, repair them or trash them. If it doesn’t work for you you throw the whole thing out. In other words the reason you see “tricks” is is because you don’t dig deep enough.
Perhaps when you decide to dig deeper, we can have some fun, happy, loving and education for both of us discussions. (Or as you prefer “debates”)
CP, it’s telling that you respond to what you see as offense with insults rather than answering my challenges. I believe I have responded to all your challenges and you ignored my responses or blithely dismissed them although I back up everything I say with Scriptural citations and/or concrete examples. I will leave it to the audience to decide who’s being fair and honest in evaluating and responding to challenges.
Here’s a review of the challenges you have yet to respond to:
1. You wrote that it’s impossible that Hashem would destroy the Third Temple without warning us first. I pointed out that warnings are plastered all over the Torah (see for example Deuteronomy 28:52-53, 58, 63-64. You did not respond.
2. I challenged you on Deuteronomy 4, 13, and 30 as well as Ezekiel 18, 33, and 37:15-28 and their implications for your theology. You did not respond.
3. You presented the hugeness of the Christian movement to show that this must be right. I pointed out that Islam is also huge. You did not respond.
4. I challenged you that proselytizing is a violation of the rule of love (what is hateful to you do not do to others). You did not respond.
5. I challenged you on a number of items in this comment, to which you did not respond:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29299
6. I challenged you on how to identify God’s true witnesses. You did not respond.
7. I challenged you on your bizarre interpretation of Genesis 2:24. You did not respond.
8. I challenged you on the cruelty inherent in forcing a woman to stay chained to an abuser. You did not respond.
9. I challenged you that nobody is above the law, including Jesus who thumbed his nose at Sabbath observance. You did not respond.
10. I challenged you on the inconsistency of accepting the testimony of the Jewish people regarding the Hebrew prophets and rejecting it regarding Jesus. You did not respond.
11. I challenged you on the idea that our text is accurate based on Isaiah 59:21, Isaiah 43:10, and Psalm 78 as well as the survival of only one sect of Judaism throughout history. You did not respond.
That’s just for starters. Now, maybe you missed all of these and others I haven’t mentioned, and also it isn’t fair to expect you to respond to all my numerous comments. (I notice that you never miss a criticism of your method.) Be that as it may. You can find my posts by putting “Dina says” in the find tool.
Now I will respond to your current comment.
You cannot use Torah to decide what Jesus said or didn’t say because you simply can’t know. Why do you start with the premise that he wasn’t anti-Torah? And even in that case, why then defend all his anti-Torah comments, something you have done freely on this forum? The only person who can take such an argument seriously is someone who starts with belief in Jesus and then looks for proof to support that belief–then anything that doesn’t support that belief is rejected. Perhaps you can’t see this as circular and, indeed, convenient, because you are emotionally attached to this idea–I don’t know, and it’s not my job to psychoanalyze you. But it’s pretty clear. I challenge the audience to chime in. What do you all think? Is this an intellectually honest and academically sound method to determine truth?
We study the Torah to understand what Hashem wants from us. We have never used the Torah in the manner in which you use it: to figure out which parts of a text sacred to another religion is acceptable. The religious texts of other religions are not Torah. Ergo, they are irrelevant (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Did Jesus say some things that are not anti-Torah? Yes, but so what? We don’t need him to tell us what’s in the Torah because we can read it for ourselves. Jesus is completely irrelevant. Judaism has survived and continues to survive without his help, indeed I would say in spite of him, for no human being on the planet has been the single greatest cause of Jewish death and suffering as he.
A rabbi once said about the New Testament that everything that’s true isn’t new and everything that’s new isn’t true.
You wrote: “It’s funny, I claim to depend on G-d for wisdom and you call it arrogance. You claim to depend on God for wisdom and call it humility!”
First, I did not claim that for myself, I made a general statement. But that is beside the point. You did not only claim that you depend on God for guidance. You claimed that the beliefs you have discovered must be true because the holy spirit led you there. Or at least you said something to that effect, or to the effect that the holy spirit is guiding your understanding of Scripture–look, I’m relying on memory and I don’t want to mischaracterize your statements, but I’m pretty certain you said that somewhere.
How do you know the holy spirit is guiding you? Perhaps your ego is guiding you. Perhaps your emotions are guiding you. I think it’s an arrogant claim, yes, I do. I have never claimed that I am guided by God’s wisdom. I have never claimed that I rely on God’s holy spirit. The most one can do is ask God for guidance and for clarity. Then he can put forth his best effort and hope he is being led right. I have never presented to you an interpretation of Scripture that I know to be true because of the holy spirit.
So again, you misrepresented not only what I said, but also what you said.
Dina,
You said; “Why do you start with the premise that he wasn’t anti-Torah? And even in that case, why then defend all his anti-Torah comments, something you have done freely on this forum? The only person who can take such an argument seriously is someone who starts with belief in Jesus and then looks for proof to support that belief”
To respond; Why do you start with the premise that he wasn’t anti-Torah?
Because of verses like Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Neviim. I did not come to abolish but to complete.
18 For, omein, truly I say to you, until Shomayim and haaretz pass away, not one yod, not one tag (ornamental flourish), will pass from the Torah until everything is accomplished.
19 Therefore, whoever annuls one of the least of these mitzvot (divine commandments given by Hashem to Moshe Rebbenu) and so teaches Bnei Adam, shall be called katon (least) in the Malchut HaShomayim; but whoever practices and teaches them, this one will be called gadol (great) in the Malchut HaShomayim.
20 For I say unto you that unless the Tzedek (Righteousness) of you exceeds that of the Sofrim and Perushim, you will certainly not enter the Malchut HaShomayim.”
As for your other billion questions, challenges, misquotations, out of context accusations, assumptions and many random verse references without posting the actual text;
I’m very busy, I access this site via a I phone, this thread has multiple mini threads, there are other threads which do not show up under the very short ‘new post section’. In addition, I haven’t registered on this site which I assume would provide me with better navigational tools.
So, to Dina, and others, I’m thinking I should resister, starting a new thread answering all the above, answering those I’ve already answered and were missed, correcting out of context and misquotations. Looking up and pasting your scripture references. This needs to be done meticulously for you have a tendency to over generalize. As I said, ‘you favor a very broad brush which does not favor honest exploration’. However I’m having my tea getting ready for work, starting this process will have to wait till evening.
Hi CP,
I agree that we’re trying to tackle too many ideas at once. May I suggest picking one topic from the list I presented and hashing that out until we reach a conclusion? I will defer to your choice, or you can choose a problem that is close to your heart that is not on my list, whatever you wish.
I’m sorry you were frustrated by having to look up my references. I do that because it saves me time, but I will try to include the relevant verse or verses as well to save you time.
Hi CP,
I’ve been mulling over your various accusations regarding my character and intellectual honesty.
You have accused me of
overgeneralizing/painting with too broad a brush
citing Scriptures randomly,
quoting Scriptures out of context,
misrepresenting your arguments,
among other things that are too subjective to measure (such as extreme suspicions and trigger words).
It’s my job to grow, and part of that means accepting criticism that is accurate and learning from it no matter the source. However, you have not provided a single example for any of these accusations, so I do not know how to correct myself.
I would appreciate if you would provide examples for each of the above so I can learn from my mistakes. If you cannot, I expect you will retract your words as behoves an honorable man such as you.
Dina,
I liked your idea of sticking with one topic at a time, great idea!
As to what you referred to as my “accusations” ; may I suggest we just start over with a clean slate and we can respectfully call each other on the things mentioned as they occur. I think that would be better than dredging up the past.
However I can give you a pet peeve of mine that I see quite a bit on this forum; judging Yeshua by Christians. I think Yeshua should stand or fall for himself and not others. The only way to do this is a critical look at a document that was clumsily handled 2000 years ago and comparing it to the Tanakh.
Shalom
Fair enough, CP.
As for judging Jesus by Christians, I could not disagree with you more, and we may have to agree to disagree. I think it’s absolutely fair to judge a religion by the behavior of the majority of its adherents over the course of most of its history (obviously every religion will have some evil and good periods and some evil and good adherents).
I hope you won’t find this triggering–and please know that I do not say this to offend–but Christianity claimed to lead its followers on a path that is morally superior to Judaism (hence the need for the Sermon on the Mount and the denigration of the Pharisees). It cannot be denied that Christianity–and Jesus, by association–failed spectacularly. Just compare the behavior of the two communities over the last 2000 years: Blood soaks the pages of Christian history, while the Golden Rule lights up the pages of Jewish.
Christians get real mad when I say these things, but only because they have not studied the history of Christian-Jewish relations and general history too deeply (after all, Christians were quite horrible to each other, killing many more of their own even than Jews).
Jesus perhaps said some things that were uplifting and ennobling. He said other things that brought out the basest instincts of man (his words regarding the Jews–not just the Pharisees–for example).
Jesus was supposed to lead his followers on the high road. His failure led to death and destruction. And for that, I judge him.
CP, I’d like to add something else. While I disagree with you on the fairness of judging Jesus according to the general behavior of his adherents over the general course of history, I do agree with you that it’s fair to judge him based on the statements attributed to him (I say “attributed” because there is on way to know what he actually said, Christian scripture being so unreliable).
Following is a list of things he said that disqualify him from being an accepted leader in Israel. It’s not an exhaustive list because my knowledge of Christian scripture is spotty at best.
1. The three false prophecies that disqualify him as a true prophet per Deuteronomy 18:22 (“If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him”). We disagree on the false versus true nature of these prophecies, but I think you might agree that these prophecies do not measure up when evaluated according to the standards of prophecy we consistently see throughout the Hebrew Bible.
2. Jesus made statements that attributed to himself, if not outright divinity, then a level of veneration that no human is allowed to claim for himself. These statements disqualify him as a true prophet per Deuteronomy 13:2-5 (“If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, ‘Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,’ you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul”).
Examples:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6)
“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13)
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).
There are probably more, but can you imagine Moses saying such things? He, who was the humblest of all men (Numbers 12:3, “Now this man Moses was exceedingly humble, more so than any person on the face of the earth”) yet the greatest prophet to ever walk the earth (Deuteronomy 34:10, “And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face”)?
The Hebrew prophets never pointed to themselves or demanded belief of the people; rather, they humbly delivered messages from God. Please understand that for a Jew who is used to the style of the Hebrew prophets, these statements sound megalomaniacal (I’m sorry for using a trigger word but I don’t know how to say this without giving offense, please forgive me).
3. Jesus said really horrific things about the Pharisees and about the Jews in general. Every historian that I have read on Christian anti-Semitism traces its roots back to Jesus’s devastating comments about the Jewish people.
Examples:
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44)
“That upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Please realize that Abel was a non-Jew killed by a non-Jew) (Matthew 23:35).
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 22:23)
This topic is too large for a post, but here is a link to a comprehensive study on the subject.
Click to access AntiJewishNT.pdf
This page has a lot of good resources if you are interested:
http://thejewishhome.org/counter-index.html
This comment took me a long time to write, so I hope you read it carefully. It’s also extra long because I pasted the relevant verses instead of just giving the sources :).
Dina wrote:
“As for JUDGING JESUS by Christians, I could not disagree with you more, and we may have to agree to disagree. I think it’s absolutely FAIR TO JUDGE A RELIGION by the behavior of the majority of its adherents ”
Dina, I CAPITALIZED your bait and switch routine to make easily identifiable. It one of the many things I’ve grown weary of. I can’t believe you’d do this on the very first post after agreeing to start over.
: (
Ever heard the story about the scorpion and the salamander?
CP, I’m sorry, I just don’t understand.
I’ve given these matters a great deal of thought and I take a lot of time over my comments. I took especial care not to offend yesterday. I must have reread each comment I wrote at least four times before posting to check that it would give the least amount of offense possible and when it could not be helped apologized for it in advance.
Although Moses is not a focus in Judaism as Jesus is in Christianity, here are my words using “Moses” instead:
“As for judging Moses by Jews, I could not disagree with you more, and we may have to agree to disagree. I think it’s absolutely fair to judge a religion [Judaism] by the behavior of the majority of its adherents.”
Trying to put the shoe on my foot this time, and it still makes sense to me.
I can’t understand why you would dismiss hours of my work just because in two sentences you think my thought process is dumb.
I have been talking to Christians for years and it drives me crazy when they quote out of context, mistranslate God’s words, and twist them to fit their theology. But I continue talking to them because the search for truth is that important. I respond to everything they write no matter how annoyed I am by it. I hope you will understand.
Dina,
I just saw your second post after mine posted. You second post is better but in some places it does the same.
For example:
1) Failed Prophecies? What because every single stone in Jerusalem didn’t come down? You’ve taken the words of Yeshua past their intended meaning for no other purpose than to try to prove them wrong. It is obvious to a rational mind the prophecy was fulfilled.
2) May I suggest you study the differences between Diety and divinity lest you be guilty of another bait and switch.
3) Yeshua was at odds WITH PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS who just happened to be Pharisees. Again you over generalize and are guilty of the same sin of those who use these verses to justify anti-Semitism.
CP, I choose my words with great care. I said that I know that we disagree with the fulfillment of the prophecies but that according to the way we see prophecies spoken and then fulfilled in the Hebrew Bible the prophecies of Jesus don’t measure up. I’m repeating this in case you missed it.
However, I do feel compelled to also point out that in the Hebrew Bible, if a prophet were to say that something will be completely destroyed then we see that it is completely destroyed (like Jericho). The Western Wall has remained standing and provided comfort to generations of Jews. That’s not insignificant.
If you look up the words “deity” and “divinity” on dictionary.com, you will see that definition 2 of deity is divinity and definition 2 of divinity is deity. I don’t understand your trouble with my choice of words here.
I especially don’t understand number three. If I break it down, it seems you are saying this:
People killed, tortured, or otherwise terribly mistreated Jews and used verses from Christian scripture to justify it.
Dina is guilty of the same sin because she said people killed, tortured, or otherwise terribly mistreated Jews and used verses from Christian scripture to justify it.
Surely I misunderstood you? Can you please clarify what you meant?
Please know that I have read a great deal on the subject of Christian anti-Semitism. I will repeat what I said earlier: every historian I have read on the subject traces its roots to Christian scripture. Are they also guilty of the same sin as those who killed Jews in the name of Jesus?
Finally, you are wrong to say that Jesus took exception to a few particular Pharisees. He spends a good part of chapter 23 in Matthew condemning the teachers of the law and the Pharisees in general; he does not single out just a few. In John 8 he is addressing the Jews in general (he’s moved away from particular sects here). And Jesus’s words were all too easy to use against his own people. He must be held partly responsible (or at least those who put the words into his mouth).
I really hope you will respond to my main points and not nitpick my particular choice of words. I must say, I am trying very hard to change my tone but you are not making this easy :).
Perhaps this might help:
You cannot judge Yeshua by Christians any more than you can judge Moses by a bunch of reformed Jews?
I think we’d agree on that?
Dina, I’ve been re-reading your posts and do sense sincerity so allow me to explain.
I AGREE WITH YOU, you can judge a religion by it adherents. But I’m not here to discuss “religion”. In every religion you can point out whatever adherents you want to prove your point.
My contention is rather than looking to adherents, let’s look to the founding ideals and the actual founders themselves. Let us drink at the head of the stream where the water is pure rather than the polluted downstream waters.
As to the “Western Wall”, I would assume you know there is some doubt what that structure originally was? But that’s beside the point, you’d have to prove Yeshua was talking about the Western Wall when he said those words. That’s the real point.
As to Deity vs divinity, rather than a dictionary, read Psalm 82:1 in Hebrew with no commentaries and tell me what you think about Deity vs divinity.
I apologize and I don’t for nitpicking words. Words mean things and if one is not careful they are lead astray as easily as a difference of 1 degree in 2000 miles!
Btw, I think we are getting better!
Hi CP,
I disagree that “You cannot judge Yeshua by Christians any more than you can judge Moses by a bunch of reformed Jews.” Even though you are changing my argument, I think you can. I mentioned the majority of a religion’s adherents–Reform Jews do not adhere to Mosaic law–over the general course of history. I am comparing the majority of devout followers of Jesus over a 2000-year period to observant Jews over the same period; you want to compare the first group to a group that does not adhere to Torah and which has been around for scarcely 300 years. However, I am happy to accept your apples-to-oranges comparison.
I am perfectly okay with saying that you can judge Jesus by Christians as well as judge Moses by Reform Jews (it’s Reform, not reformed). For the purposes of my argument, given the examples I gave of Christian behavior, it still works.
But if you don’t want to examine the behavior of the adherents, fair as it is, and only look at the leader, I gave you a few reasons why what Jesus taught automatically disqualifies him.
As for the prophecy, if it’s not clear what Jesus meant then the prophecy is worthless (though he did say the Temple and its buildings, which is pretty clear; the Western Wall was part of the Temple, being part of its outer wall). As far as I know, the only people who dispute the fact that the Wall is the last remaining outer wall of the Second Temple are Muslims who want to discredit the notion that this is Judaism’s holiest site. Please also note that I discussed two other prophecies as well.
However, I wonder if you will agree with my statement that according to the way prophecies were spoken and fulfilled consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible–including the clarity of the spoken words–Jesus’s prophecies do not measure up that standard.
I read the verse in question and I still don’t understand what you’re driving at.
Dina,
I think we’ve found a topic to discuss!
I’ve said I will Register on this site and perhaps be able to post a topic. I will just as soon as time permits. Perhaps as early as this afternoon, if not then Sunday morning.
Great, CP, I’m looking forward to seeing what you choose.
In the meantime, I’ve been thinking about the deity/divinity thing. I don’t see how a verse in Hebrew applies to this discussion because we are talking about the definition of English words. In English, deity and divinity are synonymous and can be used interchangeably. Therefore, if you agree, I would like to set aside that discussion and focus instead on my argument. I had given several reasons for why what Jesus said disqualifies him. One was the attribution of divinity to himself (or deity, if you will) or at least undue veneration. I cited verses to support this contention. I hope you can find the time to address this. I myself will be running out of time soon due to my children returning from school and Shabbos preparations.
Sharbano,
Personally, I give more weight to the words of Hashem given through the prophet Isaiah than to the 39 Melachot. Please don’t read anything into this, I don’t judge people for doing what they think is right before Hashem unless it is a DIRECT violation of the Written Torah, then it is Torah that judges them, not I. I just like to keep it simple.
Isaiah 58:13-14New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 “If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure
And speaking your own word,
14 Then you will take delight in the Lord,
And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;
And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Yeshayah 58:13-14Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
13 If thou turn away thy regel on account of Shabbos, from doing thy chefetz on My Yom Kodesh; and call Shabbos an Oneg (Delight), the Kedosh Hashem (Holy Day of Hashem), “honored”; and if thou shalt honor it, not doing thine darkhim nor finding thine own chefetz, nor speaking [worldly] words:
14 Then shalt thou delight in Hashem; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of eretz, and feed thee with the nachalat Ya’akov Avicha; for the mouth of Hashem hath spoken.
May you delight in Hashem!
What do you think the reference there is about. It’s about the 39 Melachot.
The translations you use say quite a bit.
Yes, I’m sure they do. They are the only ones I can copy and paste. If you know of a site where can copy and paste the Stone Tanakh I would be very happy.
You could always buy a Tanach and just type in the references.
I think it’s interesting that you picked on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was given as an eternal sign between God and Israel. The only continuous observance of Sabbath in the community of Jewish people has been through the line of the Pharisees (from whom all Jews today are descended, as they were the only group to survive Second Temple Judaism). Who’s being loyal to God and His Torah? Just another thing to think about.
CP, you have stated that you accept that Jesus is not deity, ie you reject the concept of the trinity. Yet you still hold some level of worship for this man (or something). I’ve been wondering on what basis you hold to such worship. I.e. what point are you hoping to have proved or disproved on this forum?
cflat7
Thank you for the sincere reply,
The word “worship” carries to with it such a wide range of meaning it is hardly practical to use without defining exactly what is meant. Typically this exact meaning comes from context, however with the ever widening range of what is acceptable theology context is becoming proportionally meaningless.
So let’s define some parameters; there is a type of worship which simply means to bow down to or prostrate; acceptable for a human such as a king or superior or acknowledgement of honor. Then on the other end of the scale there is a type of worship reserved for the One and Only True G-d.We have established worship needs to be commensurate with that begin worshiped. Therefore Yeshua should be worshiped not as G-d but for the position assigned to him by G-d. Whether he be a man, angel, or a elohim, no human knows. However if Yeshua is some type of Messiah, he should be honored appropriately.
The point is: Is there possibly a correct way, a right way according to Torah to view Yeshua? Just because the vast majority of Christians view Yeshua incorrectly discounting Torah, is that any reason to throw out Yeshua with the bath water?
Can you answer cflat7’s question? He asked, “I’ve been wondering on what basis you hold to such worship. I.e. what point are you hoping to have proved or disproved on this forum?”
So what point are you hoping to have proved or disproved? I’m very curious to hear your answer.
CR,
Thanks for clarifying that. So then it really boils down to whether Jesus was a being that Hashem intends men to honour in some manner. And secondly, whether Jesus was in fact the Jewish Messiah as described in the Torah.
One question I have is, even if Jesus was supposed to receive some degree of honour like an angel, should people continue giving that honour even after Jesus has died? Do we now give honour to other angelic beings that appeared to man in the past, unless we happen to meet them in the flesh?
Another question is, assuming Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (and others on this forum have pointed out that there is no evidence for that), where in the Torah are we instructed to give the Messiah any more honour than an earthly prince? And especially before he is born (or in the case of Jesus, returning). Are we supposed to show honour to such a person who isn’t present? Or are we to honour that person in our imagination or something? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on your obligations in giving honour to Jesus, and how that honour is to be expressed (and from what in theTorah supports your view of doing so).
cflat7,
To answer your questions ,
That is what I’m trying to get worked out.
This is where I’m at currently;
1) I don’t think Yeshua is dead.
2) I think Yeshua is back in the spiritual realm with Hashem.
3) Yeshua prayed to the Father and directed others to do the same.
4) Who Yeshua is is irrelevant if his obedience to the Father brought me back to Hashem and the Torah then I owe him a debt of gratitude as I would anyone else who intervened in my life for the good.
5) Yeshua said he did nothing on his own, but it was his Father working through him.
6) One like Yeshua was promised to be given in spiritual form to be with us and in us.
7) I afford Yeshua the proper respect as an unique son of the King.
Thanks for making me think!
I have a question for you:
When Messiah rules from Israel over the whole earth, is he to be a intermediary between Hashem and mankind?
CP,
Thanks. I’ll leave it to others to respond to your points, except that #4 and #7 seem to be closest to answering my questions (and you haven’t provided Torah support for holding to these positions). So essentially you have a high level of respect for Jesus, and you feel you owe him a debt of gratitude (if you can prove his obedience brought you back to Hashem).
I’m now curious what Jesus’ obedience has to do with your coming back to Hashem. Jesus is not part of the trinity so he has no power to cause anything and he isn’t to be worshipped. Secondly, Hashem abhors human sacrifice, so he wasn’t an atonement (and as well, one man is not to die for the sins of another man). What leads you to think Jesus’ obedience brought you to Hashem? If you cite your experiences with Christian denominations, then you might find that it was cooincidence, and/or a residue of emotional atachment.
Answer to your question: I don’t think he will be any more an intermediary than King David was an intermediary when he was the King of Israel. The Torah says we have direct access to Hashem through prayer, and that forgiveness is acheived through acts of repentance … I don’t see anything in Tanach supporting the notion that we need any kind of intermediary.
“The Torah says we have direct access to Hashem through prayer, and that forgiveness is acheived through acts of repentance … I don’t see anything in Tanach supporting the notion that we need any kind of intermediary.”
Sorry, i found no place to share my idea about the “intermediary”
If i understood correctly your term of “intermediary”, doesn’t Genesis 18 and 19 support the notion? Genesis 18:32 says, “And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” If there were ten righteous men in the city, God would forgive. The ten righteous men fundtion as intermediary, right?
Genesis 19:29 says, “And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.” God remembered Abraham (maybe his rigtheousness through faith and obedience?) and saved Lot. Abraham funtioned as intermediary.
Romans 5:19 says, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” If you read Romans 3-5, you would know that God saved the Jews- the old covenant people not because of their righteousness but because of the faith and righteous obedience of the Jewish Messiah. God save the gentiles not because of their faith in yeshua but because of the faith and obedience of Yeshua!
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
1 Timothy 2:5
The context was to do with whether one needed some being other than Hashem to acheive forgiveness or to gain personal access to God. If Moses can be an intermediary on this level, why do you believe you also need Jesus to be your intermediary? If not, why bring these verses as an example?
P:S. Your Christian texts prove nothing in my view. On this forum you need to use the Tanach for proving your points.
CP
What does this mean?
We have established worship needs to be commensurate with that begin worshiped.
.?????
What does this mean?
Therefore Yeshua should be worshiped not as G-d but for the position assigned to him by G-d. Whether he be a man, angel, or a elohim, no human knows.
Was he a man? Are you kidding? An angel or another God, again are you kidding?
Is there possibly a correct way, a right way according to Torah to view Yeshua?
Yes , he was a man. Treat him as you would like him treat you.
Shalom, cflat7. Nice to meet you here. Please let me join in this coversation. I have been reading all these dialogues and thought that the misconceptions about trinity and idolatry may reside within the community of the covenant people of God.
It is obvious to me that it is not the New Testament that alludes to the trinity but the old testament does! TRINITY? Yeshua never said such an idea or statement in the Gospels, neither the apostles who wrote the epistles! Maybe many Christians are doctrinized by 313 Nicaea statements. How many times the Renewed (new) Testament emphasizes that God is one and He is the God manifested in the history of the Jewish people! One examples, “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Mt.4:10
Whereas, i want to ask my Judaic brothers and sisters about the possibility of trinity in Tanakh. Many verses exist about God= angel=man… God= Word… ?? How should i understand these?
Is Yeshua idol? Psalm 115:4-8 says, ”
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.”
If anyone says “yes,” then… (S)he is illiterate.
Is Yeshua idolized and Christians worship the human being Yeshua?
If I were in the land of Israel in the First century, and witnessed to how he taught the word of God and healed the sick, died and rose again, i would have followed him and tried to touch him, to stare hie eyes and to hear his words every moment and to put it into actions. Many people tried to do that. If he has remained until now, living somewherer in Israel, i might have found him and idolitized him. However, Yeshua has left! He only appeared to the world for 3 and half years! After he has ascended into heaven, did he sit at the throne of God? The Renewed Testament always says, “He has sit on the RIGHT HAND of God.” Doesn’t the Torah already forshadow this in Genesis 41? The whole property of kingdom of Egypt came under the authority of Joseph (the forshadowing figure of the Messiah?) EXCEPT the throne of Pharaoh.
2000 years of History testifies to the fact that people like sands on the beach and stars in the sky read the Tanakh and worship the God of Israel because of Yeshua. I do not idolitize yeshua, nor worship him as the one true God. I worship God because of what He has said and done in Yeshua.
Gean,
I used the term ‘trinity’ since I recall that in previous posts it was established that CP did not hold to the notion that Jesus was part of the trinity (ie he was only a man, no more). I was not intending on starting an argument about the trinity.
eflat7,
I apologize for the tardiness of my response, and even now do not have proper time to reply adequately. I will read back this evening so as to pick up where we left off. Having a job is a Hugh interruption of my day : )
I saw this reply to Gean and wanted to clarify: Yes, you are correct, I do not believe in the “Trinity” however I believe Yeshua was more than a ‘mere man’ although I have not ruled out that possibility completely. There are a few possibilities which are not in conflict with Torah, for example a angel, archangel or a elohim which took on a body of flesh. Personally I lean to a elohim. (See Psalm 82:1 for a small insight into elohims). But if his words are to be believed he said; “no one knows the son except the Father”. Therefore I think it more prudent to investigate ‘What’ Yeshua did rather than ‘Who’ he is.
CP,
I don’t understand your position. Even if he is an angel (although angels aren’t born, are they?), so what? You haven’t shown anything that I know of, of why anyone should show him any greater respect than any other angel in the Torah, or any reason that you owe him any amount of gratitude.
I agree, brother CP. I am learning a lot from your conversations with other Judaic brothers and sisters here. I believe God will rather be glad when people of God are debating upon the truth about God than be mad at failing to reach the truth quickly. Aren’t both Tanakh and Renewed covenant designed for that purpose? Isn’t that Jewish way to hide the truth, to spark curiosity and to make us question and ponder and debate?
Gean,
Thank you for the encouragement, you definitely have the right attitude and the right spirit!😊
“Is Yeshua idolized and Christians worship the human being Yeshua?
If I were in the land of Israel in the First century, and witnessed to how he taught the word of God and healed the sick, died and rose again, i would have followed him and tried to touch him, to stare hie eyes and to hear his words every moment and to put it into actions. Many people tried to do that. If he has remained until now, living somewherer in Israel, i might have found him and idolitized him. However, Yeshua has left! He only appeared to the world for 3 and half years! ”
if you witnessed joshua commanded the sun to stop still or if you witnessed elijah bring back the dead , would your heart become weak and start worshipping these two?
when people start putting love, trust and reliance in a flesh being then people can worship any forms of god
people worship invisible beings such as ghosts . one of these ghosts was powerful enough to drive out yeshua into the wilderness.
the sun has outlasted every single creature it has seen. pagans would tell christians to put their worship and trust in the sun.
jesus needed the suns light because he wasn’t glowing in israel.
jesus needed a place to stay
jesus was at the mercy of his mothers womb.
jesus was one guy in competition with other miracle workers , but the gospels chose to preserve about jesus because they were writing as christian believers.
if a child is slaughtered and then some miracle worker brings him back to life and says, “worship me, i gave you life” and then the child says
“you are not to be worshipped”
i would say that is true faith in the invisible and unseen creator.
Brother, to worship is עובד to work, to serve, or sometimes (to bow down?)
Can you tell me what Yeshua commanded us to do or to work is contradictory to what HaShem commanded us to do or to work?
Gean, Jesus introduced a new type of worship that was not taught at Sinai, namely, that the only way to access God is through him, see Deuteronomy 4 and 13:2-6.
Shalom sister Dina! I apologize for the late response. Thankfully God woke me up 3 am this morning to share my thought. As always, your logical and biblical argument really helps me understand the truth, the truth about Hashem, Torah, and the gospel. Keep the good work.
When an expert in the Law asked to Yeshua, “teacher, which is the greatest Commandment in the Law?” He said “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”
I believe you remember what I have suggested a way to understand the message of the Gospel of John. He recorded every word and event of Yeshua in the context of Judaism and did not escape from Greek philosophical questions. He is like Philo or הרמב”ם
I know the words of Yeshua in John’s gospel may shake your faith and theology, but i hope you will remember this:
John came to conclusion that Yeshua was “The Word of God incarnated.”
John saw a vision of the coming of the Messiah and described “He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the Word of God” (Revelations 19:12b-13)
When you have a trouble of what Yeshua said about himself, change “I” or “the son of man” to “the Word of God” Then you will understand logically, biblically, philosophically that the words of him don’t contradict but fulfill the prophecies of Tanakh. Please know that the Messianics ( so called christians) don’t teach to abandon the Torah.
1 John5:1-3 “everyone who believes that Yeshua is the messiah is born of God and everyone that loves him (God) who begat loves him (yeshua) also who is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God , when we love God, and keep his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.” How can I not love the first born children of God, Judaic brothers and sisters who keep the commandments ?!
Gean, perhaps you did not grasp what I said or I perhaps I was not clear. The concept of the incarnation of the word of God was not taught at Sinai. To include this in our worship, God forbid, is to worship God in a way different from what He taught us at Sinai. Please see again Deuteronomy 4 and 13.
That is why substituting “Word” for “Jesus” still doesn’t work.
Gean, the truth is, my very forefathers stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak. I cannot deny the collective experience of my entire people. We were there! And here we are, still! Where are the descendants of the first Jewish followers of Jesus? Why did God not protect and preserve their line? I will tell you why. Because they did not follow God and His Torah. They followed Jesus who taught a new kind of worship. God’s promise of protection applied only to the faithfully Torah observant.
Realize that this is the fate of every Jew who has converted to Christianity over the centuries. He becomes swallowed up by the gentiles and becomes lost to his people forever. It is a tragedy.
Please see Deuteronomy 4:31, Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 78 on God’s promise of protection.
Shalom, Dina. The Renewed Covenant does not ever try to compare Hashem who spoke at Sinai with Yeshua, it compares Moshe with Yeshua. (2Corinthians 3:7-18, Acts 3:22-26) Also in the R.C., HaShem appears in voice, not image (Mt.3:17, Mt.17:5,). Dont you see the descendants of the first Jewish followers of Yeshua? Millions of people come to Israel to bless your kins, your land, and your God! We are your descendants(Isaiah 49:21)!
Recently i and my Christians friends in Korea, and my chinese classmate who was converting from Christianity to Judaism (Amazing how God works!) worked together to help one Jewish family from Nigeria. They were in financial crisis and the eight years old son had serious diabetes, looking for Korean traditional medicine. So we helped together not because we wanted to convert the family (remember there was a Chinese woman who was converting to Judaism) – i dont have to convert them because Yeshua already did for your people to renew the broken Covenant (Jeremiah 31),
but because we were family of God in His Covenant!
Psalm 78:22 and Psalm 24:5 tells us something God will do in Yeshua.
Hi Gean,
For as long as Christians extend the olive branch and show support of the State of Israel, we will be grateful. Surely you realize that this is a very recent phenomenon, however. Christians hated and persecuted Jews for nearly 2000 years. A half century of good will by some Christians does not wipe away the memories of forced ghettoization, forced poverty, forced conversions, torture, death, public humiliation, public degradation, expulsions, and horrors too numerous to mention.
The fact that these acts were perpetrated by the followers of Jesus is not lost on us.
But I digress.
My main point was that Jesus introduced a new type of worship that was not taught at Sinai. According to Deuteronomy 13, such a prophet must be killed. God has sent him to test us to see if we are loyal to Him and Him alone. I say with pride that the overwhelming majority of the people of Israel have shown this loyalty again and again over the centuries, rejecting the message of the false prophet even unto death.
I have already shown you why your interpretation of the new covenant in Jeremiah is out of context and misapplied.
As for descendants, in the verses I cited, the use of the root word “zerah” is used only for biological offspring. You are not the biological offspring of the first Jewish Christians. Also, our chain of transmission from father to son, strongly rooted in the Bible, is talking about physical generations of families. Otherwise all these verses and promises from God are utterly meaningless.
Great post Gean!
Gean, I loved the part about the “Word”!
I can really relate and will try substituting “The Word” for “I” or “Yeshua” when reading.
Shalom
CP,
Yes, you have raised a number of valid points.
And yes, there is a correct way to view Yeshua according to the Torah– He lived it — no, not the Pharisaical interpretation, but the one as Elohim intended.
For example we see,
“When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain” [Deuteronomy 23:25].
Yet the Pharisees condemned hungry people from doing this activity on the Sabbath– hence their condemnation of Yeshua’s disciples.
L-rd Yeshua responds to the Pharisees through two examples from the Tanakh,
[a] “Permissible” breaking of the Law– Priests working on the Sabbath
[b] “Impermissible” breaking of the Law– David/companions eating Showbread
The point? Quoting from Hosea, L-ord Yeshua says, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
The L-rd of the Sabbath loves to apply His Law through eyes of mercy every day of the week.
Thanks Kavi!
Hashem!!! Hashem is God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin”
(Exodus 34:6)
CP,
Hello,
Do you believe (Circumcision) is Loving God with all heart and loving your neighbor as yourself is the fulfillment and summation of the Law?
And remember, that the Sadducee asked Yeshua about Mosing permitting A man to discard his wife; He said that Moses did this because men hearts were hard- Meaning that it was never God’s intention for a Man or Woman to separate.
I think Yeshua fullfilled the Law. But, for us to act outside of Love which is God means that the uncircumcised heart is sinful.
On the other hand, God made the Sabbath Day holy before the Law.
Abraham was righteous by his faith before the Law.
Abraham was given covenant of the Promise before the Law. Blessed (all) Nations before the Law.
Therefore, You and I walk by Faith, Love, hope in Yeshua.
Why was the Law given? To address sin-
2 covenants-
1 of promise
1 regarding Sin.
Kavi, that is a really bizarre proof. You took an instruction that has nothing to do with Sabbath observance and applied it to the passage under dispute.
Jesus and his disciples should have known the Sabbath was coming and prepared for it. That is what we do. Every week. No one goes hungry.
CP,
A few days ago, you affirmed a belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I know that there are other topics going on right now. We are in the middle of a conversation about whether or not Jesus knew and taught Torah. You and Dina are in the middle of a discussion about whether or not Jesus was a prophet. But I would like to interrupt my conversation with you, because the subject of the resurrection relates to your conversation with Dina. The alleged resurrection, as Dina has already pointed out, goes to prove that Jesus is not a prophet, as he did not fulfill his words. But what I am going to write here is preliminary. I am not going to touch on the prophecy angle directly, but I will address it afterward in a separate comment. In this comment, I will only show that the story of the resurrection is not credible.
I wonder if you will perform a thought experiment with me. Can you place yourself 2,000 years in the past in Judah? Can you imagine that you live during the time of Jesus, that perhaps you have heard him speak? Or, if you have not attended any of his sermons, you have heard rumors. Perhaps you are intrigued, wondering if what people say about him is true. This might be the Messiah.
And then he is killed. For a moment, it might seem that all is lost. But you have heard, either from Jesus in dispute with the Pharisees or from rumor, that Jesus predicted that he would be killed and that he would resurrect himself after three days. His story is not yet over, perhaps. With either curiosity or expectation, you wait to find out what will happen. Is this man really going to come back in three days?
For the purposes of this experiment, it is important that you are not a close disciple of Jesus. You are interested. Perhaps you even believe him to be a very good man and teacher. But you will not be counted among those very few who claim to have seen the risen Jesus.
Instead, as you wait to see what will happen when the third day comes, you find nothing has happened. There is no commotion as a resurrected Jesus once again walks the streets of Jerusalem. Not even rumors circulate. As far as you know, Jesus did not return. Not after three days. Not after seven. Not after three weeks. Jesus is dead, and the world has continued on as normal.
It is not until seven weeks after the death of Jesus that his disciples claim that he came back from the dead, forty-seven days after the projected resurrection. If you had been waiting expectantly for his return, you long ago gave up on it. But now they tell you that Jesus did come back. And he has been visiting privately with his disciples.
I would suppose that you would wish to see him. You might wish to hear his teachings, especially now that he is back from the dead. Though his late return left you with much disappointment, it will all be worth it. You may be jubilant. You may be a little angry that you gave up, angry with yourself for doubting and angry with him for making you wait. Or perhaps, you are merely interested. Whatever the case, you must be desirous to see him, if you have even a small amount of interest.
And then they tell you that he is not here. Yes, he did resurrect; they all saw him. But he is not here, because ten days ago he rose into the sky. He now sits at the right hand of God. Do not worry, though: you can take their word for it. They are trustworthy men. For sure, he did not present himself on day three. And for sure, he is not here now. But, in private appearances, he did show himself, resurrected, walking around, teaching and the like.
Please recognize that this is the story of the gospels. They acknowledge that Jesus did not show himself publicly after his resurrection. He skulked about in private meetings. And his disciples told only the few in the circle that Jesus had come back. They did not announce his resurrection until Jesus was no longer around.
This story has no credibility. One is not compelled to believe that Jesus came back on the third day, when he did not show himself publicly. One is not compelled to believe he came back on the third day, when it was not until the fiftieth day until his resurrection was announced. And it is telling that when the resurrection was announced, no living Jesus was produced. This is not to be believed.
As I say, this will tie into discussion of whether or not Jesus was a prophet. But for now, it is worth considering that no compelling reason exists to believe the resurrection happened.
Jim
“The alleged resurrection, as Dina has already pointed out, goes to prove that Jesus is not a prophet, as he did not fulfill his words.”
>You are free to believe such a thing but the Text disagrees with your assumption. We find in Matthew 28:3-4 & 11, Acts 12:19 &16:27 ample first hand evidence given to the religious leaders. They knew, but refused to let themselves believe. Odd thing is we find in Acts 6:7 we read; “……… and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” Why now AFTER Yeshua had died? They knew, and believed.
Jim,
I fully admit the resurrection accounts are mysterious, leaving the reader with a multitude of questions; Why did some who saw still doubt? Why wasn’t he immediately recognized when seen? Why the number of variant readings among the resurrection accounts? Who were the disciples on the road to Emmaus and why did he appear to them? What were the circumstances surrounding the appearance to the 500? The words of Yeshua; instead of saying ‘flesh and blood’ he said “flesh and bone”, ‘odd way to put it’
What excatly happened? I don’t think we can say for sure. But I think it is safe to assume the tomb was empty and something miraculous happened in that some way, shape or form Yeshua was alive interacting with those he had relationship with.
However to answer your question, if I would of been around then….
Your question is not complete in that it doesn’t take into account the promised gift of the Spirit which enabled those not intimately acquainted with all that happened to believe. It is no different today.
But Believe What?
Look at Yeshua’s life:
Just as Israel he was G-d’s son, I could go through the numerous similarities but you’d just focus on nit picking how they weren’t “exact” ignoring analogies can only go so far.
That being said allow me to focus on one you and I currently see. G-d’s son was killed by Rome and has been dead for 2000 years and is now alive. Was this not prefigured in the death and reseruction of Yeshua? Tell me how any of Israel’s enemies refuse to accept Israel as a nation? Yeshua has prefigured this also. Our messiah acted out the life of Israel as God’s only son, he told us what was going to happen to us and by who and we would be resurrected.
The Abrahamic covenant is a blood covenant. The later Circumcision is a blood covenant, it was Issac not Ishmael who passed through the ring of blood. It was our forefathers who passed through the ring of blood around their doors as they left their houses in Egypt. Moses sprinkled the people with blood. Blood was ceromionally used as a covenantal rememberance. And blood was used 2000 years ago promising our people; we would rise again.
CP,
It will take me a few comments to respond to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29404 . In this first comment, I would like to address the supposed proofs that the religious leaders had. Peter escaping from prison and Paul remaining in prison are not proofs of the resurrection, and I see no purpose in your mentioning them. So I will only write about the priests that believed in Acts 6 and the events in Matthew.
Regarding the priests, they disprove your argument not support it. If they had believed in Jesus from seeing him at the resurrection, they would not only be coming to belief in him in chapter 6 of Acts when some time has passed. They did not believe because they had “first hand evidence”. According to Acts 6:7: “The word of God continued to spread; the numbers of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.” These priests believed due to preaching, not because they saw Jesus. They had no “first hand evidence.”
But it is Matthew I would like to spend the most time on. First, we must acknowledge that Matthew is an untrustworthy author. He has no regard for the truth. His distortions of Tanach are well-documented. Consider what he does to Isaiah 7:14. He alters it. And I do not mean just with the substitution of the word ‘virgin’ for ‘young woman’. He also changes the naming of the child. Isaiah says that the young woman to whom he is referring will name her child ‘Immanuel’. Matthew changes even this to ‘they’ rather than she. This way the name sounds like an appellative, that people will be hailing this child in some special manner. If he left the verse alone, even just that change of pronoun, it would be obvious to the reader that it did not have anything to do with Jesus. His mother did not name him Immanuel. Even those unfamiliar with the actual context of the verse would be able to quickly identify that it had nothing to do with Jesus. The unethical Matthew found a solution in altering the verse.
He likes to omit the parts that do not suit his purpose, showing no regard for Tanach. When he quotes Hosea 11:1, he omits the beginning, that which tells the reader the topic. The topic is, of course, not Jesus. It is Israel. And the verse is not predictive but descriptive of the past. But I will not run through the whole list of dishonest uses of scripture by Matthew. The point is that he is not trustworthy in the first place.
But even if we did not know that, Matthew accidentally reveals to the reader that his story about the Jewish leadership trying to hush up the resurrection is a lie. The bribe itself shows that the story is a fabrication, because the leadership acts on knowledge that they did not and could not have. At Matthew 28:13, the priests and elders wish the guards to say that the disciples came and stole the body. In writing this, Matthew has just shown us that the story is a lie.
The leadership cannot at that point know what is going to happen. For all they know, Jesus is going to begin walking around the streets of Jerusalem healing people, preaching, and attracting an even larger following than before. He could show up at any moment and demand that they acknowledge him as a prophet, now that he has fulfilled his predicted resurrection. So, how is it that they bribed the guards to say that the disciples took the body? No, they did not do such a thing, because they could not know that Jesus would never show himself. This story is an invention.
Moreover, the story shows that Jesus did not show himself publicly. If he had, no such story could have been circulated. The story is built on the premise that Jesus came only to a few here and a few there, privately.
Matthew’s fabrication has two purposes. First, he wants to draft the Jewish leadership into his argument. He wants to support belief in Jesus from the opposition. To do this, he invents testimony on their behalf. And it is shocking how much Christians and general lovers of Jesus believe whatever the NT tells them about the Jews and the Pharisees. They accept the writings of the NT as if it were the direct testimony of the Pharisees, when it obviously is not. Second, he wants to vilify the Jews, especially the leadership. The Jewish people were not on board with the message of Jesus and his followers, generally speaking. This had to be explained, inasmuch as Jesus is supposed to be their Messiah. So, the Jews become the villains. And how dastardly they are, according to Matthew. He wants us to believe that the Jewish leadership knew the truth but rejected Jesus anyway. Matthew’s lies would be one of the causes of 2,000 years of Jewish persecution.
But the story was not true. It could not be, because as I pointed out, the Jewish leaders are acting as if they know Jesus will not show himself. Obviously this story was fabricated much later, after Christians started teaching that Jesus came back from the dead. And Matthew did not account for what would have been the Jewish leadership’s perspective and knowledge. That Matthew lied at the end of the book should have surprised nobody who had read the beginning. But the book, given to the Torah-ignorant gentiles was believed by them, and it caused great damage to the Jewish people. Two thousand years of suffering ensued.
Clearly, Jesus did not show himself to the Jewish leadership.
Jim
Jim,
I apologize for posting the wrong verses, I should of cut and paste instead of my memory : ) The verses just show the guards reported eyewitness testimony to the religious leaders. As to your assumption of Matthew lying because for all the religious leaders knew Jesus was up and walking around, I would disagree. They exhibited normal human behavior when one doesn’t want to believe something; they make up their own reality. Nevertheless, stories can’t be judged true merely on the basis of believability, it that were true much of the Tanakh would be in jeopardy.
As to Matthew, yes it has some problems, I speculate the first two chapters were added later. There is a Hebrew copy of Matthew which testifies to such a possibility.
As to the virgin birth, who knows? And what difference does it make? It must not be to important if it is only mentioned by two Gospels. However I do find the mem soffit mid word in the Isaiah passage intriguing.
CP,
A cover-up is not a sign of disbelief. One who disbelieves takes no action; he does not need to do so. No, Matthew made a big mistake. He attributed knowledge to the Jewish leaders that they could not have. They wanted to cover up the resurrection, according to Matthew. But this presumes that Jesus would never show himself, a fact they could not know. At the least, this shows that Jesus did not show himself publicly.
Jim
Hey Robbie,
Your posts are filled with emotion. It sounds like you would like to change your ways? That is a good thing! In religious words what you are wanting to do is “Repent”. Many people think this means to feel bad about what they did and/or apologize for what they did, they are right, that is all part of it, but it is not the COMPLETE part. Repenting means making a U-TURN from what you used to do to a new way of thinking, acting and feeling.
May I suggest a good place to start? Maybe you could think about the people you have come here to apologize to and think about how they might not like the F-bombs and some other words. It’s okay, you’ve made a start and that’s good! Remember what comes out of your mouth shows what is in your heart.
Be well and may God heal you in all the ways you desire and bring you to the place you long for.
Just keep asking and never give up!
CP,
Continuing to answer your comments here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29404 .
I did not, as you may suppose, forget about the Pentecost events, tongues of fire and all. On the contrary, it supports my argument, and I was planning on bringing it up as I move into examining Jesus as a prophet. But I will discuss it now, since you bring it up. The Day of Pentecost attempts to distract one from recognizing that Jesus did not fulfill his prediction to rise from the dead.
Consider how you, yourself, are using it. You use it as a substitute for a resurrected Jesus. It is clear that this substitute is needed, because there was no Jesus walking around. That you must appeal to this is an admission that no Jesus was produced. If Jesus had shown himself, then there would be no question.
But instead, one is to accept the sign of speaking in tongues in lieu of the resurrection. This is particularly strange, inasmuch as the resurrection was itself supposed to be a sign. But since it did not happen in any verifiable form, it could not be a sign. A sign must be visible, not taken on faith, or else it is not a sign. Since Jesus did not fulfill the sign, the Church would need a new sign. It would be a sign for the other sign.
It is a substitute. And it is an admission that the promised sign, the resurrection, was never shown.
And I marvel how readily Christians and lovers of Jesus, such as yourself, bring up passages in which Tanach is misrepresented, knowing that Jews and b’nei Noach will object to such abuse. Peter claims that the speaking in tongues is a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. This is obviously false, as a reading of Joel will reveal. Although it does not take much to realize that Peter has misrepresented Joel, since it says nothing of speaking in foreign languages.
Joel 2:28 is not the beginning of a book. Nor is it the beginning of a new passage. It goes with what came before. What comes before, as one may read for himself, is very difficult times. But God has mercy, and he restores his people. Verses 26 and 27 read: “You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame. You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I, the Lord am your God and there is no other. And my people shall never again be put to shame.” And then comes verse 28, which is where Peter begins quoting: “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; etc.” The pouring out of the spirit comes after the restoration of Israel, not before its destruction.
Peter has this preceding the great devastation of the Jewish people. For Joel, this comes after a time where God’s “people shall never be put to shame again”. But Peter has this coming a few decades before the destruction of the temple and several decades before most of the Jews will be driven from Israel. Even the land would not be called by the nations “Israel” anymore, but “Palestine”. Joel 2:17 has the priest praying: “Spare your people, O Lord, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’” This is, of course, a perfect depiction of what has happened after the destruction of Israel. But all this comes before God pours out his spirit. Peter has it reversed. It is obviously not the same event.
Moreover, notice what is entirely absent from Joel: Jesus. There is no mention of the Messiah and his death and resurrection bringing about the baptism of the holy spirit. That omission is beyond understanding if this is the gift of the Messiah.
What we have is yet another misrepresentation by the NT. Over and over, one sees that the authors did not care for the Word of God. Constantly, they assigned their own meanings to the text. And yet, people continue to quote these as if they have any authority. It denies reason.
The events of Acts 2 do not prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather the opposite: they show that there was no Jesus, so some other sign must be given. They show also that the authors of the NT preyed upon the ignorance of their audience. They quoted Tanach, but they misrepresented it. Clearly speaking in tongues did not fulfill the words of Joel. They were wholly unrelated.
Jim
Oh Jim, you are on a roll!
Allow me to get straight to the point in linear fashion:
1) The gift of the Spirit validates Yeshua as a prophet since he foretold this very thing on multiple occasions.
2) The Spirit was given precisely for the reason Yeshua said, so they wouldn’t be ‘left as orphans’.
3) Yes, Peter played fast and loose with Scripture, he was a fisherman not a Rabbi.
4) This particular answer is FAR more reaching as it is a source of confusion among Christians and Jews.
>please listen, this is very important!<
The Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing the Messianic age to come, NOT the completed fulfillment of it! In that sense Peter had it right.
Jim, two can play the game you are playing:
You wrote:
The events of Acts 2 do not prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather the opposite: they show that there was no Jesus, so some other sign must be given.
So now I can say you clearly believe Yeshua was sent by G-d for who else can give signs of fire and speaking in tongues.
As you can see this kind of approach gets us nowhere. 2000 years later neither one of us can (dis)prove the resurrection.
To make Jesus worthy of rejection you need to prove he was worthy to be rejected. In other words, what did he do that was so wrong?
CP, you ask yet again, “In other words, what did he do that was so wrong?”
We answered this question so many times. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I would be so grateful if you would stop ignoring our answers and instead keep posing the question.
I also challenged you at least twice (this being the third time), on what Biblical grounds do you accept Jesus as Mashiach ben Yosef (what are the criteria and how did he fulfill them)? And how will he be Mashiach ben David at his second coming?
CP, I’m almost afraid to speak my mind for fear of ruffling your feathers, now that we’re on good terms :). Please know that I do not say this to offend, but I feel compelled to call you out on something. I find your mocking dismissal of Jim’s carefully measured arguments shocking in light of your claim that you came here to learn.
Dina,
First I’m sorry I’ve missed some of your posts, I have limited time and a busy schedule plus navigating these long threads is challenging on a iPhone.
I only know of one I need to answer (now two) and that was the one on the supposed changing of the adultery/ divorce laws. I have a longer answer for you but was unable to post, however the short of it is Yeshua did nothing more than side with the house of Shammai rather than Hillel. You need to understand “high context vs low context” manuscripts. Normally he sided with Hillel.
As to your current question, Agsin the short answer; the Talmud testify to a number of Rabbinic speculations. Yes, though they be not authoritative they bring out what is seen in the Tanakh. For example, Messiah riding in on a donkey as opposed to coming in the clouds, Messiah as a suffering servant as opposed to reigning King, Messiah. Messiah being killed as opposed to a eternal throne. I’d say Yeshua fulfilled the donkey, servant, and killed as Mashiach Ben Yosef, the rest reserved for Mashiach Ben David.
CP,
Thanks for responding. (You’ll have an easier time following threads with a computer or laptop. I did not present any arguments on divorce laws. I gave you three categories of things Jesus said that were problematic. If you can’t find it, let me know, and I’ll try to find it for you.
As for Mashiach ben Yosef, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t decide to accept the concept that Mashiach ben Yosef will precede Mashiach ben David based on the Talmud whose authority you reject simply because it fits your idea of Jesus. To be consistent, you would also have to accept that the rabbis expect him to precede Mashiach ben David within a short time period, not with an indefinite time period so far lasting 2000 years in between. Mashiach ben Yosef is not in the Bible and therefore the concept should not figure in your discussions at all. Or you can be consistent and accept the Talmud as authoritative, but then you will have to reject Jesus as the Talmud does.
For the sake of consistency, let us say that the Bible itself does not set up criteria for Mashiach ben Yosef. Therefore, there are no Biblical criteria for him to fulfill.
Finally, how will Jesus transform into Mashiach ben David at his second coming?
CP,
I hope to respond to this tonight, but I should point out that I never said I could disprove the resurrection. Nor did I claim to have done so. I said that the claim to the resurrection was not credible. That is different.
And, I should also point out that the burden of proof is on the one who says that Jesus did rise from the dead, and that one should believe on him due to that resurrection. Logically, I am well within my rights, so to speak, to say that the claim is not credible. I am under no obligation to show that it did not happen. As long as it is unproven, I have no reason to believe it. Nor do you.
But I will show you that Jesus’ prophecy regarding the outpouring of the holy spirit was not fulfilled later tonight, if HaShem is willing.
Jim
Jim,
Yes I know it’s getting late here also and I might be able to check in later tonight but after this post I have to go for a bit.
You are correct a story about someone rising from the dead is not “credible”. One believes or they don’t. However where in the Tanakh does it say someone should be rejected as a prophet, teacher or even a Messiah because of a story circulating he supposedly rose from the dead?
I think that is the real question on the table.
If I don’t talk with you again tonight, have a great evening!
Hey, CP, we did talk about Deuteronomy 13:2-6 saying that even if a prophet performs miracles yet if he introduces a new type of worship he must be killed and Deuteronomy 18:22 that if a man gives a sign and it doesn’t come to pass then he did not speak in the Lord’s name. Jesus prophesied that he would be resurrected; ” a story circulating he supposedly rose from the dead,” to use your words, does not a fulfillment make.
Dina,
Could you kindly explain to me how the Gemara is authoritative when differences of opinion are being argued with no clear conclusion as to which side is right?
However, I see extremely dedicated and educated Rabbis peering intently into the text and the unknown for decades, speculating about Messiah, and now you know for sure?
I don’t need to take it as authoritative to value its content and the dedicated expertise of those who composed it.
CP, I’m responding to your question about the authority of the Gemara, which you offered in response to my challenge of Biblical criteria for Mashiach ben Yosef.
I would like not to get sidetracked into a discussion of the authority of the Talmud and the Oral Law, important as it is. I would like instead to focus on my challenge, which still stands, as I will show you.
In a previous comment, you wrote that anything that is not written in the Bible is not relevant. I’m not 100% sure what this was in regard to, but if memory serves it had to do with the Oral Law (which was redacted in the Talmud). For the sake of consistency, you then have to reject the notion of two messiahs, one of the tribe of Joseph and one of the tribe of Judah, since that appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. (Also, I just realized something else: how do you know Jesus was from the tribe of Joseph? The gospels try very hard to show he was of David’s line. This is beside the point that no one even knows who his birth father was, a crucial factor in establishing tribal lineage.)
Furthermore, you did not answer my question about Jesus’s second coming, which I now pose for the fourth time. How will Jesus become Mashiach ben David in his second coming?
CP,
Answering your comment: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29459 .
Just as I said, you have used Acts 2 as a distraction from the resurrection. You act as if Jesus fulfilled at least the outpouring of the holy spirit, then that proves Jesus was a prophet. And you will take that proof if you cannot establish the other. Hopefully, in the next day or two I will explain why it is important that Jesus have appeared publicly in relation to his resurrection as a sign to establish him as a prophet. Remember, those comments were merely preliminary. However, I think it is important to show the flaws in your argument regarding Acts 2 and the tongues of fire.
The first problem is that you accept the inferior over the superior. Two elements of discussion came up: the tongues of fire and Peter’s misrepresentation of Joel. You emphasized how the tongues of fire, if I accepted that such a thing happened, would prove that the Day of Pentecost was the work of God. At the same time, you dismissed—rather cavalierly I am afraid—Peter’s misuse of Joel as a natural product of his being a fisherman rather than a rabbi. In essence, you argue that his ignorance should not be held against him.
But I ask you, which would be the greater work of God, to make fiery tongues or to imbue this ignorant man with knowledge? I submit to you that it is the latter. I submit also that the holy spirit is supposed to be a spirit of truth, even according to Jesus (see Jn 16). Moreover, he is supposed to be the same spirit that inspired Joel. I do not imagine you mean us to think that the holy spirit forgot the message he gave to Joel though centuries separate him and Peter.
Then too, I wonder what are we to make of Peter, who is supposed to be speaking under the power of the holy spirit, yet he is speaking falsely. What sort of prophet do you suppose this makes Peter? If Peter is a false prophet, then surely you do not intend that I should listen to his testimony about anything. Surely you do not expect me to follow his teachings about Jesus, when it is clear that whatever spirit inspires him, it is not a spirit of truth.
But I do have a difficulty—the flaming tongues. Those are impressive, or they would be if I saw such a thing. I cannot deny that. But, if I see a flaming tongue, I am in no way obligated to believe the man who speaks with them when I know that he misrepresents what I know to be true. As Dina has pointed out, Deuteronomy 13 makes this quite clear. Truth trumps miracles. From Deuteronomy 13 it can be seen that miracles are not restricted to those who speak the truth; even those who teach idolatry may perform miracles. HaShem allows them to test people, to see if they love him or not. When I get to discussing prophecy, I will discuss this farther, HaShem willing.
Allow me to return to Peter’s ignorance, because it is a much bigger problem for you than you realize. First, I would like to raise a small problem. It is usually supposed that Jesus’ ministry was for 3-1/2 years or thereabouts. According to you, Jesus was a rabbi (though his own townspeople did not seem to know it.) One of his first and closest disciples was Peter. I assume you to believe that Jesus taught Peter Torah. According to the gospels, Jesus showed all the things Jesus must do according to scripture. So, Jesus does not seem to be a very good teacher. His student is still an ignorant fisherman, even though he is taught by this very special being. But, I will admit that three years is not a long time. Maybe they just did not get to Joel. (But then why did Peter use that and not some relevant passage?)
Second problem: the great emphasis in missionary circles and from you obviously as well is the Jewishness of Jesus and the disciples. These were Jewish men giving over Torah. Their ideas were totally Jewish. This is reflected in the way you inject Hebrew into the gospels, though they were written in Greek. But, according to you, Peter was just a fisherman, not a rabbi. If we grant you this premise, then it is obvious that Peter, the preëminent disciple and apostle, is not qualified to represent authentic Judaism. He is genetically Jewish, yes, but he does not have knowledge of Judaism. He does not understand Tanach. So, his ideas are not authentically Jewish, due to his ignorance.
But probably the biggest problem for you is that the Day of Pentecost shows that Jesus was a false prophet. His prediction and promise did not come true. Jesus said: “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:25-26). And: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (Jn. 16:12-13). Moreover, when Jesus sent out his disciples during his lifetime, he told them: “When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given you at the time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” (Mt. 10:19). Yet, we have Peter, under the influence of the holy spirit, unable to explicate Joel properly. It is clear, then, that Jesus’ promise did not come true. Whatever spirit guided Peter and the others was not a spirit of truth. It did not teach them, as they were promised. It did not guide the disciples in all truth, relating the words of God. Presumably, this is the same spirit that would teach them what to say before kings, but it failed Peter immediately. This is a failed prophecy on Jesus’ part.
Now your problems have multiplied. You had first the difficulty of proving the resurrection, which you generally ignored. You appealed to the Day of Pentecost as a proof, but that too is fraught with problems. Your argument shows that the holy spirit could not—or at least did not—impart truth to the chief disciple. It shows that the chief disciple was unqualified to teach Tanach. It shows that Jesus did not teach him sufficiently. And it shows that Jesus’ promise and prophecy did not come true.
Jim
Jim wrote;
“Now your problems have multiplied. You had first the difficulty of proving the resurrection, which you generally ignored. You appealed to the Day of Pentecost as a proof, but that too is fraught with problems. Your argument shows that the holy spirit could not—or at least did not—impart truth to the chief disciple. It shows that the chief disciple was unqualified to teach Tanach. It shows that Jesus did not teach him sufficiently. And it shows that Jesus’ promise and prophecy did not come true.”
To respond;
My problems have not multiplied, rather your misunderstanding me has multiplied. I never set out to prove the resurrection. I did set out to prove from the text that the religious leaders had eyewitness testimony available to them and a number of priests believed. I pointed to the day of Shavuot as validation of Yeshua’s prophecy concerning the gift of the Spirit. I pointed out that Peter was just a fisherman and is not going to view the text according to Rabbinical standards, rather he used the text in a way no normal Rabbi would and got it right, imagine that. It is you who misunderstand, Peter wasn’t referring to the Messianic Age but to a deposit guaranteeing it to come. In other words, as you fully know; the Messianic Age has not arrived, what you fail to realize is; we’ve a taste of it now guaranteeing a hope and a future .
CP, I’d like to draw your attention to this comment as well, redirecting us to the issues at hand.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29492
CP,
When you write that you could give examples of how Jesus was similar to Israel, but I would nit pick them, what you really mean is that they would not stand up to scrutiny. If they would, you would gladly present them. But you know that they are hollow. You know that if one wanted, he could make similarities between Abraham Lincoln and Israel or Donald Trump and Israel or Hillary Clinton and Israel. If one comes with an agenda to a text, he will certainly be able to find similarities. The differences matter.
Do not fool yourself. You do not support your contentions by burying them. This only allows you to maintain that they are true by virtue of having not been exposed to scrutiny. As long as they are not analyzed, they are not shown to be false. However, if you really seek to know the truth, rather than assume you have it, you will have to listen to the opposition and not just dismiss them before presenting your evidence.
However, I actually do think in this instance it is better that you do not present your analogies. ‘Types and shadows’ is tiring business, a refuge for those who cannot appeal to form and substance. And it is not relevant to the discussion. It is a distraction.
As for the one analogy you present, it is riddled with flaws. No good support of the resurrection exists. This you assume but have not shown. You say that Jesus prefigured the nations not accepting Israel as a nation. That is silly. The nations accepted Jesus but not Israel. (And that should tell you something.) But this is the sort of scrutiny in which you do not wish to indulge.
Of course, you wrote that people cannot refute your ideas using scripture, but then analogies are not scripture. The fact that you have had to resort so quickly to finding likenesses shows the hollowness of your arguments. The reason you need to find types and shadows is because Jesus is not the focus of Torah. So you need to find a way to put him in there. You would do yourself a world of good by reading Torah for itself.
Jim
Jim,
Reading this response was much fun, like a rollercoaster ride, first you disagreed, then agreed, then disagreed and misinterpreted the one analogy I gave.
However, even though the Tanakh is replete with types and figures, I agree it can be wearisome fodder for those with differing perspectives.
Cflat7,
It is good to read from you again! It seems like it’s been a while.
Jim
Thanks… yes, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted anything, but I’ve lurking here all along. 🙂
The day the Madman’s son, the man who killed an Egyptian, said he was a prophet.
Prince Moses came to us while we were in the brick pits today. A prince of Egypt wanted by the authorities for murdering an Egyptian. Any one of us at any time might have desired to turn him in, if only so we could have rest from our labor for a day.
He said something rather unbelievable.
“I am here to redeem Israel from slavery.”
The first thing that crossed my mind was that the prince was Meshugga. How could the son of a man responsible for the genocide of our firstborn children be our long awaited redeemer?
We stood agast, when Moses recounted something he experienced at a burning bush. “I heard G-d speak, I couldn’t believe it.”
“what does Pharah’s son know about our G-d?”
I, “Moses asked God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?””
14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[d] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’
“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation.
16 “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. 17 And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’
18 “The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us.
So, prince Moses went with us to the elders of our people, the Levites to check with them. We were all freaked out, because we knew that to talk to a criminal like Moses could have meant our death at the hands of the Egyptians.
He said, “i am the son of Amram and Yochebed.”
The Levites replied, “Impossible, for we know their two children Aaron and Miriam.”
Moses then said, “See, that I have with me Aaron my brother, and Yochebed my mother will recount for you the true tale of my birth, and also the circumstances of my being raised by the Pharoah. My sister may chime in too.”
“Even if all you say were true, how do we know it is from G-d that you come?”
Moses answered, “G-d gave me information which only the elders would know, and further said you would believe me.”
At that instant, the prince told the levites the name of our G-d, a name that was entrusted to their safe keeping.
“we are all still hesitant, and your trust must be earned.”
Moses said, “that’s ok, I completely understand your skepticism, I wasn’t believing all this myself.
However, G-d told me that you will all come out with me, and stand at the foot of a mountain, where he will speak to all of us after we get out of here.
12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you[b] will worship God on this mountain.”
Connie, care to clarify?
Are you trying to compare this to the resurrection of Jesus? There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. But before I delve into this, please let me know what you’re trying to say.
Dina,
I would never wish to answer for Concerned Reader, but I think you may be misreading his comments. It is understandable that we should do this, because it would be quite unexpected for him to agree with me. He and I are so often on opposite sides of an issue, it is hard to imagine that he is lending support to my argument. Also, his style of writing is difficult to follow at times, likely due to his university training, which makes it a little inaccessible to us. However, I think we can safely say that Con is supporting my argument regarding the lack of credibility of the resurrection by drawing attention to the differences between Jesus and Moses and the difference between Pentecost and Shavuot. In this he anticipates one of the arguments I intended to bring.
Con seems to wish to draw our attention to the fact that early in the mission of Moses, one could only believe in him provisionally. After Moses returned to Egypt, it was impossible to know for a certainty that Moses had received prophecy at the burning bush. The elders of the people, however, decided that there was enough reason to believe him, at least temporarily.
Jesus would have a similar period in his career, where if one believed in him, it could only be provisionally. Jesus, unlike Moses, was unable to authenticate himself with the elders of Israel, in this case the Pharisees. Jesus’ teachings differed from the Torah too much for them to accept him even provisionally. Nevertheless, they did ask for a sign.
In Con’s reading, it seems, each of the men offers a sign as a proof that he has been sent by God. The proof of Moses’ legitimacy would be that Israel would serve God at Horeb. The proof of Jesus’ legitimacy would be that he would rise from the dead after three days. It appears that Con wishes us to contrast these two predictions and their outcomes.
Following what seems to be his reasoning, one can see that Moses’ proof was substantiated. After Israel left Egypt, they went to Horeb. There, the entire nation served God. Moreover, they had a revelation, all together, shared. The people to whom Moses was sent heard the voice of God speak to Moses. None of them could question that Moses’ prediction came true. Nor could they question any longer that Moses was a prophet of God.
But when one compares the resurrection, one finds the opposite. Hardly anybody saw Jesus alive after his death. His appearances were private events. Virtually nobody knew about it. At the third day, Jesus did not walk about Jerusalem. I am sure that Con would point out that the Church would emphasize the empty tomb, because they could not emphasize the living-but-once-dead man.
If I read Con correctly—and what else could he mean—he is drawing our attention to the Jewish Shavuot and the Christian Pentecost and the gulf that separates them. On Shavuot, the entire people heard God speak. On Pentecost, some people heard the disciples speak in different languages. The credibility gap between these two events is obvious. At Sinai, those who lived at the time were witnesses to the truth of Moses’ prophecy. At the upper room, those who lived at the time had to take Peter’s word for it. Con draws our attention to the difference between the public and private event.
I am sure that Con will affirm my interpretation, but again, I do not speak for him. I hope I have not overstepped my bounds. I will admit to finding his work difficult to understand. It contains what appear to me to be many superfluities, but this is likely a mark of my lack of sophistication. I am sure that we will find that the difficulties in his work are a mark of his erudition. I have no doubt that we will discover that his intention is to distinguish between Sinai, where evidence was provided for Moses, and the upper room, where the evidence, namely the living Jesus, was conspicuously missing. Until this moment, one might believe either provisionally, but after these events, Moses was established but Jesus was invalidated.
Jim
I think I needed to add more “Moses said” and “onlookers replied.” It Wasn’t my intention to confuse. Yes, Jim, there is a direct comparison between Jesus and Moses, but not mainly in terms of Shavuot v. pentacost events, but the deeper conversations that would have gone on. Moses in the text expresses self doubt when he encounters G-d, whereas Jesus says to Peter, “get behind me Satan.” Totally different attitudes from polar opposite personalities.
It is G-d himself that told Moses to go to the elders and who told him that they would listen to him, after Moses verified with the Levites the name of G-d which he had received.
Maybe I shouldn’t have added the verses?
This to me suggested a tribal hierarchy existed in the time of Moses, with elders whom he had to answer to, and be vetted by. AKA some sort of belief system existed whereby Moses’ claims could be checked.
My story was attempting to show that if Moses had shown up and claimed prophecy, literally none of his own people would have had any reason to view him as anything other than awful. In fact, if Moses killed the Egyptian, he would be enemy of the state and it would have been dangerous to follow him, and Moses was sensitive to such danger.
If the story of Moses is as scripture describes, then to the Jews of the Exodus period, Moses was (as far as anyone knew,) the presumed son of that generation’s genocidal maniac, the Pharaoh.
Moses had his mother to back his story up, his sister, and his brother, but the family testimony wasn’t important. What was important was that the elders had to verify Moses’ credentials even before he went to the Pharoah, and Moses humbly had his own reservations about his mission.
Moses does not even chide the Israelites for being stubborn until well after his mission is complete. The man couldn’t even remember to do his own son’s brit millah, his wife had to do it for him.
As far as I’m concerned, Moses had to have all result/proof to be followed with very little pudding. Jesus is all pudding and no proof.
Thanks, Con and Jim, that really does clear everything up!
Pingback: Matthew Admits that Jesus was never Resurrected! – by Jim | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
CP,
You asserted that the spirit was a deposit guaranteeing the Messianic age to come. Can you please show me this teaching from Tanach?
Jim
Jim, I guess for CP (and others who believe as he does), Hashem’s promises given through His prophets and recorded in the Tanach, are not enough of a “deposit” of things to come. Apparently, they prefer a Vegas style light show with tongues of fire as a guarantee.
In my opinion, Hashem’s promises are rock solid, much more valuable than gold, no deposit needed.
By the way Jim, your explanations are excellent and crystal clear.
Southern Noahide,
Thank you for your encouraging words.
I do think you raise an interesting point. For hundreds of years, there was no ‘deposit,’ only promise, the immutable and potent promise of HaShem. The people who lived one hundred years before Jesus did not despair of God’s promises for not having received this deposit. Nor did the Jewish people after Jesus who recognized no such deposit, yet put their trust in the promise of the Eternal.
Jim
Dear Southern Noahide,
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but y’all are operating so far out of the historic and cultural context you are unable to understand.
Yeshua’s own words; Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The problem with your comment is lack of another’s perspective. Y’all may feel all warm and cozy snuggled in Orthrodoxy but there are people, like the lost tribes who feel totally lost and rejected by G-d. These people for whatever reason have turned their back on G-d and are in need of a little extra, such as a strong message of forgiveness and love. You would deny your lost brothers this? I’m sure you have enough sense not to stand between a lioness and her cub. Yet you would stand between Hashem and His lost son, your own brother?
What Torah does one follow that denies a gift of mercy to those who need a little extra to bring them to repentance?
CP, your response to Southern Noahide is disappointing. You said you came here to learn. But your mocking dismissal of Jim’s careful arguments, your lecturing and scolding of Rabbi B. and me, and your condescension to Southern Noahide here all make me suspect your intentions. Your tone suggests you are here to preach and teach.
Perhaps you do not mean to come across this way. But it makes me sad.
It makes me sad because I actually believed you. I thought we would engage in real honest give and take. But mostly I feel like what we write is lightly and even sneeringly dismissed. I admit I had a part in playing rough. But I agreed to change my tone. You are still making this hard :(.
Dina,
Anytime someone refutes you; They are narrow minded, bias, mocking, and disrespectful. (No one else says that)
We who believe in the Rejected Hebrew, do not feel the same negativity. But, we just hear you out.
1. We hold that the abrahamic covenant was through faith. 1st Covenant with The promise that blessed (All) nations isn’t nullified.<<<Salvation to all nations was bought at price.
2. The Prophets Prophesied about a Messiah.
3. Moses didn't speak to the Rock and thus didn't go into the Promise Land.
4. All the Prophets were notified by God through his Word- and Israel missed the mark.
5. Moses had the Holy Spirit and had to share it (70 elders) but (All) Flesh(Joel) that accepts the Rejected Hebrew Yeshua receives the Holy Spirit- Moses wanted it for you because he was very Burdened
How does all flesh spoken in Joel get the Holy Spirit?????
Bibsy, you ought to substantiate your claims before making them. Here’s a list of Christians and others I disagreed with that I had respectful dialogue with and did not accuse them of these sorts of things:
Cliff (really nice guy, super respectful)
Makagutu (really nice guy, super respectful)
Gean Guk Geon (really nice guy, super respectful)
Concerned Reader (really nice guy, super respectful though occasionally I did/do accuse him of condescension, sorry Con :))
And that is just off the top of my head from my recent conversations, and they did present direct refutations to my arguments. (I must say I was always able to counter-refute). Now let us see if you apologize for your accusation.
I said I don’t want to talk to you because you haven’t refuted a thing I posted to you, instead just ignored my arguments and preached at me. Since that does not lead to fruitful dialogue, I decided it’s a waste of time to talk to you. I’m sorry you don’t like that, but that doesn’t excuse you from hurling false accusations.
Dina,
You’re right, it has been a unusually rough day for me and Noahide who I’ve never spoken to ever pushed me over the edge with the mocking blasphemous post equating the work of Hashem’s Spirit with a Las Vegas light show.
I do apologize and will do my best to ignore mean spirited remarks from people I don’t know.
As for Jim, I don’t believe I’ve EVER mocked him, however I feel he hasn’t given me any blatant proof to reject Yeshua. He has given proof meaningful to him and all that proves so far is we think different and what is of paramount of importance to him may not be to me and vice-a-versa. We are still discussing, are we not?
As for R’B I feel I have always respected him, our perspectives are different. I am learning his perspective so that I may better understand. However I don’t think I’ve EVER scolded or lectured him.
Dina, if you know any where I’ve mocked Jim or scolded and lectured R’B please post it and ill gladly retract and apologize. However don’t take me for a complete goy, I’ve sat many a night in synagogue listening to heated debates between people who love each other. I personally feel you are being a bit melodramatic except for Noahide, that post just rubbed me wrong and that’s no excuse for my behavior. However I retract “how” but not “what” I said: I believe it to be Hashem’s heart to seek and save what was lost, namely the Diaspora assimilated by the Gentiles.
819,
Your accusation is quite empty. In fact, CP has been quite dismissive and mocking the entire time he has been here, especially to Dina. She has been moved to respond by pointing out to his tone, only because he has been so provoking. If you read over CP’s comments, you will see he does not restrict his comments to his arguments. (Often, he has not addressed them.) He has assumed and asserted the ignorance of his interlocutors, without evidence.
And Dina has called out others on this, because the conversation is often quite one-sided. You may have noticed that most of the Christians who come here do not ‘listen’ to their opposition. Rather, they preach at them without consideration of the arguments against them. Can one blame Dina, or anyone, for becoming frustrated with such one-sided conversation? I share in her frustration.
There are those who come here, Christians, who accuse the Jewish people of spiritual blindness. Their attitude is: “Thou must listen to me, but not I to thee.” They ignore the manipulations of Torah by their own leaders. They ignore the evidence against them. And then they tell the Jew that he (or she) has not been gifted by the holy spirit to have the understanding that the writer has. Why should she not complain against such behavior. It is not dialogue but monologue.
Consider the following points that CP has never supported with either scripture or reason:
1. Jesus is an angel, or something like it. (Even the gospels do not support such a contention.)
2. His selection of NT scriptures according to his own personal opinion.
3. That the gift of the holy spirit was a deposit; a thing which neither Joel nor Peter actually taught.
And there may be others, but I am a little ill and tired, and my memory is not as sharp as normal.
You say that CP has refuted Dina, but I see him too often dismissing her. And his assertions are often entirely unfounded.
And regarding your question on Joel:
1. As I’ve already pointed out to you, a question is not an argument.
2. The question lacks merit. Read Joel and the passages to which I have already referred you on the question of repentance, such as Deut. 30. The answer lies there, not with your insinuations.
Jim
Jim, thanks for the support! I hope you feel better soon.
1. Jesus is an angel, or something like it. (Even the gospels do not support such a contention.) >Wrong
Matthew 22:30
Gospels Say>>>>>At the (resurrection) people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the (angels) in heaven.
And then Paul goes into More Detail*****I.E First Born among the dead, body type ect
2. His selection of NT scriptures according to his own personal opinion.
Jims opinion of CP
3. That the gift of the holy spirit was a deposit; a thing which neither Joel nor Peter actually taught.
ATTN>>>>> What happens so that All flesh Could have the((( Spirit of GOD))))
Moses gave to (only)))) 70 Elders the Spirit? Correct
Joel
I will pour out my Spirit on (all people))).
What Happened?????
4) You say that CP has refuted Dina, but I see him too often dismissing her. And his assertions are often entirely unfounded.
Dina, believes that Israel will be coming in the clouds of Heaven.
**** Metaphorically speaking
I believe the rejected Hebrew (Yeshua) (Son of Man) will be coming in the Cloud of Heaven.
And regarding your question on Joel:
1. As I’ve already pointed out to you, a question is not an argument.
A question you haven’t answered.
2. The question lacks merit. Read Joel and the passages to which I have already referred you on the question of repentance, such as Deut. 30. The answer lies there, not with your insinuations.
In repentance all people receive the Spirit that Joel is Speaking about?
I agree, Repentance in Christ, in which I have the Spirit that was Prophesied by Joel.
But remember once again, Moses Covenant, was limited to 70 people….. Not All Flesh spoken
By Joel
I suggest you re-read Joel since you apparently are mistaken on the context.
Also, what do you think the purpose of the 70 elders receiving part of Moshe’s spirit.
You TRY to make comparisons that is based upon ignorance of the words in context.
Are YOU filled with that same spirit that guided Stephen also into ignorance of the word.
CP, it is big of you to say so and I thank you for it. I am not the only one who feels this way, however. Jim just posted to a fellow who calls himself Bible819 validating everything I wrote.
It’s fair if I accuse you to back it up, although it’s time consuming. Here are some examples:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/post-script-for-responding-to-distractions/#comment-29405
I’m sorry to be mean, but while couched in respectful language, this post comes across as a self-righteous, scolding lecture.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/post-script-for-responding-to-distractions/#comment-29469
This is an example of one of the times you begin a comment with “Sigh.” Like you need so much patience to talk to me because I’m so thick I don’t get the obvious.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29379
Condescending and dismissive, not even addressing my core arguments.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29458
Mockingly dismissive of Jim’s careful argument without even supporting what you wrote in dismissal.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29459
Mocking, did not address core argument but deflected.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29475
Third time responding to a post that asked a question about Jesus’s second coming and ignoring the question.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29479
Sneering dismissal of a long and careful post by Jim (you may notice I keep using the word careful; Jim is a careful writer).
If I am being unfair and nitpicky, I apologize, but again, I’m not the only one who feels this way.
CP, I spent at least a half hour responding to this, thanking you for being big about it and looking up comments of yours because it isn’t fair to accuse without basis. And I don’t know what happened to my comment. Perhaps it didn’t show up on my computer. If no one is seeing it I will try again tomorrow.
Can you context a prophesy? Asked the Rabbi if you can context a Prophesy?
How can all Flesh have the Spirit?
Context that for me Sharbano-
Your best intellect- Context Joel for me.
Is that suppose to be a reply? It sounds as if you cannot take words at face value.
One thing you should come to realize is that the Bible was written By Jews, For Jews and About Jews. Keeping That in mind is key to a better understanding.
Hi CP,
I did accuse you of dismissing arguments, sometimes in a mocking way, and scolding/lecturing some of us. You apologized handsomely for your words to Southern Noahide, and I, for my part, ought to substantiate my accusation with real examples.
It’s tedious work, but here goes:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29458
Mocking dismissal of Jim’s careful arguments without addressing core issues.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29459
More mockery, without directly addressing Jim’s measured arguments.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29479
More mockery and condescension.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/post-script-for-responding-to-distractions/#comment-29405
I don’t want to be mean, but my point here is that while couched in respectful language, this post comes across as a self-righteous, scolding lecture.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/post-script-for-responding-to-distractions/#comment-29469
An example of a response you begin with the word “Sigh,” as if to imply that you require great patience to deal with someone so thick they don’t get the obvious. (You’ve done this more than once.)
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29385
Dismissal of core arguments, focusing instead on the periphery.
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29475
This is your third time responding to a post questioning your belief in the second coming (namely, how will Jesus who is Mashiach ben Yosef turn into Mashiach ben David at his second coming) but ignored the question three times.
This may seem like nitpicking to you and perhaps unfair, but I see that Jim feels the same way I do. We spend hours of time formulating arguments, poring over texts, and then writing them down, and from our end, it appears like you flick them all away with a distraction (like deity versus divinity) without giving our words any really serious consideration. (I’m not saying you always do this, but it appears that way much of the time.)
Speaking for myself, I read your post several times before responding. Sometimes I take a day or two to mull it over and sometimes I respond right away, but it takes me often well over an hour to craft a response in which I check and double check that I responded directly to your arguments. Not a perfect record, but I would be grateful for some reciprocation.
My point here is not to make you defensive, just to air out my own frustration.
And I do appreciate your willingness to accept my words at least regarding Southern Noahide. Thank you for that!
CP, I tried again today to post my response and it still didn’t take. I sent an email to Rabbi B. and am waiting to see what the problem is (possibly posting too many links).
Dina,
I read the posts you’ve linked to and don’t see then backing your claim. I fully realize you have a different perspective and through no fault of your own interpret them in a fashion never intended.
I feel my posts have been light hearted yet as straight to the point as I can. Perhaps my lighted hearted approach is perceived as sarcasm or straight forwardness as argumentative. Idk what I can do about it. Perhaps I should try to be more like a dry humored Englishman math teacher? Haha, oops I did it again! Seriously, I have a personality and harbor no will ill to anyone on this site. I feel I’m where I’m at through careful Spirit led study, so I’m going to need more than x & y don’t seem credible. I’m listening, reading all you and R’B link to and engaging in active discussion. Perhaps I need to restate your stated positions to me so you know I understand correctly before moving on to another point. The is only so much I can do but will do what I can.
CP, if I were the only one who felt this way I would not have mentioned it. Be that as it may. I do not want to take up any more time with this distraction, and I do appreciate your willingness to at least try to hear me out.
I hope you will learn one thing, though, from this.
I made an accusation, you asked for substantiation, I provided it.
Can you reciprocate? You wrote that you see on this blog extreme statements that sound emotional rather than truth-seeking to you. I ask that you please provide examples. I also ask, if I may, to only provide examples of such statements that don’t come along with strong validation from Tanach (or at least show why the Scriptural support is not strong enough).
Oh, and I can learn to proof read for spelling errors before sending, that last post was atrocious!😳
CP, do you ever consider the possibility that we might be right and you wrong about Jesus?
Yes Dina, I have, that’s why I’m here.
However currently I see only extremes being discussed which smells of emotionality. I am not searching for a home, I’m searching for the Truth, then that’s where I want to live.
CP, what extreme statements, unsubstantiated, have you read here that smack of emotionality?
CP,
If you recall, I wrote that my comments regarding the alleged resurrection were preliminary to my comments about Jesus as prophet. At this time, I would like to address the notion that Jesus was a prophet. With the groundwork laid, we are now ready to consider how one knows if a person is a prophet.
The first thing we must understand is that Israel is a community. It is not up to every individual to determine for himself, according to his own opinion, whether or not a person is a prophet or not. This is necessarily so, or else one will have millions of Judaisms—one for each Jew. One person’s Tanach will omit Isaiah and Psalms; he does not think they are inspired. Another omits Job, but accepts Psalms. Another accepts only Torah; another Torah and Joshua.
A claimant to prophecy had to be verified by the judicial body. This is clear from Deut. 18. Verses 20-22 make it clear that the prophet must be tested: “ ‘…But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.’ You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?’ If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.” It is a capital offense to claim to speak in the name of God if one has not actually been given by Him a message. From Deut. 17 we see that God appointed a judicial body to rule on decisions of this kind (vv.8-13).
This judicial body ruled on the prophets of Israel and preserved their works. This authority and duty was granted to them by God. Through their wisdom we have today still the works of Isaiah, Joel, and Amos. We have the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ruth. We have Jonah and Job. The judiciary, with great care, has given to us Tanach.
It is with these facts in mind that we must consider the resurrection story. Jesus, according to Matthew, predicted his resurrection as a sign. This means that it must be an observable event. A miracle that happens out of sight is no sign. If Phil claims to be a prophet, and his proof is that he walked on the lake behind his house, but we did not see it, this is no sign. Even if he claims that some fishermen saw him and were astounded at this feat, it is no sign to us. So, too with Jesus, for his resurrection to be a sign, he must present himself. Specifically, he must present himself to the judiciary.
Even if he presented himself to his followers, this is nothing. They are not the judiciary. They do not have any authority to validate Jesus as a prophet. Nor is it up to individuals to make up their own religion by accepting upon themselves this prophet and not that prophet. Someone might think that he need not accept the ruling of the judiciary, that it is a matter of faith for him, and that he is free to reject their ruling, but he is in error: “As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the Lord your God, or the judge, that person shall die. So shall you purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again” (Deut. 17:12-13).
Nevertheless, Jesus promised the sign, and when he failed to appear before the judiciary and substantiate his claim, then he proved himself a false prophet. Again I quote Deut. 18:22: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously.” Jesus’ words did not prove true. He did not reveal himself. On the contrary, as I pointed out, his resurrection happened secretly—or is supposed to have done. And it was not until much later than his predicted timeframe that it was announced. Jesus never fulfilled the sign, and is therefore a false prophet.
Even if everything else he promised had ever come true, he would already have been proven a false prophet, and there would be no reason to give him any more attention. But other promises that he is to have fulfilled did not come to pass. In Matthew 16:27-28, he declares: “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” This promise has consternated believers in Jesus for 2,000 years now, because it obviously did not come to pass. Jesus is clearly referencing the Messianic Era and the final judgment, but Christians often separate v. 28 from v. 27 so that the transfiguration in the next chapter can seem to fulfill the prophecy. But he is clearly not referring to the transfiguration, and if he were, there is no way that anyone could know it had been fulfilled. It, like the resurrection, was a purely private event and was not related until long after it happened. Like the resurrection, the prophecy would then be wholly untestable and certainly does not establish Jesus as a prophet. But in its obvious meaning, it proves that Jesus is not a prophet, for he did not return and set up his kingdom in the first century.
Similarly, he promised to send his followers a spirit of truth, as in John 16. But this he did not do, as is evidenced by the way they misused the scriptures. As shown, in Acts 2 Peter misrepresents Joel 2, and that is at the event whereby the disciples display the spirit. Lovers of Jesus are more intrigued with the speaking in language incomprehensible to oneself than in truth. The one is mystical and the other mundane. But that spirit did not move John or Matthew to use Tanach fairly. They misrepresented it. Matthew even rewrites it, shamelessly. Virtually every use of Tanach in the NT is a misrepresentation, easily tested by reviewing the passage in question.
It is of the greatest importance, however, that we consider that those who were entrusted with the task of identifying prophets, did not preserve the words of Jesus or even declare him a prophet. Those that preserved the words of Amos, did not preserve the words of Jesus. Again, Israel is a community. The Jewish people are a community. They have a system in place for identifying prophets. It is not up to the individual to declare for himself that he goes by the opinion of an unqualified fisherman rather than the judiciary. Such an act puts one outside the Jewish community.
Those that did preserve his words were not qualified to do so. The writings that are meant to contain Jesus’ teaching were preserved, not by the Jewish court, but by an assemblage of Romans. This body had no authority to rule on these works, no authority from HaShem anyway. It is a role they invented for themselves. It is a terrible act of audacity that this body of men should append their work to Tanach.
And, according to you, they did not preserve it faithfully. They preserved the works of Paul, which you reject. They did not preserve properly the work of Matthew. According to you the first two chapters are not from the actual author but a later addition. I must ask where this spirit of truth is. It did not preserve the teachings of Jesus pure and intact. It is mixed with untruths by your own admission. And it will be difficult for you to separate the wheat from the chaff. You will have to trust to the spirit of truth to guide you—a spirit that failed to preserve the works in the first place.
But you are also in the unenviable position of being a judiciary of one. You have rejected the judgment of those appointed with the task of identifying a prophet. And you have rejected the judgment of those that preserved the NT. Your own opinion will have to be the final one, a task with which you were never entrusted and for which you are—if I may say so—unqualified. (This is no insult. I am not qualified either.) In this, you reject the Torah and its teaching on prophets without realizing it.
In your arguments, you have demanded a reason to reject Jesus. His failures as a prophet are all the reason one needs. One is not obligated to believe that everyone who claims to be a prophet be believed. On the contrary, one should carefully test a prophet. And the Torah appointed courts to do just that. That court, appointed by God, did not recognize Jesus’ claims to prophecy. And it should not surprise us. Those books that venerate him admit that he did not fulfill his prophecies. The great sign he promised, he never produced. Certainly, some assert that it happened. But mere assertion is not proof. And these books admit that he never submitted himself to the court after the resurrection to validate his claims. The Jewish judiciary preserved the words of many prophets. Jesus was not among them. He was no prophet.
Jim
Dear Jim,
Please do not mistake my lack of words for dismissal of your words, I’m typing on a IPhone.
* Your position is because we do not have a record of Yeshua appearing to the ruling religious leaders this disqualified him from being a prophet. And it is these very ruling religious leaders who decide if Yeshua was a bonafide prophet.
> I see two problems with this position;
1) Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
2) Why did G-d allow Jerusalem to be destroyed if it ruling religious leaders were not corrupt, the very ones you say judged Yeshua for you.
As you can see I have some serious objections to your position.
Well put CP!
Wasn’t absense of evidence ” what was prophesied not coming true” The very reason we are not to believe in the prophet?
Larry,
That was good! But the evidence in question is not what would of manifested 2000 years ago but the record or lack of record of what happened 2000 years ago. That is the “absence of evidence”
CP
The NT record is not good enough? What would be good enough?
The NT record states specifically at the end of John what we have is a very sparse and incomplete record. So to answer your question straight; No
CP
So you don’t believe in the resurrection?
Let’s just say I believe Yeshua is alive. ‘Exactly’ how that happened I’m unsure.
CP
I feel that way about Elvis myself.
😆
CP, your answer to Jim does not even begin to refute his strong argument. I will let Jim speak for himself, but I just had to say!
I simply have to recommend working off of a laptop or desktop computer so you can do this properly :)!
CP, I hear your objection about the possibility of corrupt judges. The Sadducees, being pro Roman, would not necessarily have been the best of judges. However, this is beside the point made in the Bible for a few reasons.
1. your own New Testament says that the high priest Caiaphas possessed a state of prophesy in John 11:51. The author of the gospel even states that it was not “of his own” that he had prophesy, but because he was high priest that year. IE the office itself has some small degree of protection, (Mathew 16:18) Peter, James, and John were all “elders” who were followed as authoritative, even when we know they weren’t perfect people, because of the office they held.
2. For instance, Even though Jesus disagreed vehemently with the Pharisees’ approach to carrying out the mitzvot, he nonetheless acknowledged their position as those who sit on Moses’ seat, whose ruling must be followed in Mathew 23. (This is one reason why his students later submitted themselves to the 40-1 lashes.) They allowed themselves to be disciplined by the sages, even when they disagreed with them.
3. Moses was vetted by the elders of his own generation. (read what G-d said to Moses at the burning bush.) Moses was not told to go directly to Pharaoh, but was told to go to the elders.
Concerned Reader,
Oh my did you ever open a can of worms I was hoping to avoid! (and I’m still going to try to avoid it😎)
However, you touch on some serious points, namely the respect and authority of G-d appointed offices regardless of corruption and is Rabbinical authority G-d appointed.
As to obeying the Pharisees, I take the Shem Tov Matthew to be the best reading. (Matthew 23:1-4)
“The Pharisees and sages sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore, all that he (Moses) says to you, diligently do, but according to their reforms (takanot) and their precedents (ma‘asim) do not do, because they talk but do not do.”
the problem with Shem Tov Mathew is that it was a polemical text used and preserved by the Jewish community who rejects Jesus. So, its not saying “don’t obey the Pharisees,” because it is through Jewish transmission that you even have the ibn shaprut text.
Considering he said that as an authority of 1 (One); he therefore Has No authority.
CP, I find interesting your view of Shem Tov Matthew on Matthew 23:1-4 in light of your claim that Jesus followed the rulings of Shammai in some cases and Hillel in most others. You can’t have it both ways.
Dina,
Yes, it can be both ways. Just because Yeshua agreed with Hillel and Shammi doesn’t mean as a Rabbi with authority he didn’t have some interpretations of the law that were unique to himself.
I know you, Jim, Larry and Eleazar think I’m here to convince you of something, but I was told by the leader of my synagogue and Rabbi Skobac personally it get involved in this kind of thing. I came with a open mind and I have changed my position on some things. But quite frankly I was expecting more. The ridiculous tirades and rants of how Yeshua led his followers into antisemitism and persecution of Jews has become nauseating and has nothing to do with the Jewish man who walked, taught and healed in Israel 2000 years ago. He taught a message of love, forgiveness and to beware of corrupt spiritual leaders.
Dina, it is in your posts on this forum that I find the least love, least forgiveness and the most admiration for corrupt spiritual leaders as you constantly dredge up the past, engaging in reconstructionist history as to spiritual leaders. I see why you’ve rejected the message of Yeshua. You’d rather hold on to the hate. Look around you, Christians are flocking to Israel in the millions, sending money and supporting Her. Are you unaware of the Christian involvement in re-establishing the State of Israel? Why don’t you talk about that some time?
CP, if you’re after the truth then you’re going to have to develop a thicker skin and answer the substance of my arguments while ignoring my tone (or what you perceive to be my tone).
You mischaracterized my historical, factual statements as ridiculous rants, but I will not address that now. I will simply say for now that you have demonstrated time and again your paucity of historical knowledge and you keep yourself in ignorance. You asked for blatant, concrete, unmistakable reasons to reject Jesus. Eleazar, Jim, Rabbi B., Con, cflat7, and others presented you with many. Stop whining and confront the evidence.
A good while back, you asked me not to coddle you. As you can see, I’m not coddling you.
May God Who is the Father of us all guide us in the light of His truth.
CP, I don’t want to get sidetracked from our discussion of the concrete, unmistakable, blatant (did I leave out any adjectives?) reasons to reject Jesus as a true prophet sent from God. But, frankly, I’m curious. You wrote, “I came with a open mind and I have changed my position on some things.”
Which positions have you changed?
CP, I do want to stay on topic but I can’t resist the temptation to respond to various of your assertions. You wrote, “Dina, it is in your posts on this forum that I find the…most admiration for corrupt spiritual leaders.”
Prove that the spiritual leadership of the Pharisees was corrupt. Please give me blatant, unmistakable, and concrete reasons to reject their leadership and teachings.
No quotes from the corrupt and unreliable NT need apply.
As for my point on Shem Tov Matthew, again, I’m digressing, but you missed the point. According to the slice you pasted, Jesus says to follow Moses but not the takanot of the Pharisees. Yet according to you he agreed with the rulings of a bunch of Pharisees. That is what I mean when I say you can’t have it both ways. Both these concepts are in contradiction to each other.
Okay, back to the blatant, unmistakable, concrete reasons for rejecting Jesus.
Dina,
Yes, by all means don’t coddle me, but be intellectually honest. You judge Yeshua by heretic Christians. How would you feel if I judged you by Reform Jews, hahaha, what a field day I could have! But I’m not here for a field day, I’m here with Orthodox observant Jews asking for the very best evidence available for their rejection of Yeshua based on what he said and did.
So far the best is
He said he was G-d——-no he did not
He changed the law——no he did not
Fought with religious leaders —they were corrupt
CP, that’s not the best I can do, and you know it–which is why you aren’t responding to my actual arguments.
“So far the best is”
“He said he was G-d——-no he did not”
Yes he did. I showed you how. He furthermore changed the nature of worship. I showed you how. I will not repeat it now, but review my previous posts. Everything I wrote on this topic is supported with citations. Your responses are not. (I am the first and I am the last–are you kidding me?)
“He changed the law——no he did not” Yes he did. Jim showed you this with a lot of evidence. You haven’t been able to counter this in any meaningful way.
“Fought with religious leaders —they were corrupt” No they were not. Prove it. Your only source for this is the words of the unreliable and corrupt NT.
But you ignored other best reasons, such as false prophecies and the rest.
CP, your character assassinations are getting tiresome (I’m intellectually dishonest, hateful, admire corruption, don’t understand forgiveness–did I leave anything out?), but I’m more interested in the truth. I will just give you one bit of advice: take the beam out of your own eye before removing the splinter from others.
Everyone knows the rule for how to salvage a losing debate: attack your opponent’s character when you can’t win on the merits of your arguments.
Dina,
“Alpha and Omega”
For some reason you think this to be important?
Rev 1:8 does not apply this title to Yeshua, this is a mistranslation by the KJV. Rev 22 does apply this title to Yeshua which is understandable in light of Christian doctrine of Yeshua subservient to God being the first to rise from the dead and present at the last judgement.
CP, I read Revelations 22 in context, and there Jesus is talking as if he is God. There isn’t any way for you to explain it away, except to yourself because you don’t want to face the plain meaning of the text.
If you are familiar with the Hebrew Bible, you would know that no human talks about himself this way.
So tell me what positions you have changed since joining this discussion.
CP, you wrote:
“So far the best is
He said he was G-d——-no he did not
He changed the law——no he did not
Fought with religious leaders —they were corrupt”
Actually, the reasons I presented were as follows:
False prophet
Claiming divine attributes
Failed messiah
Unknown lineage inadmissible criterion for contender to the royal throne
Failed moral legacy
For a detailed explanation of each, see my full comment here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29753
I hope you will take the time to do more than this:
False prophet–nuh uh
Claiming divine attributes–nuh uh
Failed messiah–nuh uh, he was Mashiach ben Joseph (what the heck, why not, it’s a great way to get out of this tight corner)
Unknown lineage inadmissible criterion for contender to the royal throne–well, how are you going to know who the messiah is, all the genealogical records were destroyed because they were stored in the Temple [I love that made-up piece of information]
Failed moral legacy–nuh uh, Christians don’t worship Jesus as God anyway (or at least, the ones who do don’t count), they’ve been real nice since the 1960s, so why can’t you find forgiveness in your heart for 2000 years of death and destruction, you hater who proves exactly why Jesus said the Pharisees were corrupt?
That’s pretty much what your arguments amount to: no substance.
Let’s see if you can match me with Scriptural support and, where appropriate, historical evidence, for every single reason listed above.
Let us also see if you can prove that the Pharisees were corrupt. I demand unmistakable, concrete, and blatant reasons, lots of them, to reject them. And after you present them, I reserve the right to decide whether or not they are blatant, concrete, and unmistakable based on my subjective judgment. And no matter how many you present, I will dismiss them and pretend you haven’t presented any and demand them all over again.
Dina Writes:
“Let’s see if you can match me with Scriptural support and, where appropriate, historical evidence, for every single reason listed above.
Let us also see if you can prove that the Pharisees were corrupt. I demand unmistakable, concrete, and blatant reasons, lots of them, to reject them. And after you present them, I reserve the right to decide whether or not they are blatant, concrete, and unmistakable based on my subjective judgment. And no matter how many you present, I will dismiss them and pretend you haven’t presented any and demand them all over again. ”
Well that’s a fine how to do!
You error in thinking I’m here to convince you of something. Forgive me for probing your statements rather than swallowing everything hook, line and sinker.
However, thank you for letting me know where your allegiance lies, apparently even if it was written in Torah or God spoke to you, you’ve already made up your mind to believe the Rabbis instead placing your trust in man.
Good luck with that.
CP, it sure is a fine to-do, but for you, not for me.
You cannot answer my arguments, and therefore you resort yet again to insults. This should trouble you deeply.
I fear we have come to a parting of the ways. I present careful arguments solidly based on Scripture and history; you dismiss them by hurling insults.
Therefore, I do not see a point in continuing our discussion.
I bear you no hard feelings and pray for you as I pray for myself that God grant us the clarity to understand His will for us and the courage and strength to carry it out.
Dina,
That’s fine, I wish you the best also. But let it be known history is on my side;
•Yeshua came preaching repentance according to Torah but the religious leaders in control refused to repent.
•Yeshua foretold the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem but the religious leaders put their faith in Shimon Bar-Kokhba.
•Yeshua foretold his death, in this, the religious leaders obliged.
•Yeshua said he would rise from the dead, the religious leaders tried to cover up the resurrection.
•Yeshua promised an outpouring of Gods Spirit, the religious leaders tried to silence those touched by God.
• After the destruction of the sacrificial system the Rabbis said to substitute repentance for sacrifice, Yeshua had been preaching this 40 years earlier and they refused the message.
• After 2000 years we still see the Spirit promised by Yeshua alive and prospering, bringing the lost sheep of Israel back to Torah and helping Israel become a Nation once again.
Dina,
you want to make this into who is right and who is wrong, but it isn’t! The real question is which Rabbi are you going to follow? You have your Rabbis to follow and I have my Rabbi to follow. You just so happen to hate my Rabbi while I respect and admire your Rabbis, but I can only ‘submit ‘ to One teacher while you submit to many.
I’m sure at this point you exclaim ‘I submit only to God!’ but we both know this is not true. You’ll argue saying the Oral Torah IS from God. I’d say there is more proof Yeshua is the one Moses promised than there is for the Oral Torah being from God, (not denying either one except where there is a conflict)
Are you starting to see the difference?
If not here it is;
We are both Jews
We both observe written Torah
However;
You follow years of accumulated laws interpreted by a human Rabbi alive today.
I follow the teaching of the One Moses promised would come after him interpreted by the promised Spirit of God.
I don’t fault you for your beliefs, I’ve sought to understand why you believe as you do, not to change you. I’ve a way that is so full of life and power that I would need far more evidence than you’ve given to reject the One who brought me back and saved me from a Godless eternity.
Best wishes,
Your Brother
PS, I will say I am not done sifting the paganism out of my belief system, we will see how little I have left when I’m done. If it is zero, then I be making some big changes. But after all I’ve researched there has not been one good reason come to light for the rejection of Yeshua.
Dear CP,
I am not ready to end this, after all. If you are Jewish, then you are indeed my brother, and how can I give up on my brother?
This is about right and wrong: the right way to worship God and the wrong way to worship God. And, yes, I am trying to convince you. I want to show you why your worship is a terrible deviation from our mesorah, a deviation that carries with it grave consequences. And in turn, you should try to convince me. Not for my sake but for yours. You need to see if you can mount a strenuous defense of your faith that stands up to the sharpest scrutiny. It is part of the search for truth: we try to convince each other and the one who cannot win–for lack of a better word–must concede the truth of the other’s argument. If one sits back and only bats away the other’s argument without defending his own then he cannot grow.
In the spirit of a sister correcting a brother, I point out that in your last post to me you made a large number of assertions without supporting any of them from Tanach and/or extra-biblical historical sources (such as Josephus or Philo or other historians of the time period). This is the type of argumentation that keeps one in spiritual stasis.
Rosh Hashana is approaching, followed by Yom Kippur and Sukkot, so I will be posting sporadically. As the New Year is ushered in, I wish you a year filled with growth, a closer connection to God, and a return to the fold.
Dina
CP I’ll give you one good reason – if you leave go Yeshua – you will able to be honest with yourself 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP and what tells you that they weren’t corrupt in the days of Amos, Esther, Ezra, Job, and Daniel 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I think it is no different than today, human nature hasn’t changed. There were times of corruption and times of observant hearts. And just like today it is difficult to judge the whole, it must be judged by the individuals who make up the whole.
I think it is important to note we had Levitcal Priests and a Monarchy to keep things in balance, all of which is lacking after the exiles.
CP It is God who keeps things in balance despite the corruption of the people – it is His responsibility to get teh message across using the messengers He chose for us
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP, your lack of words does indeed indicate dismissal of Jim’s post. You did not address a number of important points he raised:
1. The judiciary appointed by God is the only one with the authority to rule on someone’s prophet status. Jim backed this up with Scripture.
2. This authoritative judiciary body which ruled on the canon of the Hebrew Bible rejected Jesus, while an unauthoritative body, the Roman Catholic Church, ruled on and preserved the supposed teachings of Jesus.
Your objections are unserious for the following reasons:
1. Absence of evidence is the very thing that damns the false prophet. If he gives a sign, and there is no evidence that the sign has been produced, then we have no reason to accept him as sent by God. Deuteronomy 18 clearly says that this is how we test the prophet. No evidence of a sign fulfilled? Then forget about it.
Therefore, your objection that “Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence” is in error. Absence of evidence in this particular context does indeed constitute evidence of absence for the purpose of determining whether a self-professed prophet is from God or not.
3. You (and I) lack the authority to decide to reject the rulings of God-appointed judiciaries by speculating that they must be corrupt because of certain historical events (like the destruction of the Temple). In fact, to be consistent, you would have to speculate that God allowed the destruction of the First Temple and subsequent exile of the Jews in Babylon because of corrupt leadership, and therefore you must doubt the authority of the books of Daniel and Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles. What do you do with this?
Furthermore, the historical record shows that the Pharisee leadership was anything but corrupt (the same cannot be said of the Sadducees). The Pharisees were incredibly devoted to God’s words, and thanks to their hard work and dedication, Judaism survived the destruction of the Second Temple. Realize that it was the only sect of Judaism to survive. The followers of Jesus did not survive as a Jewish movement.
Even Christian writers of history recognize this fact and describe the Pharisees favorably, such as Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews and James Carroll in Constantine’s Sword.
So not only are you unauthorized to base your theology on speculation of the corruption of the Pharisee leadership, you are also wrong about it.
Let us also ask, who is making a stronger case?
Jim’s case is built on solid Scripture.
CP’s case is built on speculation and his personal opinion (I do not mean this disrespectfully).
It’s a no-brainer.
One more point: you came here demanding proof that Jesus is a false prophet. While we have submitted many proofs many times over, proofs which you have either dismissed or ignored (or perhaps missed because of your iPhone), you are wrong to even demand proof, and I will show you why.
Before Jesus, for a great many centuries, Jews worshiped God according to the Torah. Then Jesus came along and made many outrageous statements, such as:
I am the Lord of the Sabbath.
I and the Father are one.
I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
That is, of course, just the tip of the idolatrous iceberg. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon you and all believers in Jesus. You need to prove that Jesus was right to teach these and other things that are so clearly against the Torah.
I will conclude by asking a question for, now, the fifth time (I have been keeping track). If Jesus is Mashiach ben Yosef, how will he become Mashiach ben David in his second coming?
I will also add to that a question I have asked at least once before: since Christian scripture takes great pains to prove that his lineage is of David (which is impossible because we do not even know who his birth father was, a crucial factor in determining tribal lineage), how can you prove that he is of the tribe of Joseph?
I have given you a lot of topics to mull over, all in one post. Please take your time. I would so appreciate a measured response that I am willing to wait patiently.
Dina writes:
CP, your lack of words does indeed indicate dismissal of Jim’s post.
CP writes:
Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues. (Proverbs 10:19)
Dina writes:
You did not address a number of important points he raised:
CP writes:
I addressed what I thought was important.
Dina writes:
1. The judiciary appointed by God is the only one with the authority to rule on someone’s prophet status. Jim backed this up with Scripture.
CP writes:
The Pharisees owe their existence to the destruction of the first Temple. The Rabbinical system owes it’s existence to the destruction of the second Temple. “The judiciary appointed by God” is the Levites and Judges. The Pharisees of the second Temple period formed as response to the corruption of “The judiciary appointed by God”.
Dina writes:
2. This authoritative judiciary body which ruled on the canon of the Hebrew Bible rejected Jesus, while an unauthoritative body, the Roman Catholic Church, ruled on and preserved the supposed teachings of Jesus.
CP writes:
The Tanach was formally compiled and accepted as authoritative hundreds of years before the Rabbis put their formal seal of approval on them and hundreds of years before Yeshua. As to what the Roman Catholic Church decides about its own writings, why would you care?
Dina writes:
Your objections are unserious for the following reasons:
1. Absence of evidence is the very thing that damns the false prophet. If he gives a sign, and there is no evidence that the sign has been produced, then we have no reason to accept him as sent by God. Deuteronomy 18 clearly says that this is how we test the prophet. No evidence of a sign fulfilled? Then forget about it.
Therefore, your objection that “Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence” is in error. Absence of evidence in this particular context does indeed constitute evidence of absence for the purpose of determining whether a self-professed prophet is from God or not
CP writes:
Sigh, this is the last time I’m explaining this. It is the absence of “recorded evidence” that is the absence of evidence. It appears the first century Jewish leaders had ample evidence and even if it was recorded you don’t accept NT writings, therefore a mute point you attempt to make.
Dina writes:
3. You (and I) lack the authority to decide to reject the rulings of God-appointed judiciaries by speculating that they must be corrupt because of certain historical events (like the destruction of the Temple). In fact, to be consistent, you would have to speculate that God allowed the destruction of the First Temple and subsequent exile of the Jews in Babylon because of corrupt leadership, and therefore you must doubt the authority of the books of Daniel and Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles. What do you do with this?
CP writes, you wrongly assume the Tanach is authoritative only because some Rabbis you know nothing about personally put their seal of approval on. The Tanach is authoritative because G-d has made it so by making it universally accepted even before it was “officially” approved by Rabbis.
Dina writes:
Furthermore, the historical record shows that the Pharisee leadership was anything but corrupt (the same cannot be said of the Sadducees). The Pharisees were incredibly devoted to God’s words, and thanks to their hard work and dedication, Judaism survived the destruction of the Second Temple. Realize that it was the only sect of Judaism to survive. The followers of Jesus did not survive as a Jewish movement.
CP writes:
Then please explain one thing, just one thing, Dina I have asked this many many times and you ALWAYS refuse to answer. Now you have the chutzpah to make a opposite point with out addressing the question on the table?
!>Why did G-d allow the destruction of the second Temple and the following destruction of Jerusalem?<!
(I'm out of time, I'll finish the rest when time permits. Please do not think I do not enjoy and value our discussions just because I disagree.)
CP May I take the liberty to suggest you read “The Council of My Nation” 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“!>Why did G-d allow the destruction of the second Temple and the following destruction of Jerusalem?<!"
"Why did/does God allow" is a classic atheist argument, not even worth answering, frankly. But instead of using the unknown and human free will against God, you claim the unknown is known to you and even know what motivates God.
So make up your mind, CP. Do you agree with the epistle to the Hebrews or not? Because that is where you are heading with that question.
Why did God allow the holocaust? Why does God allow antisemitism? Because the Jews "have it coming" for not being Christians? Why did God allow HaSatan to attack Job, kill his family and destroy his life? Job must have done something to deserve it, right?
“The judiciary appointed by God” is the Levites and Judges. The Pharisees of the second Temple period formed as response to the corruption of “The judiciary appointed by God”.
Ok. so they formed as a response to priestly corruption and temple destruction, which their group survived. That means the mantle of judgment passed to them according to the Tanakh. They are the surviving observant group who carries the seal of the Covenant.
Scripture states that when the 1st temple was destroyed, the remnant was supposed to keep records about the temple. They were instructed to keep detailed records about its construction, and about its operation, (so that it could be rebuilt one day and function again.)
Who today preserves that Knowledge? Which group today is working to see the temple rebuilt? Who is teaching a new generation for the priesthood? Its not the Samaritans.
Also, even if the priesthood doesn’t exist as a distinctive legislative body any longer, how do you know today who is a kohen? Whom do you ask in order to find you a kohen? Where does one find Kohanim? Not in a Church! Who understands the language of the written Bible? Who taught primitive Christians like Jerome to understand Hebrew? It wasn’t Samaritans!
The Samaritans still sacrifice on Pesach, should we ask them for proper rulings? Or, rather should you ask the rabbis? IT IS YOUR JESUS WHO SAID THE PHARISEES SIT ON MOSES’ SEAT.
You yourself even attempted to use a redaction of Mathew’s gospel preserved by rabbinic teachers, Shem Tov’s Mathew (preserved in Eben Bohan,) to prove Jesus’ “true” words, and yet you accuse the Pharisees of falsehood in transmission in this instance?
You can’t have it both ways. You said you want to support the Torah. The only people who are alive and doing so in a consistent manner are the descendants of the Pharisees.
Eleazar,
We have a Covenant with G-d; if we keep our part G-d keeps His part. History proves the Covenant hasn’t been kept and we know G-d doesn’t break covenants.
Am I missing something here?
The only other explanation I can think of is we were put on a ‘time out’ at the destruction of the first Temple and are waiting for Messiah Ben David to restore all things.
(Btw, Job nor his ancestors were at Sinai)
Concerned Reader,
“……..IT IS YOUR JESUS WHO SAID THE PHARISEES SIT ON MOSES’ SEAT…….”
>yes, you are correct, please don’t think this falls on deaf ears, this is a Big Big thing and a very good point!I didn’t attempt, I unashamedly did! 😋absolutely not! however I am a bit suspicious concerning their legitimate authority and correct use of their power<
"…….You can’t have it both ways. You said you want to support the Torah. The only people who are alive and doing so in a consistent manner are the descendants of the Pharisees."
Personally, (and no offense intended) I see to much has been added. The Torah is simple, all the Takanot is confusing and draws ones attention way from Hashem.
I am responding to CP’s comment here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29614
CP argues that the God-appointed judiciary was corrupt and that the Pharisees formed in response to this. While this is historically inaccurate (the Pharisees had always maintained among them leaders who resolved disputes, arbitrated conflicts, and interpreted law–i.e., judges), he actually makes my point. Moses tells the people that to resolve uncertainties, they must approach the judges that are in their times. The Pharisees were just that. In fact, the Pharisaic Sanhedrin was a ruling body composed of judges.
CP further argues that the Pharisaic leadership must have been corrupt (although he contradicts himself by arguing that they formed out of a response to corruption), else why the destruction of the Temple? Here, CP falls into the trap of circular reasoning. He needs the Pharisees, who did not accept Jesus, to be corrupt, so as to lose their credibility. If they are credible, then his belief in Jesus is in trouble. So he starts with the answer: the Pharisees were corrupt. Then he asks the question: Why was the Temple destroyed?
That’s a fair question, if you don’t start with the answer. And CP’s answer, as I’ve already pointed out, contradicts the historical record. The only written source that portrays the Pharisees in a negative light is the historically inaccurate, wholly unreliable, and subjective “New Testament.” Other records of the time period such as Josephus (who was himself not a Pharisee but a Roman sympathizer) contain favorable descriptions of the Pharisees. Contrary to the NT depiction, we know from the historical record that the Pharisees were mostly poor, pious, and popular among the masses. In my previous responses to CP I cited books of history that treat the subject.
Therefore, the answer to CP’s question, “Why was the Temple destroyed?” cannot be “because the Pharisee leadership was corrupt.”
CP then demands an answer to this question. So I will answer it. I will repeat the teachings of the rabbis on this, teachings that CP finds useful only insofar as he can pull out a tiny idea here and there to support his theology. The rabbis taught that the Second Temple was destroyed due to the sin of gratuitous hatred. The commandment that Rabbi Akiva (who preceded Jesus by a good century) taught is the foundational principle of the Torah, the commandment that Hillel (who also preceded Jesus) said is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary–this commandment had fallen by the wayside. The Pharisees suffered terribly for the hatred that was so rife among the various Jewish sects that proliferated during the Second Temple Period. We have only to peek into Christian scripture to get a taste of the venom directed at them by groups such as the followers of Jesus–gratuitously.
CP further argues that the Jewish people didn’t at one time or another accept certain books into the canon and rejected others but that God made the Tanach universally accepted. This is of course wrong. I need not go take up the space here to explain why this is an absurd and ignorant statement. Anyone who is interested can Google “how was Hebrew Bible canonized” and read several articles on the subject. This would set CP straight if he were inclined to check. I hope that he will.
CP asks why I should care that the unauthorized Roman Church preserved the supposed teachings of his hero. I am surprised that he does not find this relevant. The only ones with authority to decide which books belong in the canon, which books are important, did not preserve Jesus’s teachings. That the Roman Church did so, without authority from God, makes their witness to Jesus not only unreliable but irrelevant. The only books that are relevant are those that were given a stamp of approval by God’s witnesses. God did not appoint the Roman Church as witnesses. How is this not relevant?
Let us now talk about the absence of evidence for the fulfillment of Jesus’s sign that he would be resurrected. CP is exasperated that I don’t get it. He says that for the last time, he will explain that the absence of a record does not constitute evidence. That may be his final word on the matter, and that is fine with me. I will gladly take the last word. The lack of any sort of evidence, recorded or otherwise, means that we have no reason to accept a prophet, especially a prophet who rebels against God. It is wrong for Christians like CP to expect Jews to welcome such a prophet on the basis of no evidence when the Torah clearly states that he must be able to give a sign and fulfill it (which means we must have a record of the fulfillment) and also that even if he were to fulfill it we must reject him if he rebels against God.
This leads me to my next point. Although I have raised this numerous times, CP has not responded to the idolatrous statements attributed to Jesus, which, for at least the fifth time, I present as follows:
I am the Lord of the Sabbath.
I and the Father are one.
I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
CP has not responded to my contention that while we build a case on solid Scriptural backing, he cites little Scripture and relies mostly on speculation.
I will present again my question about Mashiach ben Josef versus Mashiach ben David, now for the sixth time. Recently, Eleazar repeated CP’s question, but CP could not answer the question in any meaningful way. Some rabbis did speculate about there being two messiahs (“speculate” being the key word). Those who so speculated expected two different men with two different lineages arriving within a short while of each other, but the personhood of these people was unimportant. They would be regarded no differently from other Jewish leaders such as King David. CP has taken a smidgeon of this idea and twisted it to fit Jesus. However, one person cannot have two lineages, so how will he return as Messiah ben David? This he cannot answer. What is his proof that Jesus is Messiah ben Joseph, of the tribe of Joseph? This, too, he cannot answer.
I also wonder at CP’s persistence in ignoring cflat7’s question which he asked at least three times. If Jesus merely expounded on the Torah, if he was merely a rabbi, why does CP feel he owes him special allegiance, and what is the nature of that allegiance?
I made a mistake. Hillel the elder preceded Jesus but not Rabbi Akiva. Oops! Sorry for the error.
Hillel taught that the whole Torah was pretty much a commentary on the law of love. He taught that love your fellow means what is hateful to you don’t do to others. He taught, be like the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace.
Rabbi Akiva taught that love your fellow is a foundational principle of the Torah.
Dina writes;
“Although I have raised this numerous times, CP has not responded to the idolatrous statements attributed to Jesus, which, for at least the fifth time, I present as follows:”
> Well I’m glad somebody is counting. I had no idea we were up to five times already!
I am the Lord of the Sabbath.
>Messiah is master of how to keep the Sabbath.
I and the Father are one.
>Messiah only speaks and does what the Father does.
I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.
> Messiah shows the way to God, speaks the truth from God and exemplifies the life of Torah, love and self sacrifice to be lived, but even more the Father has caused him to have life in himself which he shares with those willing to repent and return to God.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Yes, I am keeping track of how many times you ignore some important questions; I can’t keep track of all of them. I will respond to this as time will allow, but I hope you will read and respond to the rest of my post when you have the time.
CP,
In responding to my challenge on Jesus’s idolatrous statements, you rewrote them to make them sound less so.
But you didn’t help your case.
You wrote that “I am the Lord of the Sabbath” means that the messiah is the master of how to keep it. Jim challenged you three times to show where in Tanach it is taught that the messiah is the master of how to keep the Sabbath. You deflected. I will add to that and inform you that Jews have been keeping the Sabbath for 15 centuries before Jesus and for 20 centuries after Jesus without his help, while his followers have not. God promised the Sabbath as an eternal sign, no preconditions for messiahs or Jesuses. And we have been faithfully keeping this sign for about 3500 years.
You wrote that “I and the Father are one” means that the messiah speaks and does what God does. Are you saying the messiah is another God, then, if he does what God does? Not clear what you mean here. At any rate, it’s a pretty megalomaniac statement to make. A truly humble person would never brag about that even if it were true.
On “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” you wrote some lofty-sounding but meaningless phrases about how Jesus exemplifies the Torah and therefore shares his life with those willing to repent. As silly as this is, it is not the plain meaning of the words. You keep ignoring the second half of the statement that says that one can only get to God through Jesus. That is news to me! I pray to God daily and often. That is news to King David! He prayed a whole lot more, straight to God. In fact, he is the one who said that “God is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him sincerely” (Psalm 145:18). So to add to Jim’s challenge, find me one place in Tanach that teaches that you can only access God through the messiah.
And you failed to answer the worst one of all, “I am the first and I am the last.” In Isaiah 44:6 God states, “I am first and I am last, and beside Me there is no God.”
So why does it not trouble you that Jesus took the first part of this statement for himself?
Sorry about that, unsure what happened, all of concerned reader quotes in the middle of my post disappeared in cyberspace and jumbled my replies together.
R’B,
Thank you, all of that reading should keep me from bothering y’all for awhile! Looks interesting, thanks.
“The Torah is simple, all the Takanot is confusing and draws ones attention way from Hashem.”
CP,
And holding on to Jesus (or whatever you call your devotion to him), isn’t drawing your attention away from Hashem?
CP,
Remember that our battle is not against Flesh or Blood but against the Spirit that is behind the flesh.
You are Searching. A battle is for you. I pray brother that you will see that the Supernatural had an increasing nature from Genesis and then on. God spoke through flesh. The words never originated from the prophet.
Flesh never recognizes the Spirit unless the Father open the eyes. Elijah is a prime example. Only 7000 stood with God. Another Spirit was on the multitude that worshiped Baal.
Remember, Elisha had to pray to Open his servants into the Spiritual Realm to see God’s Army.
When Yeshua came; He opened the eyes of the World to the Glory of the Father ” through his Spirit”.
The Law makes us aware of what sin is. But our Flesh is drawn to sin. IE. sensual indulgence.
The lust of the eyes, and lack of a loving a nature.
What did God say was over Israel. A spirit of Prostitution. Hosea 4:12
You know the Spiritual Realm. Love is only thing that triumphs over sin.
God loved the World. That he did, what Abraham would have done to whom he loved.
God is love
bible819 God is love – and He is also truth – truth is not scared of hearing what other people have to say – you are a good witness
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP, what I see going on, is that you want to have it both ways. You want to respect Jesus the man, (but as a prophet,) while also respecting Judaism. The problem is, Judaism does not accept Jesus. Even if Jews accepted Jesus, they would only accept words that were relevant, and those words would already relevant before Jesus spoke them, and so would not require his person.
Concerned Reader
U wrote: “So, its not saying “don’t obey the Pharisees,”
I see it saying to obey them in the teaching of the Torah but not their Takanot.
U wrote: “because it is through Jewish transmission that you even have the ibn shaprut text.”
Yes, and that makes it even more amazing!
U wrote: “….what I see going on, is that you want to have it both ways. You want to respect Jesus the man, (but as a prophet,) while also respecting Judaism. The problem is, Judaism does not accept Jesus. Even if Jews accepted Jesus, they would only accept words that were relevant, and those words would already relevant before Jesus spoke them, and so would not require his person.”
Pretty darn close!
But I believe Yeshua to be more than just a mere man, prophet, or teacher. I think he is a Ben Elohim and there is something going on in the spiritual realm. Add to this the “gift of the Spirit” and there is more going on than can be explained in simply physical terms.
If he is a Ben Elohim in a heavenly sense, he is of the “whole host of heaven,” so Jews are forbidden to make him the center of attention according to Deuteronomy.
I’d really like to find out where you get this notion that J is a ben elohim (…what does that mean anyway?). Your whole crusade to find justification for not rejecting J seems to rest on this. I keep asking why you feel you owe Jesus anything… I’m beginning to think you don’t have a good answer.
The Rejected Hebrew, for 2000 years many hold that he is God.
I hold that Jesus is God.
A good answer would be; He died for me.
B-819,
I understand the Christian (your) position, which this forum has over and over again soundly refuted. But CP is holding on to some other position. And it isn’t clear to me what is driving him to hold this position and to so firmly want to cling to J (whatever that entails). Most of the things motivating the Christian, he has rejected (e.g. Jesus is God). The only thing he seems to be holding on to is that J is a so-called ben elohim. First, what evidence is there that J was one of those? Can a ben elohim die like a human? If they are a higher class of angel, can they even die? Second, what evidence is there that a ben elohim’s death means anything? Why does CP feel a debt of gratitude and that he needs to revere J? The Torah says so little about the kind of being CP thinks Jesus was. The NT as well seems to be silent on J being a ben elohim. It seems strange that CP’s entire position is resting on such slim evidence.
Bible 819,
(I’m curious what the “819” stands for, if it is not personal)
About Jesus being G-d, I agree he was G-d in a representative sense, if we believe the recorded words, then Jesus ONLY said what the Father said, so in looking at Jesus we see the Word of G-d incarnate; “The Messiah”. But there is more because Jesus said the Father has granted him to have life in himself as the Father has life in Himself. And he shares this life with those who believe he was sent by Hashem.
“Yeshua comes to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph; and Jacob’s well was there. So Yeshua, being wearied from his journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
There comes a woman of Samaria to draw water. Yeshua says to her, “Give Me a drink.” For his talmidim had gone away into the city to buy food. Therefore the Samaritan woman says to him, “How is it that you, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Yeshua answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” She says to Him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are you, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Yeshua answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
15 The woman says to him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.” He says to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Yeshua says to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” The woman says to Him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Yeshua says to her, “Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman says to him, “I know that Messiah is coming ; when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus says to her, “I who speak to you am He.”
CP,
When I signed on, the name was given to me. I just accepted it.
I agree that Yeshua, only spoke what the Father said. But also said, Glorify your name. Thus, I believe that Yeshua is the Fathers name. For what Son, doesn’t inherit his Fathers name. The spelling is maybe Yahshua to sound like Joshua. But, it doesn’t matter to me.
All I know is that the Spirit of Christ is in me. The tongues I speak is what he explained to the lady in Samaria. The Spirit, and the Word is the Truth. With that said, I worship the Father with his true intention. Salvation is only from the Jews.
My King is Hebrew. My Salvation comes from Hebrew Flesh. My God is the Hebrew God. I gladly Submit.
As you said, Yeshua is the Rejected Stone (Hebrew). But, our Precious CornerStone.
I’m Happy you are Hebrew. You are suppose to to lead Israel to the truth. You are Gods inheritance.
Abraham blessed all nations. I am blessed. But you are extremely blessed.
Once Israel, accepts the only Rejected King. We will have peace on earth.
Bible819,
Thanks for the reply. I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure out what book the Bible verse 8:19 might come from, now I know, 😂
To reply to the rest of your post; I feel Judaism has developed a exclusive attitude, (not judging at all because there is good reason for it). Before Yeshua came anyone was welcome to convert to Judaism and become one with G-d’s chosen people. However nowadays because the gatekeepers are so anti Yeshua even if your Jewish great grandparents on both sides converted to Christianity and you want to come back or even go through a conversion process, you are not even considered a candidate unless you reject the idea that Yeshua is Messiah and is coming again. So one finds themselves in a position where they are rejected by Christians and rejected by their own people. Ask me how I know. Yes, I know what it feels like to be a “rejected Hebrew”. I can’t even go home to Israel except to visit.
I worry for Israel, I personally don’t think it wise to get all the Jews in one place that a few bombs could take out and hope that isn’t the reason Christians are not allowed. The stage is getting set up before our eyes and fear it is going to get worse before it gets better.
CP, do you think Christianity would welcome Jews for conversion who say, “We want to convert, but we want to leave Jesus out of it!”?
I can’t believe you wrote that seriously. All religions are exclusive in the sense that you claim Judaism is.
If you want to join our religion, you are welcome. All you have to do is embrace Hashem, His Torah, and His people.
When you love Hashem as we do, there will be no room in your heart to love another entity.
CP let me explain something to you. When I was still a Christian, I did not bother Jewish people about following Jesus. I did not try to get them to believe in Jesus for a few reasons.
1. Even the New Testament states that the commandments are the way to divide truth from falsehood, not miracles, power, numbers, or prophesy claims. (revelation 13)
2, The authority of the elders was held up even by Jesus (even though Jesus disagreed with them.)
3. The New Testament itself says those who follow Torah will reach the “truth” eventually anyway, (Romans 9-11) because it is the guide and the sign post to determining truth, IE Torah is the study guide for the ultimate exam.
4. Jesus himself implies it is better to serve G-d wherein you are called to the best of your ability than to accept “new wine”: Luke 5:36-39 as does Paul of Tarsus say the same in 1 Corinthians 7:18 Jesus also says not to follow him if it distracts one from the father, John 10:37.
5. Observant Jews are the ones who taught Jesus to Gentiles in the 1st place, so if they “don’t have it right” or have “missed something” how could we possibly have it right? IE our New Testament says “salvation is of the Jews.”
6. The ethics in the New testament are not new, but ethics for G-d fearing gentiles, mixed with some small amount of halacha.
7. Even Augustine of Hippo claimed he did not know why Jews did not believe in Jesus, but that it was in the Church’s interests to see them survive, because they bear G-d’s witness.
8. The Christian Bible contains the notion of a preserved ethical remnant by virtue of the ethics that the pious are expected to follow. The pious are:
-those who do not commit idolatry
-those who do not commit fornication
-those who do not rush for profit into Balaam’s error
-Those who abstain from Blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols.
– Those who do not worship angels
– Those who do not calculate the day or hour, but wait patiently in the fear of G-d
9. The New Testament says not to boast against the natural branches.
10. Jesus warns his followers about judging by appearances, because without knowing it you may be dealing with G-d, in Mathew 25.
11. You have mentioned replicas of early Christian messianism in Judaism, (IE Chabad.) Consider that the reason the rebbe is rejected is the same reason why Jesus is rejected, so its not personal. The Job of redemption is simply not finished, as even Christians and chabadniks acknowledge with a second coming.
The Jewish people, (even though they don’t believe in Jesus,) maintain the guidelines which he would have approved of and wanted us to aspire to.
IE though you say the river got gummed up (the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people as a nation lost the way,) making their water unfit, you imply that those non Jews who drink from a fresh rain have clean unadulterated water that is better.
However, that fresh rain water still came to us through the same alleged gummed up river. Rivers by their natural flow are not perfect, but they maintain themselves, (as that is their nature.)
Jim,
I think there are some reasonable questions regarding the analysis,
[1] Deuteronomy 17:1-7 = Death sentences for idolatry need not be presented to the Levitic Kohanim, but the Sages [Elders] of the various cities throughout Israel could pass judgment based on two or three witnesses.
[2] Deuteronomy 17:8-12 = For less obvious cases [what Rashi calls “detached and hidden” ], a difficult case that originated from the Sages/Elders of the people could go to the Levitic Kohanim and the judge for determination.
Two concepts to consider here in part [2],
— first, you need a case to originate from “lower courts” of the Sages/Elders
— second, nowhere in the text is “false prophecy” categorized as one of the offenses that needs to go to the high court
[3] Deuteronomy 21 prescribes that Elders could pass death sentences on rebellious children.
In light of the text, how does Deuteronomy support your case against L-rd Yeshua?
_______________________________________
As to the statement, “This judicial body ruled on the prophets of Israel and preserved their works.”
Are you certain this statement is true?
What did the corrupt priesthood and false prophets say regarding Jeremiah?
“When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the L-RD had commanded him to speak to all the people, the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him, saying, “You must die!” [Jeremiah 26:8]
KAVI so how do we have Jeremiah’s book today?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I see it saying to obey them in the teaching of the Torah but not their Takanot.
The 40 minus 1 lashes which Jesus’ students received and submitted to are a matter of Takanot and an example of Mitzvah d’ rabbanan. The written Bible says to recieve 40 lashes, not 39. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy is also not d’oraita based.
nor wine and hallel on the night of Passover 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
>>>(Btw, Job nor his ancestors were at Sinai)<<<<
Um, completely irrelevant. The point is how God "allows things to happen" and if God allows it because the victim somehow deserved it. God's nature did not change at Sinai.
Oh, and CP please consider this and respond. You asked Dina why God allowed the temple to be destroyed. Allow me to ask a similar question:
Why did God allow the Bar Kochba Revolution to fail?
We know that Jerusalem was retaken, there was a high priest named Eleazar, currency was being created and that Shimon Bar Kochba was a messianic candidate. He had the support of several top leaders as Messiah. Do you believe the revolution failed because there were many who rejected Shimon Bar Kochba as Messiah Ben David? Do you believe that if ALL of the Jews accepted Bar Kochba as Messiah Ben David, Israel would have won, rebuilt the temple and entered into the final messianic time?
With all that said, do you believe that Shimon Bar Kochba deserves special homage as a [ rejected] Ben Elohim and Moschiac Ben David? If not, why not?
Eleazar,
It would seem you disagree solely because its from me. Allow me to present another source;
“The chosen-ness of Israel centers on our obedience to the commandments (Deuteronomy 26:18).”
“There is no question that had our nation not sinned and been exiled from the land, that our nation would have more easily come to a consensus, and the areas of disagreement would be greatly restricted.”
(Rabbi Blumenthal, ‘The Council of My Nation’)
Okay, so what does that have to do with Jesus?
Eleazar,
R’Blumenthal writes;
“The hostility towards the prophets was generally instigated by corrupt arbitrators of the Law”
The Greek scriptures record this very scenario describing the trial of Yeshua. The trial was held at night and not all the religious leaders were invited, it was illegal. The record shows some of these religious arbitrators of the Law were corrupt.
Eleazar, please do not think I am saying all of Israel was corrupt. It is more how I view the modern day USA, not every leader is corrupt nor every citizen, but it is obvious the system as a whole is growing corrupt. This must of what was happening in Israel prior to the destruction of the second Temple. Why else would God allow this to happen to a covenant people He promised to protect?
And, can it not also be said the Temple was destroyed because of idolatry gaining a foothold in Jerusalem by these same Jews.
If you are referring to the idol worship of Jesus, I don’t think we can attribute the destruction of the Temple as this took hold amongst the Gentiles years later. The early Christians merely declared Yeshua as Messiah, not God.
Hey CP,
What Books of the New Testament do you struggle with?
>>>>>The Law makes us aware of what sin is. But our Flesh is drawn to sin. IE. sensual indulgence.<<<<<<
So, Bible819, do you have children? Do you plan to? Then you DO believe in "walking in the flesh", since it is only by "sensual indulgence" that children are conceived. That is why the Shakers died out. They understood and believed in the doctrine of spirit= good, flesh= bad. Sex is not of the spirit, but always of the flesh ( at least for the male).Why do you think there is a doctrine of virgin birth? BTW, I hope you do not indulge yourself in tasteful food, especially dessert or snacks. That is also indulgence of the flesh, not of the spirit.
God says to Cain,
If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.’
As a result, Cain answers your question completely.
Please explain how that answers my question, Bible819. Is indulging in sex, even with your spouse, sin or not?
We are commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”, yet to obey such a commandment requires indulgence of the flesh.
1.
Is Sex within the 1 flesh- or done outside of 1 flesh.
Gods Creation vs Mans Creation
Spirit vs Carnal
Sorry, still not an answer. All sexual desire is driven by the same carnal nature that the NT teaches is evil and to be shunned. Are you denying that? Why do you think Jesus had to be single and celibate in the NT? Why do you think Christians are outraged at the mere suggestion of Jesus being with Mary Magdeline, as presented by some non-canonized gospels?
1-God commanded sex
2- Sex is of the carnal / flesh nature
3-According to Christianity, anything carnal/flesh is sin, since sin and carnality are one and same.
4- According to Christianity, carnal nature must ALWAYS be shunned in favor of spirit nature, and NOTHING of the flesh is good. “Walking according to the spirit” is your only means of “non-condemnation” according to NT Romans 8:1.
Paul does make exceptions for marriage ( “better to marry than to burn with lust”- an admission that his formula does not work). However, that flies directly into the face of his own teachings on the gospel, righteousness by faith and salvation through a changed nature by submitting to the spirit.
You still haven’t answered my question. What does the destruction of the 2nd temple have to do with Jesus?Unless you are connecting the rejection of Jesus with the destruction of the temple, your point is meaningless to the conversation. If you are making that connection, then please respond to my point regarding Bar Kochba. If your reasoning applies to Jesus, then it also applies to Bar Kochba:
Both messianic candidates.
Both died without fulfilling the scriptural messianic promise.
Both were rejected by Israel as messiah.
Israel suffered a set-back that occurred some time after their rejection as messiah.
In Bar Kochba’s case, the set-back directly coincided with his failure. In Jesus’ case, it happened some 37 years later.
Then again, coinciding with the venerating of Rebbe Schneerson by some Lubavitchers, antisemitism began to decline. Perhaps we should make a connection there as well? Since the Jews have been blessed in the era of Schneerson, maybe we should be paying homage to the Rebbe as a Ben Elohim?
Do you see how inane that line of reasoning is?
Eleazar,
Does God want temple worship?
Does God want animal Sacrifices?
NO.
God is Spirit.
He wants to dwell in YOU.
The flesh died after Adam.
Jesus gave life to Flesh within his Sinless Resurrected Flesh. To resurrect your Flesh when you die.
God is Spirit. You are Spirit.
You have dying flesh and will return to dust.
Thus saith the LORD:
The heaven is My throne,
And the earth is My footstool;
Where is the house that ye may build unto Me?
And where is the place that may be My resting-place?
2For all these things hath My hand made,
And so all these things came to be,
Jesus is the body and the Temple which is Life.
As with Adam all died.
SIn is death. Adam died.
Adam Sin gave us the Death penalty.
Therefore you will die.
Innocent Flesh gives Life.
Life is in the Blood.
Only Blood can atone for Sin.
Your body is a Temple.
Moses shared the Spirit with 70 elders.
Moses Spirit and the Holy Spirit!
2 Spirits.
If that would be the case then WHY did G-d tell Yechezkel that there WOULD be Temple service AND “sin” sacrifices.
Your statement regarding Moshe’s spirit is clear evidence you haven’t read Torah and relying on imagination. Or is it that Spirit that Stephen was guided by.
CP,
Can you tell me where in Tanach the Messiah is called Lord of the Sabbath? Can you tell me where in Tanach he is given authority to define the limits of Sabbath or described as being master of how to keep the Sabbath?
Jim
Jim,
Where do your Rabbis get the authority to define how the Sabbath is to be kept?
CP,
That is not an answer, but a deflection. It suggests that you cannot answer the question, but I would not like to assume that. So, if you do not mind, can you please tell me where in Tanach the Messiah is called Lord of the Sabbath? Can you tell me where in Tanach he is given authority to define the limits of Sabbath or described as being master of how to keep the Sabbath?
Jim
No deflection, do you not see the answer is in the question? Why do you demand a double standard when it comes to Rabbi Yeshua? He most often sided with Hillel and sometimes Shammi. Yet since I’ve been on this forum it appears if the words of Hillel are spoken they are accepted, but if Yeshua says the same thing you will do all you can to twist it into something worthy of rejection.
If you choose to reject Yeshua as a prophet let be more than you think one rock was left standing. If you reject Yeshua as a Rabbi let it be more than you disagreeing with a interpretation of the Law. If you reject Yeshua as Messiah let it be more than the Rabbi said it so it is true.
So far no one has given me a blatant unmistakable concrete reason to reject Yeshua as a Prophet like Moses and a Rabbi like the Messiah is supposed to be.
“So far no one has given me a blatant unmistakable concrete reason to reject Yeshua as a Prophet like Moses and a Rabbi like the Messiah is supposed to be.”
CP, I’ve been doing this for years. I know when someone has made up their mind that no reason will be accepted. You’ve been given plenty.
Hillel :
-never compared himself to God or claimed to be God’s only begotten son,
-never claimed that God was accessible only through himself,
-never shouted down the Jewish leadership when publicly transgressing,
-never told a parable that ended with his ideological opponents being brought before him to be killed,
-never attacked people in the temple
– never called Gentiles dogs/pigs and Jews vipers.
– never said “you were told..BUT I say to you” when discussing Torah law.
– never changed a law of written OR oral Torah regarding divorce and marriage
– never said that you would burn in hell if you do not “believe in him”.
– never claimed to be “Lord of the Sabbath” to justify breaking it.
– never declared “all foods clean”
If none of those disqualify Jesus on every level, then nothing does.
Eleazar,
Anybody can do what you just did. Now I’d expect a fellow who has “been doing this for years” to have some accurate quotes with references. I’d expect such a experienced gentleman as yourself to be willing to discuss one issue at a time. Unless we are all here just to win.
CP, what’s wrong with Eleazar’s response? You asked for blatant, concrete, unmistakable reasons to reject Jesus. He gave you a long list. Now you complain that he gave you too many reasons?
You are deflecting again.
CP, if you haven’t seen any blatant reasons to reject Jesus, it’s because you don’t want to. We’ve given you more than enough.
Here are some of the reasons we have already given you.
Jesus failed the true prophet test of Deuteronomy 13 and 18. He failed Deuteronomy 13 on the grounds of introducing a new type of worship that our fathers did not know. He failed Deuteronomy 18 for giving a sign that did not come to pass (if we don’t know that it didn’t come to pass we can’t accept him either–that’s the point of the passage. How do we know that a prophet is sent by God? By giving a sign that we must know comes to pass. Otherwise the whole passage is pointless). Why is that not blatant enough for you?
False prophet not good enough?
Jesus claimed for himself authority not given to any man, ever, and attributes that belong only to God (Lord of the Sabbath, he is the first and last, one can get to God only through him).
Claiming divine attributes not good enough?
Jesus claimed to be the messiah but, like Bar Kochba and other messianic claimants, failed to deliver the goods.
Failed messiah not good enough?
The identity of Jesus’s birth father is unknown, so his line through King David via Solomon is impossible to establish.
Questionable lineage for royal contender to the throne not good enough?
The teachings of Jesus led billions of followers over the course of two millennia into idolatry and bloodshed.
Failure to leave behind a sound moral legacy not good enough?
Go ask the victims of the Inquisition, Crusades, and Holocaust, the victims of centuries of forced ghettoization, forced poverty, forced expulsion, public humiliation, public degradation–go ask them for blatant reasons to reject Jesus. I’m sure they can find a few more for you.
Go ask my forbears who died rather convert–why they chose death over Jesus.
CP,
Let us say that I have a double standard for the sake of argument. Nevertheless, your ‘answer’ is still nothing but a deflection. You made a truth claim, and now it is up to you to provide evidence. Actually, you made more than one truth claim, but I figured one at a time would be best. Accusing me of a double standard is a non sequitur and so is your discussion of Hillel and Shammai. Even if I do have a double standard, that is no support for your contention, and neither is the rest of your argument.
So, I ask, can you please tell me where in Tanach the Messiah is called the Lord of the Sabbath? Can you tell me where in Tanach he is given authority to define the limits of Sabbath or described as being master of how to keep Sabbath?
Jim
hello
i have a few questions which i don’t know the answer to
in the gospels, jesus says that if he cast out devil by the devil, then in whose name do the religious jews cast them out?
in acts the companions of jesus forget the father and do baptism in jc’s name
where in the jewish book did people do casting out in human names?
i read that people used to cast out devils in solomons name and information about this is found in josephus
the church has been pushing jesus name above the fathers name and we see they are getting this practice from acts.
dr ehrman said
that the romans did not have a problem with all powerful god, the only problem was that
“If you read what the pagans wrote about the Jews, it wasn’t the Jews’ monotheism that they found odd. It’s the fact that the Jewish temple had no god inside of it. That is to say, the Jews didn’t represent their god with some form of statue or image. The Holy of Holies in the Temple was literally empty. The notion of an all-powerful Creator godhead wasn’t that odd to the pagans. The lack of a physical representation is what the pagans found odd.”
perfect time for church to spread bearded dead corpse hanging off cross all around the world
If you are speculating that a person or group of people thought this up don’t you think they would pick a better representation of God than a “bearded dead corpse hanging off cross”???
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
CP
That bearded dead corpse, “suffered died and was buried. Then he decended into hell” just for you. I like that story. MY HERO!
the bearded dead corpse gets decorated like a christmas tree in pauls writings and in every church i drive past here in uk.
lot people were disgusting looking
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/jesus-the-shapeshifter-in-early-christian-tradition/
Aesop:
He was truly horrible to behold: worthless, pot-bellied, slant-headed, snub-nosed, hunchbacked, leather-skinned, club-footed, knock-kneed, short-armed, sleepy-eyed, bushy-lipped – in short, an absolute miscreant.
CP So we’re down to the “its smart cause its not” argument
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
CP,
Your latest attack on Dina’s character is without merit. You consistently make personal remarks, about your superiority and her inferiority. I do not know what place your insults, dismissive comments, and condescension have in discussion, except to serve as a distraction.
So let us not be distracted:
Please tell me: Where in Tanach is the Messiah called the “Lord of the Sabbath”? Where In Tanach is the reader informed that the Messiah will define the limits of Sabbath or described as the master of how to keep the Sabbath?
Jim
I find it quite interesting that when Xtians are faced with contradictions in their own writings they race away from the challenge of the truth, whether here, or in the account of Stephen. I have yet to see Any Xtian who will answer this challenge of Stephen.
Sharbano,
Okay, I’ll bite, what contradiction?
Are you talking about a high context compressed narrative while being stoned to death?
What you do with the Greek scriptures can be done with the Hebrew Scriptures as well. Surely you’ve heard about rocks and glass houses, but I’ve better ways to spend my time that to go down that path.
CP,
What more needs to be said at this point? Through your intellectual dishonesty, you have demonstrated that you are disinterested in learning. To some degree, I cannot blame you for this. Doing an investigation into whether or not one has misplaced his affections is an incredibly difficult work. It is a difficulty with which I sympathize. And I would never force it upon anyone. I am no missionary. Therefore, I wonder what point there is in continuing.
You have badly misrepresented those from whom you claim to wish to learn. This shows that you are not ready to consider fairly—not agree uncritically—their arguments. Just a couple days ago, you claimed that Eleazar did not reference the Bible. However, the post you were answering was full of NT references but without the citations. Each of the references was a well-known event from the NT of which you are most likely aware. If you did not know they were references, then instead of accusing, it would have been proper to ask for the sources. This would have been the attitude of one wishing to learn. Instead, you pretended that he brought no sources, enabling you to dismiss his arguments without giving them their due consideration.
But while you demand scriptures be provided as proof by your opponents/teachers, you do not furnish them within your refutation. It is right that you should challenge the ideas you hear, but the refutations you bring must be legitimate. They cannot be mere assumption or assertion. You have brought in many unsupported premises to support your arguments and refused to offer proof of them on the grounds that you are not here to convince anyone of anything. While that may be true, you still have an obligation to support your refutation, or it is not a refutation at all. Moreover, you operate under a double standard, the thing of which you accuse your interlocutors.
You have made several unsubstantiated claims. For example, you cannot show where in Tanach the Messiah is called “Lord of the Sabbath” or that he will teach people how to keep it properly. If Tanach does not support this, then Jesus’ claim is grandiose and self-aggrandizing. You cannot support from Tanach the idea that God’s promises needed a down payment, which might mitigate Peter’s obvious misuse of Joel. Since this proof does not exist, you have not refuted the point that Peter—supposedly under the influence of the holy spirit of truth—misrepresented the Prophets on the Day of Pentecost. You have not demonstrated from Tanach that the Messiah is more than human, whether that be angelic or some other level of spiritual being. And there are other points, many of which are supposed to refute our arguments, that you have not substantiated through scripture.
While this demand for scriptural proof while avoiding bringing it yourself may be hypocritical, I am not interested in that. The real problem is that it makes your refutations empty. They lack all substance. If you bring such refutations that rest on nothing, you undermine the purpose for which you claim you are here. You will not have given your object of affection a real test. You may be able to maintain your adoration of him, but that adoration will be hollow based on unsubstantiated assertions.
I, like Dina, wonder what the point of such an exercise is. You exhibit intellectual dishonesty, declaring yourself all the time to be right without recourse to the facts. You demand scriptural evidence, but refute it with your own assumptions and unwarranted assertions. While I sympathize with the difficulty you are in, I see no use in such an exercise. Someone who is constantly flippant, sarcastic, dismissive, and insulting is not in any place to learn. Instead you end up using this as a forum to declare yourself correct. You do not need us for that.
I urge you then to consider your purpose here and to take it seriously. I will continue to engage with you. But it is no use for you to continue to make baseless assertions and consider that you have supported your belief. It is no use to find excuses to dismiss the people from whom you came to question. But if you wish to discontinue your inquiry, then I will not object.
Jim
Jim,
Okay, fair enough. I don’t agree with all you said but I think you’ve a sincere heart. Rather than keep doing the same thing expecting a different result, how about we try something new?
If you’re interested, this is what I propose.
1) Start a new thread; “Reasons to Reject Yeshua”
2) Post your best #1 reason to reject Yeshua
3) We stay on (and keep others on) that #1 reason without getting sidetracked until we’ve exhausted the topic, agreed or reached an impasse
4) Then post reason #2 and do the same.
Jim, hopefully this will be able to provide the kind of discussion we are both looking for. I’ll be looking for your thread if you wish to proceed.
Thank you for your interaction thus far.
CP,
This is not a forum, nor is it my blog. I cannot start a thread. But your method is not wholly without merit. It does lack in a few ways, however.
1. Your beginning assumption is all-wrong. You start from the assumption that Jesus is to be accepted unless proof can be found otherwise. You ought to begin at a neutral position and determine if one should accept him. This is not easily accomplished, because you do not begin from a place of neutrality emotionally. I do not say it is easy, but it is the beginning position.
2. One does not begin with ‘best’ objections. One begins with foundations. One has to have a basic understanding of the issues before exploring the supports and objections for Jesus’ claims. You will find, if you reflect, that there are many basic issues that keep Jesus’ claims from getting off the ground. For example:
a. How does one know which words Jesus did and did not say? You have already admitted the NT was tampered with. If their testimony is unreliable, how does one establish what Jesus said? (An answer a Christian might give is that whatever Jesus’ said that matches Torah, Jesus said, and whatever did not, he did not. But this answer assumes that Jesus is to be accepted. Assuming his rectitude undermines the inquiry from the beginning.)
b. Under whom did Jesus study? What makes him a rabbi?
c. If Jesus is a rabbi, how does one know to listen to him rather than another rabbi?
These questions are just a sampling of foundations that need to be established. The first is so problematic that one might say that it is the ‘best’ objection, only in the sense that if Jesus’ words cannot be established, attempting to follow him is a vain endeavor. But there are even prior foundations that may need to be established. I find that Christians too often do not understand how to know Torah is true. They come to it through Jesus, so they do not understand that the reasons for believing in Torah are much different than believing in Jesus. They do not understand the great differences in foundations between the one faith and the other.
I agree that the inquiry needs structure, but I would restructure it in the above ways. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, however, this is not my blog, nor is it a forum where I can open a topic. As inconvenient as it may be, this thread is where I would begin such a conversation, at least for now.
I should mention one other thing. I am a mere baby and no teacher. R’ Blumenthal, Dina, and Sharbano are all much more learned and wise that I am. They are all much better equipped to help you in your pursuit of the truth. I am not ‘begging off’. If I can be of service to you or anyone, I will gladly do so. But you have much better instructors here in these three.
If you wish me to begin the inquiry, still, please let me know if my amendments to your plan are acceptable.
Jim
Jim,
I appreciated you idea of starting from a neutral position, however I’m not here to convince any one to accept Yeshua as Messiah. Since you’ve already rejected Yeshua as Messiah and I’m not here to convince you otherwise if we stay on just the reasons to reject rather than to accept it cuts the playing field in half, making it easier on both of us.
As for where to start, objection, foundation, start with whatever you like, but I agree structure would be good so to stay on topic. So pick a topic if you like and I’ll talk to to Sunday or Monday, Shabbat shalom
CP,
If this were a debate, then you taking up a position on whether or not one should accept Jesus, would be reasonable. Then on one side, there would be the Jewish position and on the one side the Christian. And presumably, between those positions would be the one whose mind each side hoped to sway. But this is not a debate. You came here to learn. You are the one in between the two positions, and in order to give them a fair hearing, you must be impartial. You must be neutral.
You must see yourself right now as a judge going over the facts. If the witnesses come before a judge, but he holds one in contempt and favors the other, the trial will not be fair. That you already hold Jesus in the highest esteem biases you. As difficult as it is, you must put that bias away, or else you will find it exceedingly difficult to render a fair decision.
I ask you to reconsider attempting neutrality. I do not mean abandon your religion for the time being. But for the purposes of your inquiry, you blind yourself as long as you assume the rectitude of one position going in to the inquiry.
Jim
Jim,
The premise of starting from a neutral position appears important to you, therefore I am willing to concede this point in favor of a structured civil discussion. And I mean discussion not debate, however I am fully aware it will naturally try to morph into a debate I just ask we both fight that urge. However I must tell ahead of time, my reasons for accepting Yeshua had more to do with experience, the testimony and changed lives of others. I was only later in life when others began to challenge my beliefs that I had to dig into Scripture. I admit after much study, many things have changed, so much so that most Christians would consider me a heretic today.
The odd thing is; Yeshua changes lives regardless of how much knowledge one has. Yet if you study him you start to see him continually pointing to the Father over and over. You begin to see pagan influences and are able to weed them out. As Yeshua promised; it is the Holy Spirit which leads into all Truth.
Since you can’t start a thread, perhaps you can pick one already started with no or few comments and we could camp out there for awhile?
CP said: “..my reasons for accepting Yeshua had more to do with experience, the testimony and changed lives of others…”
I’m just wondering what ‘accepting Yeshua’ means. Is that more than great respect for him and feeling you have a debt of gratitude toward him? I’m still wondering how he changed your life. Was it actually him that made the changes? If you say ‘yes’, how are sure about it? Others in other religions also claim their lives have been changed by someone/something from their relion.
eflat7,
To answer your question;
When I “accepted” Yeshua, I was just coming of age. I had been literally schooled by the Catholic Church since birth. Internally I rejected many of their teachings and doubted others, but still believed in God, yet knew of no other way. I knew other religions existed but had been taught they were not of God. However, it was from outside the Catholic Church that I heard Yeshua promised a Holy Spirit sent by God who would change a person from the inside out and bring them closer to God. Disgruntled with the Catholic Church and doctrines of man and wanting to be closer to God, how could I refuse? I was told to pray, to submit my life to God and ask the for the Spirit Yeshua promised. Basically asking Yeshua to live in my heart, making me his disciple and he my teacher. Essentially I let The promised Spirit Yeshua promised come into where I had refused the Catholic Church; into my heart.
Since that day he has always been there and never let me down. Although I have failed miserably time and time again, sometimes he has picked me up, brushed me off and told me to get going. Other times I’ve been disciplined in increasing severeness until I repented. He has taught me Scripture and its meaning at the proper times. He has ALWAYS pointed me to HASHEM and no where-else. He has shown me where Christianity has been led astray. He has led me to study Judaism. At first I thought I was supposed to convert. But as I learn more, I’m very hesitant for acouple of reasons.
The first reason is Oral Torah. I believe there is authoritative truth in the Oral Torah but just like the Catholic Church exploits is own Oral Torah known as “Church Tradition” in order to maintain a postion of power and control, essentially acting as a intermediary between God and man, so does Orthodox Judaism. If I thought the were not over stepping their God given position and interpreting correctly, conversion would be a no brainier.
The second reason is, I sense a huge underlying distaste for the one I love, the one who brought me closer to God, who teaches me Torah. Orthodox Judaism would have me abandon the one sent by God who takes care of me and instead place my faith in the traditions of men. What support would I have without a Orthodox synagogue within 200 miles of me. The only reason I’m as observant as I am is because Yeshua teaches me to be observant. Even amongst all my friends and family who either make fun of me or show their disapproval through looks and silence. I don’t see any Orthodox Jews helping me, no all they want is for me to reject the only one who is helping me.
On a lighter note, about my family. My 77 year old father contacted me acouple of weeks ago asking me about Sabbath. He finally has accepted it was not done way, fulfilled or changed to another day. I’m waiting to see what he and my mother are going to do with this newly realized truth.
eflat7, sorry for the ramble. As for my supposed “worship” of Yeshua. The best way I can get you to understand is to ask you to imagine living in Isarel during the kingdom of David. Imagine King David and you were best friends. His God is your God. You pay the proper homage to him as king yet still love him as a friend. Because the king also loves you as a friend he sends a personal aide to be with you and help you.
Now allow me to break it down like this:
> Hashem is the Most High God, there is no other.
> Hashem has anointed Yeshua for a particular task and given him a position of authority.
> Hashem has given the Spirit to Yeshua to share with those Hashem is calling.
It saddens me that Orthodox Judaism refuses to accept one of their own because of one of their own.
CP, you wrote, concerning your study of Judaism: “At first I thought I was supposed to convert. But as I learn more, I’m very hesitant for acouple of reasons.”
In a recent comment to me, you identified yourself as Jewish. Will you please clarify your status?
CP wrote:
“> Hashem has anointed Yeshua for a particular task and given him a position of authority.
> Hashem has given the Spirit to Yeshua to share with those Hashem is calling.”
I think this is the crux of your quest. You seem convinced that these two statements are true. I think you need to be able to show from the Torah that these statements are valid. Feelings and reference to the NT I don’t think really cut it. We don’t need to show you why Jesus should be rejected, I think you need to show why he should be accepted..
eflat7,
I respectfully submit to you that I am fairly certain more proof can be supplied from the Tanakh proving Yeshua as Rabbi, prophet and maybe more than can be supplied for the binding authoritative acceptance of the Oral Torah.
CP,
I don’t need to prove the Oral Torah, but I’d be interested in your proofs of Yeshuah from Torah… perhaps that is what you and Jim will be getting into.
eflat7,
Perhaps so. You’re free to join in as long as we all stay on topic. I came here asking for a rock solid, incontestable reason to reject Yeshua. Instead I’m being asked for a reason to accept him and you want it from Tanakh.
Sure I can give you a few things. But let me ask you; can you prove from Tanakh Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, or Zachariah were real prophets and should be accepted?
CP,
Your affinity for Jesus so far seems to be grounded on thin air. Asking the forum to show why you should reject Jesus is sort of like if someone came up and said that they are in love with a woman from Mars, and then after some conversation about it, insists that you show why he should stop loving this Martian. Wouldn’t you first want to find out what credible evidence he has concerning this person from Mars? On what basis is this love based on?
As for proving whether the prophets of the Tanach are real and should be accepted, if you have an issue with that, then this discussion (that you are having with everyone) perhaps needs to start there and not with Jesus.
Jim
This will help me even though I have already changed my belief. very good…
CP Give us one reason to accept him 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R’B,
That is not why I’m here. I cannot tell you why you should accept Yeshua. I can only tell you why I did and how it radically changed my life. I was raised believing in God, I cannot think of a time when I didn’t know Him. Yeshua entered my life the year I became of age, it was as every single cell in my body became vibrating with life, I understood everything, it all made sense. I felt I had a real personal relationship with God as never before. The experience has always stayed with me. I moved away and starting attending a Church led by a Jewish Pastor. All the first born in his family became Rabbis, when he became a Pastor his family had his funeral. He was an awesome teacher, but i always felt like something wasn’t quite right. You see he taught hyper grace. In theory it sounded good but I could see it wasn’t working at least not for me and a few others. After trying out a few churches I decided to stay home and study. I decided I should be keeping Sabbath on Saturday which became my new study day. I changed my diet and started a Hebrew class at a local synagogue. (Yeah, it’s Reform but there is not a Orthodox synagogue within 200 miles of me, this is the best I can do for now) . Then they made the conversion class and the Hebrew class the same class. I was told I was a candidate for conversion since I was in the class already. Then they learned my mothers maiden name and said I might not have to convert. Then they learned I believed in Yeshua and it was all over. They said Judaism is incompatible with Jesus. I must admit I felt slightly rejected but set out to find out EXCATLY why. Most of what I’ve found in both Christian and Jewish camps are strawmen made of the extremes of the opposing camp. So I’ve been digging around in no man’s land in between the two looking for the truth. I was hoping one side could dispense with the strawmen and just tell it like it is.
After dispensing with the strawmen, what I’ve been finding so far is; the real issue is; ‘Who gets to say’ or who’s in charge; In other words; Who gets to decide for everyone how to keep the Oral/Written Torah and the Jesus thing is more of a emotionally charged issue with the majority of the players in ignorance. I found myself one of those in ignorance. Therefore, I am here to learn why Yeshua needs to be rejected to practice Judaism.
A couple years ago while studying Torah I came across the instructions for titzits. When I went to class I asked about it. I was told I shouldn’t do it since I’m not religiously Jewish (because of Yeshua). So I’m a little peeved, I thought ‘who do you think you all are?, you can’t rob me of my DNA!’ I never did start wearing titzits out of respect for them but I’m still thinking about it. I have to get this Yeshua/Jesus thing settled.
Sorry R’B for the ramble, I’ve just a few hours before sundown and lots of things to do, Shabbat Shalohm
CP So you are not asking for a reason to reject Yeshua – you are asking for a reason to reject your experience. So I ask you – when the Jewish Scriptures speak of false prophets – are they speaking of people who simply made up stuff? or are they perhaps also speaking of people who actually had experiences? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R’B,
When the Jewish Scriptures speak of false prophets, the source, whether real or made up is irrevenlat. A false prophet is a false prophet. Therefore to answer your question; it would include those who had real experiences.
CP the point I was making with that question (the experience of the false prophet) is simply that a personal experience is no indicator of truth. The experience you described that you felt with Jesus is paralleled in almost every belief system – all of which are mutually exclusive
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R’B,
I wouldn’t say “exclusively”. It is basically a Unitarian version.
R’B,
You hit the nail on the head with “mutually exclusive”!
This is EXACTLY what I’m asking.
Sure Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive.
However as for >ME<
I don't believe in a Trinity
I don't believe Christian dogma,
I don't believe the entire Greek Scriptures are the word of God.
I believe Yeshua is a being subservient to Hashem who taught Torah correctly calling the lost sheep of Israel back to God and the Torah.
So what makes me mutually exclusive?
CP,
Wouldn’t you say the identity of Yeshua is key to determining exclusivity?
[] Mashiachim [followers of “the Way”] believe that Yeshua is the Divine Redeemer according to the Tanakh
[] Rabbinic Judaism rejects Yeshua as the Divine Messiah according to the Oral Law
[] Your understanding of Tanakh and Oral Law rejects beliefs of Mashiachim and Rabbinic Judaism
Elohim is mutually exclusive– He is Holy. So, under what circumstance(s) can He make people “holy” enough to enter into His presence?
[] Mashiachim find the way to holiness through faith in the Promised Redeemer
[] Rabbinic Judaism finds the way to holiness through works
[] Your faith finds the way to holiness through . . . ?
I can agree with you that L-rd Yeshua is Mashiach ben Yosef– perhaps you can better explain how this understanding makes/leads a person to holiness?
KAVI wrote:
“Elohim is mutually exclusive– He is Holy. So, under what circumstance(s) can He make people “holy” enough to enter into His presence?
[] Mashiachim find the way to holiness through faith in the Promised Redeemer
[] Rabbinic Judaism finds the way to holiness through works
[] Your faith finds the way to holiness through . . . ?”
Fallacious question, which leads to false answers. Who made Moses, a killer, “Holy enough” to enter God’s presence? We know he did, so how did he do that without Jesus? Furthermore, how did he do that “through works”, if his works were not perfect? The temple priests “entered into the presence of God”. How did they do that without Jesus?
You see, Christianity has many answers. Unfortunately, they are answers to made-up, unbiblical questions. Questions that exist only to make Christianity’s answers, and thereby Christianity itself, relevant.
CP wrote:
“I believe Yeshua is a being subservient to Hashem who taught Torah correctly calling the lost sheep of Israel back to God and the Torah.”
Okay, so in your mind what separates Jesus from any other repentance-centered Jewish teacher? They were all beings subservient to Hashem who taught Torah correctly and called people to God and Torah?
But I’ll bite and say that if the NT is clear about one thing, it is that Jesus did NOT teach Torah correctly, nor did he live it correctly. Referring to the plainly read LETTER of the laws of Torah as “You have been told by those of old…” is a direct denial of God as the author of the Torah. Jesus put men in the place of God in his sermon on the mount so that his “improvement” on the Torah would be seen as improving on men’s teachings, not God’s.
Had Jesus done as you say, the Pharisees would have been thanking him, not condemning him.
Eleazar,
You wrote:
“But I’ll bite and say that if the NT is clear about one thing, it is that Jesus did NOT teach Torah correctly, nor did he live it correctly. Referring to the plainly read LETTER of the laws of Torah as “You have been told by those of old…” is a direct denial of God as the author of the Torah. Jesus put men in the place of God in his sermon on the mount so that his “improvement” on the Torah would be seen as improving on men’s teachings, not God’s.
Had Jesus done as you say, the Pharisees would have been thanking him, not condemning him.”
> To answer:
Yeshua did nothing different than the Rabbis do in the Talmud; teaching his interpretation of the law. Why do you hold him to a double standard that you will not apply to the Rabbis of the Talmud who at times contradict the plain meaning of the written Torah?
Kavi,
Yeshua said “no one knows the son except the Father”.
Therefore once one sets out to “identify” who Yeshua is they are already on shaky ground. However one thing can be sure from the NT and the Tanakh; Yeshua was NOT God. The Tanakh says he can’t be and Yeshua said he wasn’t.
There are about three or four possibilities other than God, but what matters is not who he is but what he said and did.
CP You realize of-course that your version of Yeshua is exclusively yours 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Opps wrong spot up top, moved to here:
CP says:
October 4, 2016 at 10:14 pm
R’B,
I wouldn’t say “exclusively”. It is basically a Unitarian version.
CP,
In response to your comment here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29785
I will not write for Dina, but I can assure you that she does not hate Jesus. On the other hand, I do not wish to write for you either, but your writing shows that you do not respect the rabbis as you claim.
Relying on works that you have already acknowledged to be corrupted, you assert that the rabbis of Jesus’ time covered up the resurrection. I cannot imagine what makes you think that this is respecting them. Accepting the maligning of the rabbis is not a sign of respect. Torah teaches: “Do not accept a false report…” (Ex. 23:1). Too readily coming to the conclusion that the rabbis of Jesus time were corrupt deniers of the truth, ready to bribe guards on the basis of a text you know to contain falsehoods is contrary to Torah and does not indicate respect.
Moreover, you make unfair use of their teachings. According to you, their teachings are laws of men, except when you wish to make use of them. You cite Jesus as being generally in line with Hillel. But Hillel taught the oral law. And so did Shammai. You use Jesus’ similarity to Hillel’s teachings, and occasionally Shammai’s, to grant Jesus rabbinic authority and status, while at the same time denying their teaching. This is profoundly disrespectful, treating their words as instruments for upholding your own ideas. The whole while you use them as support, you denigrate them as inventors of human tradition. This is not respecting them.
When you spend so much time maligning a people as disingenuous, unrepentant, deniers of the truth, when you accuse them of creating a new Judaism, this is not respect. When you do this based on the testimony of a corrupted book, it does not only show disrespect but violates a principle of justice laid down by Torah. I understand these words might seem unkind, but they are not meant with malice.
Jim
Jim,
You assume I’ve lumped all Rabbis as one. I assumed you knew of the “Painted Ones”. Sorry you wasted so much ink, I will try to be lower context and more specific in the future.
CP: Topic 1.1: Knowledge of God- Not Through Feelings
The first question that one must address religiously is: how one can know which religious claims are true? The world is full or prophets, gurus, holy men, and miracle workers. Each claims to have a special relationship to God or gods. Each claims to have knowledge of spiritual matters. Each claims to be able to bring one closer to the divine, however that is defined by each of these claimants. So one must consider how he knows this one to be correct and that incorrect. One must consider by what method he can determine the truth and the falsity of these claims. Before addressing how one can know to which religion one can incline his ear, however, it is important to address a common error. One does not know truth by his feelings.
A woman once described the feelings she had when she learned of her past lives through a medium. She knew they were true, because when the medium told her of these lives, she got goose bumps. She just knew that his words were correct. She could feel it. Yet, this was a mistake on her part. Goose bumps were only a measure of her emotional state. Nor would she allow goose bumps to guide her through the rest of her life. She would not use her goose bumps to verify mathematical or scientific realities. She would not use them to test whether or not a politician was lying. She would not use them as a second opinion in medical issues, ignoring her doctor’s advice unless she got goose bumps. Her emotional reaction was only used to guide her in ‘spiritual’ matters.
This sort of guide is employed by all kinds of people belonging to all kinds of religions. The Mormon will tell one to pray on the message presented to him by the Mormon, and God will send the possible convert a burning in his bosom. And, in fact, many people claim to have experienced this burning, revealing to them the truth of the prophecies of Joseph Smith and the subsequent Mormon prophets. Not only will they claim to have experienced this blessed burning, but once they convert, they will also attest to the life-changing power of Mormonism. Through the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church of the Latter Day Saints, many people have improved their lives in dramatic ways. Some have left behind alcoholism and other powerful addictions. Some have improved their family lives, becoming better parents and spouses, no longer living lives of neglect and infidelity.
In the documentary Kumare, an admittedly false guru inspires his students to improve their lives. Among his teachings is one about a blue light energy, which he teaches them to pass among themselves. His students actually feel the presence of this blue light and experience passing it back and forth. They feel the truth of his words, many of which are cryptic. They sense his great holiness, even as he tells them in a barely disguised fashion that he is a fraud. It is obvious that their feelings are not a gauge of the truth.
Nor are the feelings of those that follow Jesus a gauge of the truth. Even if virtually every other religious group did not appeal to feelings to establish the verity of its claims, it would be obvious that the deep and powerful emotions that Christians and Lovers of Jesus experience are not a measure of the truth. They do not all come to the same conclusions.
Consider your own case. Both you and Dr. Brown have had an emotional connection to Jesus. You both believe yourselves to be taught by the holy spirit. You both believe that God is leading you in truth. But it is apparent that this is not the case, as you disagree on a fundamental issue. He, led by the holy spirit, believes that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. You, led by the same holy spirit, deny the deity of Jesus. Informed by the same spirit of truth, you come to entirely different conclusions. The two of you relate to Jesus differently, one worshiping him outright and the other adoring him but not quite worshiping him as God. Neither his feelings nor your feelings are a guide for truth.
So many people have experienced the same effervescence of spirit that you have, accompanied with a certainty that they have discovered the truth. Some are Christian. Some follow gurus. Others follow false prophets and some mediums. This ebullience and certainty do not indicate truth. No emotion does. This is just not how truth is discovered. No one learns that 2+2=4 and begins tingling all over in verification of the truth. And if feelings were the guide to truth, then all these people ought to be in agreement. Instead, one finds great disagreement among these people. However one discovers divine truths, it is not through emotional resonance.
Jim
Jim,
Very nice post, I appreciated the thought and clear explanations you put into it.
To answer your question about Dr Brown and myself both being led by the Spirit of God yet with differing opinions of Jesus;
I start with the words of Yeshua: “No one knows the son except the Father”.
I accept these words of Yeshua as 100% true. I would assume so does Dr Brown. Therefore we agree. Yet we hold differing opinions on who excatly Yeshua might be; God, Elohim, Angel, Man, or another un-revealed being. I’m fairly sure Dr Brown does not think a persons eternal destiny is at stake for holding a incorrect speculation as to the true identity of Yeshua as long as they believe his words and in his actions. As for me, I accept that the identity of Yeshua is not important, if it was, we would of been told clearly and plainly and there would be no speculation today.
You may be thinking; ‘How can they hold to differing opinions, yet both follow the Spirit of God?’ The Simple Answer: We are both humans and therefore fallible. We make mistakes, we do the best we can through trust, prayer and study just like you with one exception addressed below.
It is at this point you may want to ask yourself about the Talmud. Are not these Rabbis men with differing opinions following the Spirit of God? Are they infallible so that their discussions have become as authoritive as Torah?
You see this is where we differ; both Dr Brown and myself accept our opinions are not as authoritative as Torah, therefore this grants us the freedom to disagree yet still accept each other. You on the other hand have accepted other writings as equal with Torah, therefore everyone must agree with these interpretations or be a heretic and outcast.
Jim, I agree emotions and feelings are not THE gauge of truth, although I think they should figure in slightly. And what about answered prayer? A real relation has to be experiential otherwise it’s no relationship at all. You see both Tanakh and Yeshua said; ‘if you want to know my words are true, do them’.
CP,
My experience with Yeshua is much of the same. Except, I experienced the attack of the evil one. He spoke to me for about a year. There is no love in him.
I read the bible for 8 years prior to this experience. Had no understanding, because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. I rejected the idea of God, and God allowed me to see the knowledge of good and evil. It was restless, and luckily God pulled me out before I was destroyed.
To explain how sophisticated satan is; is to plainly spell out that we are no match. completely superior creature, and we are sheep.
I sought out (God’s Salvation)-Yeshua with all my heart, and God opened my eyes to see and understand the Word of God.
God gave it all with his Son his true love to have us. Thus, we submit to him all that you are. He is truly wonderful and is Worthy of Worship.
The Father and His Son are 1. His Son gave his body to his Father to complete his work.
Better said, God is Spirit and Worked within his Son the (full embodiment of God).
Bodys are just dwellings for our spirit. God wants to live with US in our bodies.
In order for that to happen- for all flesh- authority had to be given.
For sure, that authority was Yeshua (God’s Salvation).
God’s Holy Spirit gives understanding. That is why you Understand.
Yeshua was a Conduit For the Father to bring those who would accept him to eat with him.
I know his is true. This supernatural opened my eyes.
CP
Jim said:
The first question that one must address religiously is:
1. how one can know which religious claims are true?
You said:
I accept these words of Yeshua as 100% true. No one knows the son except the Father”.
LarryB asks:
Are these the only ones? What others and why do you accept them as true?
Jim asked a difficult question, do you have an answer? You mentioned pursuing one question at a time?
LarryB,
As explained in other posts, I have an affinity for Yeshua. Realizing there is a good possibility the NT has been tampered with and not wanting to throw Yeshua out with the bath water I have a very simple system. I believe Yeshua taught Torah correctly (a prerequisite to any kind of messiahship) therefore what agrees with Torah I take as true, what does not agree I consider tampered with and look for a variant reading, cultural context, copyist error or poor translation to understand it in light of Torah. If it can not be reconciled I file it in the ‘Spurious for now’ file right alongside Paul’s writings.
CP How do you expect anyone to argue with you if you have your own definitions of your key words (Messiah, Torah, correctly, Yeshua) , definitions that could be tweaked at any given moment without warning? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
It’s called “Xtianese”.
CP
Reading your answer like the ingredient label on the back of a cereal box,
You know the religious claims of the NT are true , because:
1: you have an affinity for Jesus.
2: Jesus teaching on the Torah are true only if they agree with the Torah, other wise you put those teaching in a spurious file.
3. The other teaching of the NT must be the bath water since you don’t mention them.
It’s really laughable with all this talk of the Xtian holy spirit. No doubt it IS difficult to discern, especially when looking at this same spirit guiding Stephen in the wrong direction on Torah knowledge. How then can anyone be sure of the authenticity of his “spiritual insight”.
CP,
In response to your comments on topic 1:1 here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29825
While I appreciate your compliment, you quickly wander off the topic.
You will note that I did not ask a question about you and Dr. Brown. I used the two of you as an example. Both of you guided by your feelings have come to different conclusions about Jesus. This is not restricted to you and Dr. Brown. You and the Mormon, both guided by your feelings, both claiming to be moved by the holy spirit, come to different conclusions on the Book of Mormon and the doctrines of Mormonism. You and the woman who sees a medium come to very different conclusions regarding Jesus, she moved by her goose bumps—or lack thereof—to not put her faith in him, while you do. It is obvious that feelings are not a barometer for truth. The reason that I mention you and Dr. Brown is that even among those with somewhat similar beliefs, a focus on Jesus, your feelings do not guide you to a common understanding of that figure.
Introducing the Talmud into the conversation is irrelevant. The rabbis were not guided by their feelings. The nature of their opinions and disputes were based on evidence and logic. Your comments contrasting your humility as opposed to the pride of Judaism is ill-informed and out-of-place. They do not address the topic.
Jim
Jim,
Please read my post a bit slower; I said we come to our conclusions through “trust, prayer and study”. What do you think I do to find out about Mormonism? Lay a sheep hide over night a see where the dew is and is not? Or do you think I just prayed and recieved a freezing sensation in my bosom showing me it is not of God?
No, I prayed, trusted the Spirit of God to lead me and then studied my butt off! You disrespect me to lift up yourself.
Sure there is valuable wisdom and truth in the Talmud. But you make the Talmud more authoritative than Torah. That is your business, not mine, nor do I try to change your mind on it. But don’t put me down because I choose to trust in the LIVING God who still speaks to men rather than the writings of Rabbis long since dead.
CP,
In what way have I demeaned you? In what way disrespected? In what way have I lifted myself up?
Jim
Jim, do not take what CP says personally. You have not demeaned, disrespected, or put him down in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, you have been unfailingly courteous. I do not know what CP’s motivation is in turning arguments into personal attacks. That is his business. But you are doing fine in the manners department (not to mention the departments of reason and logic).
CP,
As I await your answer, it occurs to me that you have done that of which you accuse me. The whole reason for introducing the Talmud was to contrast your path to that of Judaism. Your tone is accusatory, moreover: “You on the other hand have accepted other writings as equal with the Torah, therefore eveyone must agree with these interpretations or be a heretic and outcast.” I generally ignored this in my comments, because it is irrelevant to the topic. But it shows that you have no understanding of the Oral Law. And you again show a great contempt for the rabbis that you claim to respect.
Jim
CP, perhaps you should read Jim’s post more slowly as well, since you did not answer his question at all.
Jim,
By stereotypically categorizing me as some spirit filled charismatic flopping around on the ground like a headless chicken in order to determine truth. You incorrectly assume and therefore accuse my truth is based solely on emotion and feeling, thereby dismissing any and all truth come to through study.
I laid out the answer to your question very clearly and you just re-accused of the same thing I previously answered. Why even bother to answer again? If you are unclear on my answer, then ask for a clarification, I’d be happy to oblige. But if you’re not listening how can we engage in discussion.
CP, that ugly characterization is yours, not Jim’s. You know it is wrong to put words in other people’s mouths. Have you no shame? You characterized your coming to belief in Jesus and your continuing belief in Jesus as a deeply emotional experience in your comment to cflat7. I quoted part of that comment in a statement I posted to you earlier.
You are the one who gave the impression that you began your search with an emotional connection. Everything that you study is now colored by your emotion. It was therefore entirely fair for Jim to write that post in light of what you wrote to cflat7.
I should not presume to speak for Jim, but he is the gentleman in this discussion.
“You incorrectly assume and therefore accuse my truth is based solely on emotion and feeling.”
CP, you yourself said in a comment to cflat7 that you do not need to give a reason for acceptance of Jesus because your reason for acceptance is experiential, and that is why we are responsible to give you a reason to reject. Of course, you ought to know that no reason will be good enough because no reason can deny your emotional experience.
So here you have it: you yourself admit that your foundation for accepting Jesus is based on emotion, then you slam Jim for pointing out that this is the wrongest of wrong ways to evaluate truth.
Do you listen to yourself?
Jim,
In addition; I have great respect for the Talmud, in it is the accumulated wisdom of our fathers, but you disrespect me as if I have no respect for the Talmud ONLY because I do not accept it as the authoritative word of God.This is unfair and intellectually dishonest.
However I do believe a LIVING word was given, which you do continually disrespect. That’s on you not me, nor do I try to get you to change. I only ask for the reason for the utter rejection. All I recieve is conflated misinterpreted words of Yeshua judged with a double standard. If Hillel said it: fantastic! Yeshua say the same thing it’s Hasatan testing you to see if you be true!
“If Hillel said it: fantastic! Yeshua say the same thing it’s Hasatan testing you to see if you be true!”
Did Hillel say that he is the only way to God? Did Hillel say that he is the first and the last? Did Hillel say that he is one with the father? Did Hillel blast the Jewish leadership (as Jesus did in Matthew)? Did Hillel malign the entire Jewish people (as Jesus did in John)? Did Hillel say that whoever doesn’t believe him will be thrown into the lake of everlasting fire? Did he threaten anyone that they would not enter the kingdom of heaven? Did he claim prophecy? Did he claim to be the product of a union between God and someone’s betrothed, mortal wife?
Who are you kidding, CP?
“If Hillel said it: fantastic! Yeshua say the same thing it’s Hasatan testing you to see if you be true!”
CP, here’s a challenge. Find me one instance, just one, where Hillel and Jesus said the same thing and we took exception to Jesus’s version.
CP The difference is obvious – if someone teaches moral truth in order to make the world a more moral place – fantastic. If someone teaches moral truth in order to get people’s hearts to turn to him then he is not teaching moral truth – he is exploiting it 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“I only ask for the reason for the utter rejection. All I receive is conflated misinterpreted words of Yeshua judged with a double standard.”
I don’t know how you can say that with any degree of honesty, Mr. CP. You’ve been given loads of reasons, and they are not by way of misrepresenting Jesus or judging him by a double standard. That is why instead of responding directly to my posts you ignore them or pick on a small point (like quibbling over “divinity” versus “deity” or “God” versus “god”).
Unless you are reading with your eyes shut tight, in which case the timeless wisdom of Dr. Seuss applies: “If you read with your eyes shut you’re likely to find that the place where you’re going is far, far behind.”
Remember what I said (now for at least the third time): no reason will ever be good enough because no reason can deny your emotional experience. Do you realize what this means?
CP,
You almost make me despair that discussion is possible. Your gross misrepresentations of what I wrote are distressing. It is only in your imagination that I have stereotyped you as a “charismatic flopping around on the ground like a headless chicken in order to determine truth.” In fact, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Nor did I criticize or mock the Charismatics that do flop about or fall out. In fact, I never mentioned them.
I was writing up a general principle, because as I said, I think laying the foundation is important. Though I used you as an example, it was only to show the inability of feelings to determine truth. No mockery was intended. Nor do I believe that any was conveyed, or else you would not have had to invent things I clearly did not say.
Regarding study, it is irrelevant to the topic. It is a separate discussion. Study is not the same thing as feelings. I never implied—and certainly never said outright—that you never studied. Study is a separate category. And since I was not discussing you and your errors as the topic, it has nothing to do with the topic. You are being defensive where no attack was offered.
Regarding prayer, it is also irrelevant, unless you mean to say that once you pray, you have a sense, a feeling, of what is true. Then, of course, the means of determining the truth is not your prayer but your feeling. And, feelings are not a way to determine truth.
Impatiently you defend yourself where there has been no attack. This is not the way to learn. If you wish to examine your beliefs, you cannot cry foul at every seeming offense. You cannot dismiss your teachers as ignoramuses. You cannot assume your own rectitude. Instead, you must consider carefully the information presented and raise only those objections relevant to the discussion.
Jim
R’B,
I see the point you are making and believe it to be a good one. But I wonder how much in agreement we really are? At first I would assume we both agree anything which turns our hearts from Hashem to something else is morally evil. You’d say Yeshua does this very thing and I’d respond by saying he points to and provides a way to Hashem. Yet Orthodox Judaism says the same thing as Yeshua, come to us, we are the way the truth and the life. But you don’t hear me accusing ya’ll of making a god out of the Talmud/Rabbi system.
CP It is not “whoever turns our heart away from Hashem is evil” – of-course that is true – but those are words that are easily redefined. I said anyone who uses teachings of morality to direct attention to himself is morally bankrupt. If Orthodox Judaism and the rabbis of the Talmud uses teachings of morality to direct attention to themselves – please reject them – we are not the way nor are we the truth and the life – we are merely a conduit for God’s truth – and His choice of us has nothing to do with our merit – its about God, your Creator, His truth and yourself – if you were born Jewish then your calling is to join the community but if you weren’t then live God’s truth wherever you want 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“Yet Orthodox Judaism says the same thing as Yeshua, come to us, we are the way the truth and the life. But you don’t hear me accusing ya’ll of making a god out of the Talmud/Rabbi system.”
All right, CP, repeating my challenge: name one, just one, rabbi in the Talmud or present-day Orthodox rabbi who claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life and no one can come to the father but through him. Just one, CP, shouldn’t be too hard if there is no difference between Jesus’s teachings and the teachings of our rabbis.
Jim says:
October 6, 2016 at 12:02 am
CP,
“You almost make me despair that discussion is possible. Your gross misrepresentations of what I wrote are distressing. It is only in your imagination that I have stereotyped you…..”
Jim, here is what you wrote:
>(((Caps added below for clarity)))really?
CP
sorry for butting in again
at 8:19 you posted to Jim
“I only ask for the reason for the utter rejection.”
I might have missed it , but have you ever posted the “reason for utter acceptance”?
I believe you that you are not here to change peoples hearts. But, How can I give you a reason to utterly reject something if I have not been shown a reason to utterly accept it? You might suggest that I try reading the NT and I have, and I have not found a reason to utterly accept him. I also have not seen a post from you, I might have missed it, as to accept him for what? You do not seem to be sure just what exactly he is, elohim, angel, messiah etc.. If you just want me to show you a rejection that he was someone special I cannot do that since we are all created by God and are all special.
CP,
I’m responding to your comment here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29785
You wrote that the real question before us is not who is right and who is wrong, but which rabbi to follow. Should one follow our rabbis, you ask, or your one rabbi? That’s really the question on the table.
But that is a false comparison.
An unbridgeable gap spans the two.
Jesus made claims our rabbis wouldn’t dream of making, claims that were never on their radar screen to begin with. These are the claim to prophesy, the claim of sinlessness, the claim to be the only way to get to God, among others.
You wrote a description of what Jesus means to you that no Jew in the most fevered state of mind (forgive me) would say about a rabbi:
“Basically asking Yeshua to live in my heart, making me his disciple and he my teacher. Essentially I let The promised Spirit Yeshua promised come into where I had refused the Catholic Church; into my heart. Since that day he has always been there and never let me down. Although I have failed miserably time and time again, sometimes he has picked me up, brushed me off and told me to get going.”
This quote is from your comment https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29812
The way you write about Jesus is the way Jews talk about God, not rabbis. We say only God is perfect, no exceptions. Only Hashem has always been there and never let us down. Only Hashem is the only way to get to Him. Only Hashem picks us up when we fail, and so on. We do not put our trust in princes nor in a son of man who has no salvation (Psalm 146:3); that includes rabbis. We withdraw ourselves from man whose breath is in his nostrils, for in what merit is he to be esteemed (Isaiah 2:22); this includes the rabbis.
Not a single Jew of my acquaintance (and believe me, there are many), regards his rabbi or the sages of the Talmud with anything close to the veneration you have for Jesus.
You see, even if you stop short of calling Jesus God, your inappropriate adoration of him makes him into a deity.
And that is why your demand for an unmistakable, blatant reason to reject him is disingenuous. No reason will ever be good enough for you because no reason can ever deny this emotional experience you have had and continue to have.
Therefore, even if the Torah were to state clearly, “Moses said to the Children of Israel: It shall be after the passage of many years, that I will send a prophet who will perform miracles and his name will be Jesus. And you must reject him, for I have sent him to you to test you if you love me or not,” this would still not be a good enough reason. You would then argue that the Masoretes inserted that verse into the Torah to create an anti-Christian case in the Bible (or something like that).
We have given you reason enough. Your idolatrous adoration of a human being is reason enough. But no reason will ever be enough for you, as long as you remain entangled in your emotions.
CP,
I am responding to your comment here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29762
I am going to say hard words, and I fear my words will offend. But say them I must. Therefore, I offer one disclaimer:
I am not ranting. I am not raving. I do not hate Jesus. I have the same feeling of indifferent disregard for Jesus as I have for Mohammed, Hare Krishna, Buddha, and Joseph Smith.
I am, however, someone who thinks for myself and who is willing to do the hard work and read the history books to find out the truth. Everything that I wrote here is based on years of careful study. I hope and pray you to take it to heart and accept my words in the spirit in which I offer them: the spirit of truth seeking.
In the post referenced above, as is your wont, you flung accusations without substantiating them. I will present the evidence and would like you to refute it using historical evidence with source citations. The Christian Bible is not a historical source, so I respectfully request you not use that as your evidence of the historical record.
You wrote that my statement that Jesus led his followers into idolatry and bloodshed amounts to nothing more than a “ridiculous rant” which you find “nauseating.” This sounds more like a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a measured consideration of the facts.
I present below several factual statements about the Christian followers of Jesus and I ask you if you deny them. And if so, what is your source?
1. The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history and up to the present day worship Jesus as God (according to the Pew Research Center, only 2.5% of Christians in the Americas are “other Christian” and “Orthodox” as opposed to Catholic or Protestant).
This incontrovertible fact makes it clear that the teachings of Jesus led its adherents into idolatry.
2. Christian Jew hatred increased in intensity and violence over nearly two millennia, beginning and ending with massacres, blood libels, forced expulsions (over 70), forced poverty (forced out of all professions but moneylending and then hated even for that), forced conversions, tortures, public humiliations and degradations. The increasing intensity of the hatred created an environment that culminated in the Holocaust. While Hitler was not a religious Catholic (who by the way was never excommunicated), historians agree that the Holocaust could only take place in a climate that was already saturated with centuries of Christian Jew hatred promoted by the likes of Martin Luther and other highly regarded Christian leaders.
This incontrovertible fact makes it clear that those who followed Jesus were led into Jew hatred and its natural outcome, persecution.
Sources: Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate, by William Nicholls; Thy Brothers Blood: The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism, by Malcolm Hay; Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust, by Robert Michael; A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
3. Christians engaged in holy wars, with Protestants and Catholics massacring each other (I don’t like to rely on Wikepedia but they have a handy list of religious wars here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion). They shed the innocent blood of tens of thousands during the witch trial frenzy that swept Europe in the 15th to 18th centuries (estimates from 40,000 to 50,000). They strung each other up for petty crimes such as stealing food. They used flimsy evidence in capital cases that the modern American views with horror.
Source: common knowledge :).
These incontrovertible facts make it clear that the teachings of Jesus led his followers into massive bloodshed.
You wrote that all this “has nothing to do with the Jewish man who walked, taught and healed in Israel 2000 years ago. He taught a message of love, forgiveness and to beware of corrupt spiritual leaders.”
You do not know who or what the real Jesus was like, you only what was written about him, and those writings are contradictory. Therefore, the Christians who followed him were not twisting and corrupting his messages but following them to their logical conclusion.
When Jesus made statements like “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), “No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6), and “I am the first and I am the last” (Revelation 22:13); when Christian scripture claims he was born from God and a mortal woman–then it is not illogical to make the leap that Jesus is at least some sort of deity.
When Jesus, addressing all Jews and not just the Pharisees, tells them that they are children of the devil, liars, and murderers (John 8:44), when he calls the Pharisees from which all Jews are descended a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33), when Christian scripture teaches that all Jews for all time are responsible for the death of their God (Matthew 27:25) when Paul says the Jews killed God, are displeasing to Him, and are hostile to all men (1 Thessalonians 2:15)–what’s a Christian to do?
How can a Christian believe that the spawn of Satan, who are liars and murderers, vipers, and God killers, are also created in God’s image and you shall love them as yourself? The fact that many Christians today don’t hate Jews is the greater mystery than the fact that Christians have hated us for most of their history.
Jesus’s words and statements could not have led Christians anywhere else.
I must conclude this part by telling you, CP, that I have no desire to make you angry or to rile you up, as will inevitably happen when you read what I write about the object of your veneration. Telling the truth means I have to be willing to make you uncomfortable. I have told you the truth. You may not be able to hear it today. As I said, you do not know who or what the real Jesus was like. You love him for the man you desperately want and need him to be.
But if you can extricate yourself from these feelings for just a few minutes, you might be able to understand that I am telling you the truth. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow. One day, I hope.
I shall now address your statement that I am “engaging in reconstructionist history as to spiritual leaders.” I assume you mean my assertion that, contrary to what your scripture teaches, the Pharisees were not corrupt.
Your statement that this is reconstructionist history is false. The only primary source of the time period that portrays the Pharisees in a negative light is Christian scripture–a biased source if ever there was one. The other primary sources are also biased but with less of an agenda surrounding their bias. The so-called New Testament expresses its anger and hatred at the Jewish leadership for refusing to accept their messianic claimant; hence the Pharisees are their theological foes and must be treated with contempt. Josephus is a primary source that views the Pharisees favorably. So is the Mishnah. I have much more reason to believe these latter two than your corrupt scripture–especially in light of the fact that God only preserved the Jewish line through the Pharisees. God promised He would never let us die out. Why preserve the line of the corrupt spiritual leaders and not the righteous followers of Jesus?
As you can see, I have done a fairly comprehensive study of the subject and can cite the sources for nearly all the historical facts under discussion. It will not do to wave it away by calling it a hateful rant. You will have to do better than that, CP.
It is evident that the perception of Pharisees has seeped into the lexicon of even secular people as a derogatory term. I have seen numerous articles whereby people Use that term to apply a negative a particular person or mindset. Whether or not this was the intention of the the Xtian text it certainly has resulted in the outcome.
Clearly there are Xtian anti-Semites that will use THAT part of their text for justification of their anti-Semitism. I daresay those who do not fall into this category probably still view the frum Jew in that same light. There is no need to look any further than many on this site who view Judaism in that same negative light with their assumption to “know” and “understand” Torah and Judaism “better” than the Jew who has kept Torah all their lives. They are unable and unwilling to face the ignorance of their own words.
Sharbano,
Please do not think your inability to differinate between particular individuals of various groups, stereotypically lumping them together to form straw-man arguments goes unnoticed. You are only fooling yourself.
Yes, there are some dim witted prejudiced individuals who do judge others by stereotypically lumping groups together, therefore I assume your inability is feigned only only to prove a point.
But think! Is your point proved when the premise is clearly unsound?
You are “One” in a group that has confirmed my assertion.
Sharbano,
Prove it; you ought to be able to post in two sencetences or less what I believe, then label the group I belong to.
Time for the truth!
CP, there are two facts that lead to an inescapable conclusion.
Fact one: You refuse to give one reason to accept Jesus on the grounds that you are not here to convince anyone of anything so the burden of proof lies upon us.
Fact two: You admitted that your reason for accepting Jesus is experiential.
Conclusion: You cannot articulate a single reason to accept Jesus.
This ought to trouble you deeply, my maybe brother (I say maybe because you have contradicted yourself on your Jewish status and have not yet clarified, per my request).
CP wrote “Yet Orthodox Judaism says the same thing as Yeshua, come to us.”
Which shows how little you know about Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism. If you were serious about conversion, you would find they say just the opposite of your opinion. They say, “Stay a Gentile if you are one, because the Jewish road is hard and the accountability factor is high.” Quite the opposite of “come to us”, you would be discouraged from converting by the Orthodox (or even the Conservative/Masorti, for that matter).
Consider this the next time you post “Judaism says, come to us”-
It took me one week to become a baptized Christian. It took 4 weeks to become a Seventh Day Adventist. It took 7 years, three rejections, a semester of classes, weekly meetings, learning to decode Hebrew, one year of full observance, writing several essays, judged before a beit din of three frum rabbis, a mikvah dip and a bris for me to become a Jew; to put up mezuzoth, wear a tallis and say a Torah blessing at the Bimah.
Judaism says, “Adonai is the way, the Truth and the Life”, not the religion of Judaism. Christianity says you burn eternally if you are not a Christian. Judaism does not believe in the pagan notion of hell or that you are condemned for not being Jewish. The motto of Christianity is John 3:16. The motto of Judaism is the Shema.
The two are not compatible. Eventually you will see that.
Wow Eleazar! The light to the nations keeps getting brighter and brighter!
Eleazar,
Although Rabbinic Judaism may have eliminated the idea of an eternal, real hell– the Prophets and the Sage, Rabbi Yohanen ben Zakkai do not.
[] Daniel 12, “And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken- these for eternal life, and those for disgrace, for eternal abhorrence.”
[] Isaiah 66, “And they shall go out and see the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh.”
[] Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, Berakoth 28b, “Now that I am being taken before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who lives and endures for ever and ever, whose anger, if He is angry with me, is an everlasting anger, who if He imprisons me imprisons me forever, who if He puts me to death puts me to death forever, and whom I cannot persuade with words or bribe with money.”
Eternal Gehinnom is testified to by the Prophets and the Sage.
As you can see, Kavi, there is little to no emphasis on the afterlife, good or bad, in the Hebrew Bible. Do you know why that is?
Dina,
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds as if you’re saying there is no point to the afterlife?
If so, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ribaz, etc are not in agreement with that kind of theology.
Perhaps you can elaborate?
Thanks for asking, Kavi. The Bible barely alludes to the afterlife because we are not to obsess about it. The Bible is much more concerned with how to live our lives on this earth, and that is what we are supposed to focus on. What does God expect from us? How does He want us to interact with Him and our fellows on a daily basis? That’s what the Torah emphasizes and so that’s what we’re supposed to obsess about.
The Christian obsession with heaven and hell (accept Jesus to escape eternal damnation) is inappropriate and not in line with Torah.
So true, Eleazar! Judaism says, “go away, you have a perfectly acceptable path to God without becoming a Jew.”
Christianity says, “come to us or burn in hell forever.”
Eleazar,
I agree if you are talking ONLY about conversion, but we are not. Judaism has a path also for Gentiles, a path that must be followed or perish. You have taken the extreme perspective only to build a straw-man to push over.
While Judaism does claim to be the only way, I do agree Judaism does not call the weary and heavy laden to know God, nor does it invite Gentiles to know God on the Noahide path. So how does this attitude figure in to being a light to the nations and loving your fellow man?
There is no strawman, CP. I am not debating and am not trying to “win” anything.You see, this is why some struggle in taking your presence here seriously.
You have set up a fallacious no-win situation for Judaism. If we encourage our beliefs, then you say we are claiming to be “the only way of salvation”, just like Jesus. If we don’t , then you say we are indifferent to the needs of the people and are not fulfilling “light to the Gentiles”.
The truth is that I have NEVER heard a Jew- Orthodox, Reform or otherwise- EVER claim that one has to accept the Jewish or Noachide path or face eternal damnation. Not once, ever. And I know and converse with Jews in every movement, from Orthodox to Reconstructionist, from Masorti to Renewal. Judaism simply does not think or teach that way. The “believe like me or burn in hell” attitude of the Christian religion is not prevalent, or even welcome, in Judaism. If you know a Jew who speaks “turn or burn” please direct them to this website so we can see it for ourselves and question such a person.
I became a Jew without a single person “witnessing” to me, warning me, or even encouraging me… for 7 years! Yet, I was a Gentile to whom the light was taken nonetheless. One visit to a Torah service made me aware of something very important: the Jews, if nothing else, have lived up to their obligation to preserve God’s Word. The careful attention to detail in reading Torah – correcting every single mispronounced word- spoke to the authenticity of their calling. There is no comparing that to the self-contradicting mess that is the New Testament and the Christian church.
And just to emphasize this very well-taken point, I wrote the following to a Christian friend of mine a while back:
How does Judaism view non-Jews? Here’s what the ancient Pharisees wrote:
The righteous of all nations will have a share in the world of eternal bliss (Tosefta Sanhedrin, XIII:2).
If a pagan prays and evokes God’s name, Amen must be said (Jerusalem, Berachos, 8).
Antonius once asked Rabbi Judah the Prince, “Will I have a share in the world to come?” To which the latter replied, “Yes.” “But is it not written, ‘Nothing will remain in the house of Esau’?” “True,” Rabbi Judah answered, “but only if they do the deeds of Esau” (Avodah Zarah 10b).
No one can become a Kohen or Levite unless he is so born. But if anyone wishes to become a holy and religious man, he can do so even though he is a pagan [my emphasis]. Kindness, holiness, and piety are not hereditary and are not the possession of an exclusive race or nation. Justice and piety are acquired through one’s own deeds (Numbers Rabba, 8).
Heaven and earth I call to be witnesses, be it non-Jew or Jew, man or woman, man-servant or maid-servant, according to the work of every human being does the holy spirit rest upon him (Yalkut, Section 42) [my emphasis].
Whether Israelite or heathen, if he only executes a righteous deed, God will recompense him for it (Tanna Devai Eliyahu, Section 13).
Judaism holds that God judges each person according to his abilities and circumstances, and that any good person of any religion merits a place in heaven.
Dina says, “Judaism holds that God judges each person according to his abilities and circumstances, and that any good person of any religion merits a place in heaven.”
On his deathbed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai did not find this statement to be true.
Neither is this “universalist” concept found in the Tanakh– ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, “Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant.”‘ [Jeremiah 11]
Only a single sin is needed to stain our souls– only a single sin makes us unholy.
“Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. [Ecclesiastes 7]
Adam and Chava sinned once and found out very quickly that Elohim expected utter obedience in order to stay in His Gan Eden.
Can someone truly believe Elohim will lower His utter standard of perfection and allow stained, unholy people to enter and remain in the Eternal Gan Eden?
Kaiv
Why would anyone trust a god that requires human sacrafice? Sounds utterly fishy to me. If something sounds to good to be true………. You die I live.
VS
And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: ‘The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth
keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.
……
so if that will “by no means clear the guilty” then J’s sacrifice was a big dud. although the visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children sounds scary, I am guessing here, but that seems to me as a prediction, a result of sinful people. Somewhere in the Adam and Eve story there is a reason God planted a giant self distruct button for them to push.
LarryB,
You complicate things with suppressed systematic theology doctrines. How about we keep it simple; Yeshua’s self sacrifice in obedience to the Father leads others to repentance.
A prefigurement can be found in the death of Josiah.
Kavi, very funny. Do you realize who Jeremiah was talking to? Was he talking to every single man on earth, or was he addressing only the people of Israel?
CP
“Yeshua’s self sacrifice in obedience to the Father ” Prove it! Prove “the father” required it. Where is that in the torah?
@LarryB
“Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressor.”
(Isaiah 53:12)
Try to read that Starting from Ch 52 and See who is the subject of the narrative.
CP
See Sharbano
10/7 @ 8:02
Sharbano & LarryB
I am just a little saddened and disappointed by your assumption that I’m that naïve.
Seriously? Really?
You would do well to study the words of your own Rabbi Blumenthal:
“There are four different techniques that the Talmud uses in her application of the scriptures. There is the simple straightforward reading of scripture. There is a midrashic approach to scripture, which sees beyond the literal meaning of scripture. The midras