Exploiting Ignorance – by Jim

It is sometimes troubling to Christians that typically a Jewish believer in Jesus is Torah ignorant. Even a celebrated Christian Jew like Dr. Michael Brown grew up in a Torah deficient environment. Because, at the time when a Jewish believer comes to faith in Jesus, his decision is uninformed, it is suggestive that his decision is a mistake based in ignorance. And the question must then be asked, why does the Torah knowledgeable Jew not put his faith in Jesus? One can see how this might trouble the Christian. Inasmuch as Jesus is supposed to fulfill the Torah, it appears to delegitimize their faith when the Torah expert does not put his faith in Jesus and the inexpert Jew does. For this reason, if a Torah observant Jew—better yet, a rabbi—puts his faith in Jesus, this person’s ‘testimony’ becomes very important. The Christian faith does not seem so illegitimate when a Torah observant Jew signs up.

Only a few weeks ago, I wrote a comment related to this topic under a different blog post. Briefly I discussed why the Torah ignorant read Isaiah 53 and believe that it sounds like Jesus. I pointed out that the Torah ignorant did not know the overall context of Isaiah. And I pointed out that the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures has been shaped by 2,000 years of Christian interpretation the majority of which Christian culture has been dominant in the West. A commenter recently on this blog post listed a handful of Jews that believe in Jesus. The story of one of the women in the list is helpful for understanding my argument, as the Christian missionary is successful due both to the woman’s ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures and the influence of the Church in Western culture.

The list consists of the following names:

Rose Price
David Yaniv
Sergey Katchanov
Sharon Allen
Frieda Roos
R. Mathetes
Moran Rosenblit

Their stories can be read here: http://www.jewishvoice.org/who-is-yeshua/jews-who-believe/

This essay will focus on Frieda Roos. Please let the reader understand that the intent of this essay is not to mock Ms. Roos. That her Torah education was neglected is not her fault. Nor is it her fault that someone was able to use her ignorance against her. This essay is only concerned with the realities that are facing Torah ignorant Jews in the modern age.

But it should be pointed out that the commenter that referenced Frieda Roos and the others in the list added them to a conversation about how many Torah observant, Torah knowledgeable Jews put their faith in Jesus. The commenter presented them as if these seven people would be part of the community of believers that knew Torah before coming to Jesus. But if the reader will follow the link to their stories, he will find that largely they were not Torah observant and largely ignorant of the Torah.

Frieda Roos did not grow up with a Torah education. To the contrary, she writes: “[My parents] never talked about God, and I had never been in a synagogue except for my brother’s wedding. For me, Yom Kippur meant a day off from school…”. Ms. Roos was deprived of her heritage, growing up in a home where God was not even mentioned. While she did not visit the synagogue, she did frequent a Catholic church with her boyfriend in her teenage years. This appears to be the extent of her religious education.

Afterward, Frieda Roos suffered through the Holocaust. The details are there for those who wish to read them. While those things through which she suffered had an enormous impact on her life and ought not be minimized, they are of little relevance to this topic. After surviving the Holocaust, Ms. Roos was beset by several Christians telling her about Jesus. She then contacted a pastor who put her in touch with a German woman that had been married to a Jewish man who was at this time deceased. And she and that woman argued about Jesus for six weeks:

“For the next six weeks I argued with her until she asked me to read Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Reading Isaiah 53, I did not understand a single word. Then, as promised, I started reading Psalm 22, and coming to the 16th verse where it says ‘they pierced my hands and my feet,’ I let out one big yell, ‘Oh my God, that is Jesus, because He was crucified!’”

“I remembered all the Christian paintings I had seen years earlier in that church in Amsterdam. Suddenly all of it made sense. I went back to the 53rd Chapter of Isaiah and now I understood each and every word. Hallelujah!”

Please let the reader take note that the Christian presented Frieda Roos with the classic missionary text, Isaiah 53. Again, it is as if the whole rest of Isaiah did not exist. It is as if the whole rest of Tanach did not exist. And experiencing the passage in a vacuum, Ms. Roos could not understand it.

What convinces her is Psalm 22:16, that the psalm says “they pierced my hands and my feet.” Notice that she links this to the Christian paintings she saw. Her reading of the Hebrew Scriptures is based on Christian culture. Used to seeing Jesus with his hands and feet pierced, her mind relates the figure in the psalm to Jesus. It is Christian imagery that interprets the psalm for her.

Tragically, she is a victim to her ignorance. Psalm 22:16 says nothing about hands or feet being pierced. But it is unlikely that Frieda Roos reads Hebrew, and relying upon the Christian translation, she does not know that it does not say, “pierced” but “like a lion”. Relating the verse to Jesus based on the imagery of the Church is an understandable error, but it is an error and a significant one. And it is made in part because she cannot read the text, which does not say what she thinks it says. And it is made in part because her interpretive lens is not Torah but Christian paintings. She has been suffused with Christian culture.
Only after she sees Jesus in Psalm 22 and relates it to the paintings in a church does she have an idea for understanding Isaiah 53. Now the Suffering Servant makes sense to her. Again, she does not understand this through the lens of Torah and through the lens of the rest of Isaiah. She understands it through one psalm, primarily one verse, which does not say what she has been told it says and which she understands through the paintings in a church.

That the commenter would present her as a knowledgeable Jew believing in Jesus is quite bizarre. Unfortunately, Frieda Roos represents the Torah ignorant Jew who has been deceived by a bad translation and the dominant Christian culture. Her parents did her a grave injustice by denying her the Torah and knowledge of God. Like so many other Jews that believe in Jesus, she did not know enough to understand what she was being told. Denied her heritage in youth, it continued to elude her later in life.

Of course, this does not mean that no Torah observant Jews ever put their faith in Jesus. But those cases do not appear to be typical. For 2,000 years, the Torah observant community has put their faith in God and not a man. They have not been misled by bad translations of verses or verses ripped out of context. Because of their knowledge of Torah, by and large, the Torah community has been faithful. But those who did not know Torah and did not know the Prophets, they were misled. One can only hope that they return home soon.

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

This entry was posted in Jim. Bookmark the permalink.

195 Responses to Exploiting Ignorance – by Jim

  1. junzey says:

    Tragically, she is a victim to her ignorance. Psalm 22:16 says nothing about hands or feet being pierced. But it is unlikely that Frieda Roos reads Hebrew, and relying upon the Christian translation, she does not know that it does not say, “pierced” but “like a lion”.

    Hi Jim, I don’t know if you’re Jewish – but that is not my point in responding to your blog. My point in responding to you is:

    Psalm 22:16 as you wrote, “does not say, ‘pierced’ but ‘like a lion’!”

    You would need to read the translation of The Dead Sea Scrolls writings on Psalm 22:16 to find the truth. For the truth lies in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls!

    Scirpture bears witness to Truth and Truth sets one free! With Blessings, June

    ________________________________

    • junzey
      Did God preserve the Dead Sea Scroll community with their libraries as the covenant community?

      • CP says:

        R,B,
        One could easily make a case for God preserving their Libraries in light of the facts: Isaiah accusing the Scribes of lying. The current Text being made from various Proto-Masoretic texts. These texts were without vowel pointing. They also came from a square script translated from Paleo Hebrew.

        “pierced’ but ‘like a lion” is easily explained. I am hoping the author is ignorant of this rather than willful intellectual dishonesty.

        • CP
          The libraries of the DSS confirm the predominance of the Masoretic text even in the circles of the schismatics.
          In any case – Isaiah’s accusations of the scribes lying is that they did not live up to what they wrote – not that their texts are false – if that would be the case then did God expect no one to have the text until the DSS were discovered?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Rabbi, G-d may not have preserved the literal dead sea sectarian descendants, but he in fact chose to preserve the oldest Hebrew Writings we posses of any biblical books, ever, in their library, not in the library of the Synagogue or the Church.

        Whether we are talking Christian or Jewish Bibles, our copies are nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.

        I hate to see these kinds of arguments over a word in a verse, when both readings can be honestly substantiated.

        For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. יזכִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי:

        (Rashi) like a lion, my hands and feet: As though they are CRUSHED IN A LION’S MOUTH, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38: 13): “like a lion, so it would break all my bones.”

        Rashi says earlier in the chapter that the bulls of bashan represent the Babyonians, IE Nebuchadnezzar, so its not surprising that the Dead Sea Sectarians, or the Christians, would interpret these verses with respect to the wicked power of their own era, IE the Romans. Suffering under the Romans would mean the flail, and Crucifixion. So, technically, while I see the merit of rabbi B’s interpretation, I can’t dismiss the Christian reading as a possible one.

        • Jim says:

          Concerned Reader,

          Your comments regarding the word “pierced” miss the mark. You write: “I hate to see these kinds of arguments over a word in a verse, when both readings can be honestly substantiated.” The reason the argument is over the word is because it is that upon which the Christian argument rests. It was the reading of the word “pierced” that caught Frieda Roos’ attention, not the interpretation of Rashi.

          This is why Junzey refers back to the DSS. The Christian is looking for the word “pierced” not just some possible interpretation. They want to be able to read it as a prophecy. The question they will ask is: “Who was pierced?” And the whole time, the verse says nothing about anyone being pierced. The efficacy of their interpretation relies on the word, as it appears to exclude other readings. They are not going for a possible reading, which one might question. They are looking for a term that makes the verse appear to be undeniably about Jesus.

          And that term does not exist in the passage.

          The Christian has made that one word to be of great import. It is a method whereby the Church slants the reading of the passage. Their reading is not based on Rashi. It is based upon a mistranslation. And that one word causes an association in the minds of those that do not realize the word is not in the passage. They look for the one that was “pierced,” not for the one with lions at his hands and feet.

          Jim

          • junzey says:

            Jim, I’m Jewish as is my husband, who by the way came from an Orthodox Jewish family! A letter in a Word written does Not define my faith in the Holy One of Israel! The life change I have experienced for 43 years and the presence of the Lord with me and His Holy Scriptures teaching me how to live is why I have the faith I have and why I believe what I believe.
            You should be very careful in talking about God’s children and calling them ignorant of Torah, especially if you don’t know the people you are speaking about. I personally knew Rose Price, who has past on to be with the Lord, (a hoocaust survivor) and I also know Moran who lives in Israel with his wife and children; they were anything but personally ignorant of the Tenach. To believe that what you believe and why you believe it is one thing – but to misquote letters or Scriptures in ‘dispute’ is another – or to put down people for their faith is very serious. That is the only reason why I respnded! I’m not a debater – and I respect Rabbi Blumenthal and appreciate him – so I won’t say anything further. But, I would hope you would rethink of how you desire to show that Yeshua is not the Messiah or the Son of God without taking Scriptures that have been disputed … as The Dead Sea Scrolls are on display in Isarel … and have been sent to Synagogues all over the world to display. Psalm 22:16 is to one – interpreted as one believes – and to another, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a confirmation of faith. This is still in dispute with scolars.

          • Dina says:

            June, you who turned your back on your God and your people have no right to warn others of wrongdoings which pale into insignificance next to your own. I pray that God open your eyes and bring you back. We are waiting with open arms.

          • RT says:

            Junzey, regardless if Kaari(u) could be translated as dug or not, and if the dead sea scroll showed a “vav” instead of a “yod”. Are you partial when you read that Psalm? If there is a chance that the word could be “Like a lion” that renders the “prophecy” void. The rest of the Psalm does not talk of anybody in particular and it would only be normal to understand it as a complaint of David… There is no mention whatsoever that this Psalm talks about the Messiah and to hang on one word to “prove” that it is messianic is pure non-sense. Messianic Leaders have used Psalm 22 and the like to “Prove” and show their messiah. I have been more than 6 year in messianic Kehilah and that’s all they do… Prove Jesus. It would be only honest from their part (I believe there might be exception, but for the majority…) that they would show the two sides of the medal, instead of “proving” Jesus even if the text does not prove anything. This is the same with “what are those wounds in your hands and feet”. This has been used and taken out of context, and obviously, it talks about a false prophet. So by using the same logic with a more vague passage which does not specify who it is, then you feel justified that it is Jesus….

            It’s Ok if you feel the presence of the lord, but to based your belief and most likely a mistranslation and a feeling of Joy you have in your heart (with all due respect) does not make sense. Many times I have heard believers saying that “the Holy Spirit has to reveal the truth to you” and if not, there is never sufficient evidences. Well, if the evidences are seen only by does who believe and do not doubt, then those are not evidences, but a deceitfulness of the heart.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Jim, its absurd to think that the Christian interpretation rests on only this one word. Why? Because, even if the verse actually had said “pierced,” it wouldn’t of necessity be talking about Jesus anyway. This is a rabbit hunt on both sides of the fence.

            The context is about righteous suffering. You could apply it to anyone.

            I brought up Rashi, because he was saying that “like a ion” can refer to crushing bones, or to digging, etc.

            Therefore, it vindicates an INTERPRETATION, that the verse COULD BE about someone suffering.

            How do we know the verse doesn’t refer to the prophet Daniel? You think that by saying the verse doesn’t directly say pierced that you will wrest it from Messianics? Does the presence of a word stop rabbis from interpreting a text in myriad ways?

            What I mean Jim is this. A Christian can agree with you. He or she can say, “ah! ok, it doesn’t say they pierced my hands and my feet. But, does like a lion my hands and my feet make better contextual sense? Not really.”

            That’s why Rashi’s interpretation makes descent sense. If an honest reader probes the question of “What does a lion do at hands and feet?” The answers are likely (in context,) Gnaw, Bite, Pierce, or dig in.

            Its an absurd verse to argue over.

          • CP says:

            “Dina says:
            February 6, 2017 at 6:25 pm
            June, you who turned your back on your God and your people have no right to warn others of wrongdoings which pale into insignificance next to your own. I pray that God open your eyes and bring you back. We are waiting with open arms.”

            ” you who turned your back on your God and your people” ……….”wrongdoings which pale into insignificance next to your own.” ……”I pray that God open your eyes”….

            Dina, as you are fond of saying; “this implies….” “which is the same as……” calling a Jewish sister and her friend (a holocaust survivor, now deceased); ‘wicked, blind traitors of God’ for no other reason than they believe Yeshua is an advent of Messiah.

            (Btw, isn’t this the same kind of hate speech you accuse Yeshua of and a reason you give to reject him?)
            ——-Priceless!——-

          • CP According to your world-view these people (June and Mrs. Roos) are idolaters. Doesn’t it disturb you that you feel more kinship to them than you do to Dina who worships the same God as you do? Doesn’t this tell you that your world is Jesus centered and not God centered? Doesn’t this tell you that your world view is not subservient to the Jewish Scriptures (which sees idolatry as the worst) but that the Jewish Scriptures are subservient to your affinity to Jesus in your world view? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            Your Pharisee’s Friend

            It come back to the fact that Yeshua’s teaching mandate his follower to convince the Jews that they are wrong. Regardless if “we” are worshiping the true G-d, their “messiah” say that we are not. Those like CP will be thorn between those who follow the real G-d and are meant to go to hell (as per Yeshua’s word) and those idolaters who go to heaven. He will justify himself by saying that those poor Christian have been mislead by the Roman Catholic and they still accept Yeshua as lord. Nevertheless, the Jews do not accept him and so, as per his own word, you are worst that Sodom and Gomorrah… It’s funny that most Christians would put CP in our boat of non-saved who reject the “holy” complex unity of god.

            CP, doesn’t that make you think? The true worshipers of G-d are bound to hell, but the idolaters are accepted in the kingdom of heaven… They make a man (Yeshua), as god, and change the true nature of G-d, and that is a small error that has been committed by literally 99% of the followers of Yeshua. And I am not judging, it’s your Yeshua who believes that all the JEWS and Idolaters are in Hell. A doctrine that is not easily found in the Tanakh…

          • KAVI says:

            Jim,
            As Junzey clearly testifies– it is false to accuse Jews who turn to Yeshua as their Redeemer as “ignorant of Torah”.

            The accusation of “ignorance” dates from the first century, where we find a member of the Sanhedrin saying,
            “But this rabble who understand nothing about the Law are accursed.” [John 7]

            I do not question that, over the centuries, Judaism has built an extensive hermeneutic that denies G-d’s complex Tri-unity and denies redemption through Faith in a Redeemer and denies L-rd Yeshua as HaMashiach– on the other hand, we can readily find contrary testimonies by Moses and the Prophets.

            In contrast to “Ignorance of Torah”, the true “Wisdom of Torah” will lead anyone seeking G-d’s forgiveness to the Truth of redemption through L-rd Yeshua.

            ________________________

          • RT says:

            “In contrast to “Ignorance of Torah”, the true “Wisdom of Torah” will lead anyone seeking G-d’s forgiveness to the Truth of redemption through L-rd Yeshua.”

            Kavi, please explain why, instead of sermonizing us…. I can tell you why it is not the case when the Torah clearly say that G-d at Sinai had not shown any image of himself and we should NOT make image in the form of any living thing.

            Now that I gave you one reason that torah does not lead to Yeshua, please provide one that does clearly leads to him.

          • KAVI says:

            RT,
            Your question is fair– you have said,
            [a] “The Torah clearly say that G-d at Sinai had not shown any image of himself.”
            and
            [b] “We should NOT make image in the form of any living thing.”

            From what I read, Torah teaches that G-d did not show Himself to Israel at Mt. Sinai for at least one good reason,
            1. All Israel would be dead– for no man can see G-d and live [Exodus 33]

            Tanakh does not teach that G-d has “no form” unless someone forces such an interpretation to make it so– for besides the writings of Moses that mankind is made in His image, G-d purposely gave visions to the Prophets that His form does have a semblance to mankind [Ezekiel and Daniel].

            So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, L-rd Yeshua is not a graven image made by human hands. Rather, He is the “rock” not cut by human hands. [Daniel 2]

            ________________________

            At Mt. Sinai, Moses also wrote of another event. . .
            “The L-RD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the L-RD. Then the L-RD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The L-RD, the L-RD G-d, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” [Exodus 34]

            How did the L-RD stand with Moses while the L-RD passed by?

            Who is this L-RD that can speak to Moses face to face whereas we are also told of the L-RD whose face Moses cannot see?

            ________________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, let us say for argument’s sake that your interpretation that Hashem literally appeared in physical form in that passage is correct. Let us say for argument’s sake that Hashem appeared in the Torah in physical form a million times.

            It still wouldn’t matter.

            At Mount Sinai, Hashem taught us Whom and how to worship. Deuteronomy 4 makes it crystal clear that any type of worship that was not introduced at Sinai is forbidden. Other verses make it clear that any type of worship that was unknown to our fathers is forbidden (referred to as gods our fathers did not know, as in Deuteronomy 13).

            God did not teach us about a trinity at Sinai. He did not teach us about Jesus. Jesus was a god our fathers did not know.

            Ergo, worship of Jesus as a man is idolatry.

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, you wrote: “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, L-rd Yeshua is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            Do you realize you can use that to justify any type of idol worship?

            Let’s try it out:

            “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, Horace’s tree [see https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/horaces-tree-by-jim/%5D is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, the wind spirit is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, my great-great-grandfather [ancestor worship] is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            The prohibition of idolatry is not only making a graven image. It’s a prohibition to direct the devotion of your heart to any entity other than God. You can commit idolatry without doing anything physical, just by turning your heart to a different entity, be it spirit, human, animal, or otherwise.

          • Dina says:

            Typing error: I wrote worship of Jesus as a man is idolatry. I meant to write worship of Jesus as God is idolatry.

            (Don’t get me wrong. Worshiping him as a man is also idolatry.)

          • RT says:

            Kavi, as we already talked over and over again about that issue with CR, I don’t think it is worth to repeat it…

            I would just say “Have you ever seen the face of the earth?”

            Because it is said in the Bible, it must be taken literally!!!

            As we both know “God is Spirit” John 4:24 and no-one has seen the Father. So we may conclude rightly that those Bible verses could not be taken literally. G-d does not have hands and feet like you and me. When G-d created us in His image, it did not mean Jesus, but his essence. You don’t have to take everything literal, because if you do, The earth has a real face and you are walking disrepectively on it!.

            May I also point out that G-d was pregnant of Israel… Should that be literal? And if we want to go with that logic, Yeshua should have been a women.

            As it said: Let us make mankind in our image: “Let us make mankind in our image… God he created them; male and female he created them.”

            See, The Father, was the man, and as the woman was submissive to the man, so Yeshua was submissive to the father… And as I mentioned that G-d bore (was pregnant) of Israel and the father is a man, then Yeshua must have been a lady.

            Let’s be ridiculous has your way of thinking!

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            Your logic used to illustrate is flawed– by that I mean the application of your thought process would also lead a person to nullify the worship of the Ancient of Days.

            KAVI: “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, L-rd Yeshua is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            DINA: “Do you realize you can use that to justify any type of idol worship?”

            DINA: “Let’s try it out:”

            DINA [example]: “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, the wind spirit is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            DINA [faulty example]: “So, I completely agree with you that no one should make an image of G-d in any form– however, the Ancient of Days is not a graven image made by human hands.”

            — You see there’s a problem here, right?

            _______________________

            In regards to your other objections,
            — Elohim began to identify His essential Being from the very beginning [Genesis 1 through Genesis 3]
            — Moses knew L-RD Yeshua [Exodus 33]
            — The fathers knew L-RD Yeshua [Exodus 24]
            — At Mt. Sinai there was the revelation of the Law
            AND the L-RD who stood by Moses while the L-RD passed by

            Sure, Moses and the Elders may not have called Him “Yeshua”– but in G-d’s continuum of revelation, His name frankly didn’t need to be revealed in their time.

            Since we have the testimony of Tanakh that Elohim says He somehow exists as One Being in complex, Echad unity [NOT Tritheism]– worshiping the L-RD Ancient of Days and L-RD Yeshua is fully acceptable to Him simply because He has designated it to be so.

            Moses had no problem speaking with the L-RD Yeshua face to face “just as a man speaks to his friend.”

            And even though Moses could not communicate with the L-RD Ancient of Days on the same terms, Moses did seem to express such a desire– but his desire was denied.
            ______________________

            Last, after all this discourse, you probably won’t believe that I sincerely enjoyed your description of idolatry that goes beyond the making of graven images.

            But for me, honest and even “intense” disagreement should neither lead to contempt nor give rise to disingenuous praise.
            ______________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, by Ancient of Days, I assume you mean God. If my assumption is correct, then you can’t plug God into my formula, because obviously we’re meant to worship God. My formula is to show that idolatry does not mean only making a graven image. You seem to think that it’s okay to worship Jesus as long as you don’t make a graven image. I’m trying to show you that it’s not okay to worship things even without a graven image. The commandment “You shall have no other gods before Me” is separate from the commandment “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or a likeness.”

            By the way, Christianity has a time-honored tradition of making graven images and likenesses. Just something to consider.

            You say that Jesus was indeed taught at Mount Sinai, just that God didn’t reveal that particular name. I do not see the Biblical verses you cited as showing that Moses and the fathers knew Jesus. Are we reading the same Bible?

            Are you saying that Jews have been worshiping Jesus all along, albeit unwittingly? Then if so, what is the difference between Jewish worship before and after Jesus? If Jesus is God and we are worshiping God, as you say, then why are you dissatisfied with our worship?

            Finally, the Hebrew Bible does not testify to God’s complex unity but absolute oneness. Every clear and open teaching about God explicitly states that God is one and alone.

            See for example Exodus 20:2-5, Numbers 23:19, Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:14, I Samuel 15:29, 1 Chonicles 8:60, Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 44: 6-8, Hosea 13:4.

            Every Christian “proof” derives from passages that are not teachings about God and how to worship but other stories with unclear imagery.

            At Sinai, God Himself taught us Whom to worship. He not only did not present to us the trinity and Jesus, but He also taught us to worship Him and Him alone.

          • RT says:

            Kavi, maybe you did not mind answering my comment because making Yeshua a woman was too ridiculous, but you are assuming the same kind of fallacies when you say that G-d has a body. Things that are well known as false even from the new testament writers. Furthermore, if you want to put G-d with a body, can you please explain me how on earth you can positively arrive to the conclusion that it was Yeshua. Just because his followers claimed he was god does not make him the “physical body” related to G-d in the Hebrew Bible. Many people claimed to be gods, and actually Yeshua never made that claim, only his followers who had to explain why they had two masters made such claim…

          • KAVI says:

            RT,
            The B’rit Chadashah/NT mentions that the L-RD descended from Heaven to tabernacle in a physical body and thus dwell among mankind [John 1]

            In Torah, the L-RD Elohim breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam “became” a nefesh chayah. [Genesis 2]

            How does your nefesh “tabernacle” in your physical body?

            __________________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi and RT, excuse me for butting in, but Kavi, RT did not ask how it could be that God has a physical body. He asked how you could possibly know Jesus was the one to contain God. If you were living in the first century and met Jesus, all you would have seen was a man. Would you believe any man who claimed he was God, no matter how many miracles he performed? You didn’t answer RT’s question.

            Furthermore, the question again is not could God appear in human form, but would He? Would he contradict His own teachings at Sinai and throughout the Tanach about forbidding the association of Him with any form whatsoever? (In a comment to you previously I listed a whole bunch of citations proving this point.)

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            I have read the Scriptures you quoted** and, in their essence, find these concepts,
            [] G-d is Echad– I agree [i.e., not “yachid”, but “echad”]
            [] G-d is not a man– I completely agree
            [] Man must not worship idols made by hands– Absolutely
            [] The L-RD is G-d, there is none else– Again, absolutely true
            [] There is no G-d like the L-RD– I wholehearted agree

            ** Exodus 20:2-5, Numbers 23:19, Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:14, I Samuel 15:29, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 44: 6-8, Hosea 13:4

            I can agree with all these Scriptures because L-RD Yeshua is One with the L-RD Ancient of Days [Deuteronomy 6:4, Exodus 34, etc]– therefore the command “You shall have no other gods before Me” applies equally.

            To be clear, I think Jews and Gentiles can search the Tanakh and find it teaches,
            [] L-RD Yeshua and the L-RD Ancient of Days are Echad/One
            AND YET
            [] L-RD Yeshua and the L-RD Ancient of Days have some kind of uniqueness which goes way, way beyond our ability to understand Him**

            **[Genesis 1 to 3; Exodus 3:14; Exodus 24 and 33 and 34; Deuteronomy 4:39 and 6:4, etc]
            ________________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, how do you see the Scriptures you cite as teaching that Jesus and God are one? I am completely baffled.

            You write that Hashem is Echad, not Yachid. Yachid means unique, or alone. Given that the Torah explicitly teaches: “You were shown in order to know that the Lord, He is the God; there is none beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35), why do you reject the idea that God is alone and unique? How much more alone and unique can you get? Also, why do you think the word “one” in Hebrew implies more than one?

            Does it not trouble you that the prophets predict that at the end of days the gentiles will come to the Jews to learn the truth about God and not the other way around?

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            You ask, “Are you saying that Jews have been worshiping Jesus all along, albeit unwittingly?”

            My answer is that some Jews did worship G-d is His Fullness [i.e., the L-RD Yeshua and the L-RD Ancient of Days]– but most did not [Deuteronomy 9:7]
            ______________________

            We agree that G-d does not change– Why would He change His path to holy forgiveness and redemption as initially laid out to mankind in Gan Eden?

            Although some say the story of Adam and Chava in Gan Eden is just a simple, “children’s” fairy tale, I do not not think G-d would tell us something without purpose– In the Book of Genesis, we find,
            [] G-d gave commands
            [] Mankind disobeyed the command and ate the forbidden fruit
            [] G-d promised us a Holy Redeemer so that the soul of mankind could be cleansed from sin

            At Mt. Sinai,
            [] G-d gave commands
            [] Mankind disobeyed those commands and worshiped the golden calf [etc]
            [] The L-RD G-d gave further revelation of His Chosen Redeemer by visibly revealing the L-RD Yeshua to Moses

            The illustration in Gan Eden is one reason why I like your description of idolatry.

            Eating that forbidden fruit exhibited Adam/Chava’s idolatrous desire(s) in their heart. And, in a way, I think those at Mt. Sinai revealed the same evil desire(s) in their hearts to disobey G-d that led them to produce a graven image and commit other sinful deeds.

            __________________________

          • KAVI If someone worships God as Creator of heaven and earth, all merciful, all knowing, all powerful but knows nothing of Jesus is this person only worshiping a half (third) of God? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, where does the Torah teach that “G-d promised us a Holy Redeemer so that the soul of mankind could be cleansed from sin” and that “The L-RD G-d gave further revelation of His Chosen Redeemer by visibly revealing the L-RD Yeshua to Moses”?

            No “hints,” please. When the sin of idolatry is in question, you guys had better have a clear teaching–as clear as the Scriptures I cited–that one must worship Jesus along with God as God.

            In contradistinction to such super clear passages as “The Lord, He is the God; there is none beside Him” and “You shall have no other gods before me” and “I shall not give my glory to another” and “There is no savior beside Me” you need to present a teaching like “God will send a holy redeemer to cleanse mankind from sin and you must worship him as God.”

            Why do I demand such a high standard of evidence? Because if God wanted us to change our worship, He would have made it that clear; the risk of committing idolatry and betraying our God is too high.

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, you wrote that some Jews did worship God in His fullness, by which I assume you mean God with Jesus, which is simply not true. No one worshiped Jesus. Not Moses, not Abraham. You have zero evidence on that matter. You also wrote that most did not worship God in His fullness, quoting a completely irrelevant verse. I thought it was clear when I asked you that question that I was talking about Jews who worshiped God, not the rebellious ones who worshiped a golden calf.

            Did Moses acknowledge Jesus as his lord and savior? Tell the truth!

          • CP says:

            “It happened, when Yehoshua was by Yericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Yehoshua went to him, and said to him, Are you for us, or for our adversaries?

            He said, No; but as prince of the host of the LORD am I now come. Yehoshua fell on his face to the eretz, and did worship, and said to him, What says my lord to his servant?

            The prince of the LORD’s host said to Yehoshua, Put off your shoe from off your foot; for the place whereon you stand is holy. Yehoshua did so.”
            (Yehoshua 5:13-15)

            Simple Question – Do ya’ll consider Yehoshua an idolater?

          • Dina says:

            Folks, this gentleman once again posts a mistranslation.

            The verse does not say “Yehoshua fell on his face to the eretz, and did worship.” (Why leave “eretz” in Hebrew; does that make it sound more authentic?)

            My friends, if you learn Hebrew you can never again be fooled by Christian missionaries. The verse says: “Joshua fell before him to the ground and prostrated himself.”

            Using exactly the same verb with the same conjugation, Jacob prostrated himself before Esau seven times (Genesis 33:3).

            There are dozens of instances in the Bible of people bowing and prostrating; it was the etiquette of the day. That was how you showed respect to a king, a chieftain, an overlord, a brother you were terrified of, etc.

            So there you have it, folks.

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, you didn’t answer my questions/challenges.

          • CP says:

            “Dina says:
            February 13, 2017 at 10:33 am
            Folks, this gentleman once again posts a mistranslation………
            ……..So there you have it, folks.”

            Dina, as a matter of fact, worship and prostrating are the same word in Hebrew, therefore your choice of English is trying to do away with the ambiguity of the Hebrew.

            I wonder what you’d say if someone “prostrated” themselves before Yeshua? Would you be quick to point out how they as idolaters “worshiped” Yeshua? Would you be quick to point out Yeshua didn’t correct them? But this never happens in all the Gospels, does it?

            Which brings us to the real point you’ve attempted to gloss over; other angels always correct the person who “prostrated” telling them “don’t do it”. This Angel accepted the prostration. And goes even further tell Joshua to remove his sandals because he is on Holy Ground.

            Dina, you really haven’t fairly addressed this text at all.

          • Dina says:

            Folks, when I have time later I’ll address this comment at greater length, but here is another lesson in why people who don’t know Hebrew shouldn’t argue the language with people who do.

            The word for worship in Hebrew is la’avod (sorry, I don’t have Hebrew capability on this computer).

            It also means to work and to serve.

            The word for bow or prostrate is “l’hishtachavot,” the verb used in the passage under discussion.

            It does not mean worship, though prostrating yourself can be a part of worship, obviously. Therefore it is forbidden to bow to idols. It is not forbidden to bow to humans or angels, obviously. Was Jacob worshiping Esau when he prostrated himself, and the brothers worshiping Joseph, and all the other instances, I ask you?

          • CP says:

            שָׁחָה shâchâh, shaw-khaw’; a primitive root; to depress, i.e. prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God):—bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

          • Dina says:

            Do any of you guys remember David? He got into an argument with me over a Hebrew word, and he brought a definition from one of these things to prove his point. I told him that if a French-speaking person brought him a dictionary definition for “prairie” that says it’s “mountain” (or something to that effect), it wouldn’t matter because he speaks the language. He doesn’t need someone who doesn’t speak the language to prove to him the meaning of common words.

            A few of the definitions in CP’s post are wrong (fall down, humbly beseech, worship) and I know this because I am fluent in both Biblical and modern Hebrew. I speak Hebrew, for God’s sake! I would never presume to tell a French speaker the correct definition for bibliotheque. Some people can’t tell when they’re in over their heads. Sheesh!

            But don’t take my word for it, guys! The Bible itself makes the distinction clear:

            Exodus 20:5: Lo tishtachaveh lahem v’lo ta’avdem. Do not prostrate yourself (shacha) to them and do not worship (avad) them.
            Exodus 23:24: Lo tishtachaveh leiloheihem v’lo ta’avdem. Do not prostrate yourself (shacha) to their gods and do not worship (avad) them.
            Deuteronomy 5:9: Lo tishtachaveh lahem v’lo ta’avdem. Do not prostrate yourself (shacha) to them and do not worship (avad) them.

            Obviously, prostrating yourself is a type of reverence that you must never give an idol, but is totally appropriate for kings, angels, and fearsome brothers.

            So that settles it.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Did some investigating: the word you have referenced occurs 3 times in the Torah, and one of those times it is Pharaoh speaking. The word “worship” is used a total of 17 times translated from 3 times the word you’ve pointed out and 14 times the word I pointed out above.

            The point is: Although we agree only God alone should be worshipped and we (should) agree the Hebrew word(s) carries a wide range of meanings, the problem arises when you cherry pick a the extreme meaning only because you wish to accuse anyone who believes Yeshua is the first advent of Messiah of “idol worship”. Trust me when I say; “When Messiah comes YOU will worship him”, but that doesn’t mean you will worship him as God, but will give him the proper respect due to Messiah.

            Btw, here’s the word which occurs 3 times:
            עָבַד ʻâbad, aw-bad’; a primitive root; to work (in any sense); by implication, to serve, till, (causatively) enslave, etc.:—× be, keep in bondage, be bondmen, bond-service, compel, do, dress, ear, execute, husbandman, keep, labour(-ing man, bring to pass, (cause to, make to) serve(-ing, self), (be, become) servant(-s), do (use) service, till(-er), transgress (from margin), (set a) work, be wrought, worshipper,

          • CP says:

            Dina, didn’t see your post until right now, we must of posted at the same time. Thank you for posting the verses. The verses you posted use both Hebrew words in the same sentence. If you notice even what you’ve posted is not strictly translated one way or the other because the precise meaning comes from context.

            Which brings me back to the same point again: You have shown through your writings that consistently define worship when it comes to Yeshua as the kind of ‘worship which only belongs to God’ so that you can accuse anyone who respects and reverences Messiah of idol worship.

            You still haven’t answered the Text where the Angel tells Joshua to remove his sandals. Nor have you explained why every other angel forbids any kind of worship, but this one accepts it.

          • KAVI says:

            Rabbi,
            You write,
            Q: “KAVI If someone worships God as Creator of heaven and earth, all merciful, all knowing, all powerful but knows nothing of Jesus is this person only worshiping a half (third) of God?”

            A: Moses was not concerned about the “mathematics” of his worship when he spoke with the L-RD Yeshua HaMashiach “face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend” as well as when he spoke with the L-RD Ancient of Days whom he was not permitted to see. [Exodus 33 and 34]

            If the L-RD did not accept the worship of Cain because his worship was contrary to the L-RD’s Word– how can the L-RD now change His mind and accept worship from mankind that is contrary to the greater revelation He gave Moses?
            _________________________

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            You ask,
            Q: “Did Moses acknowledge Jesus as his lord and savior?”

            A: Yes– both L-RD and Savior [i.e., Redeemer]. Moses spoke face to face with his L-RD [Exodus 33 and 34] whom Moses also understood to be the L-RD’s Mashiach Redeemer [Genesis 3]

            G-d didn’t change His promise of holy redemption at Mt. Sinai– instead, we simply see a continuum of revelation that started in Gan Eden.

            Mankind didn’t change either– Adam/Chava sinned in Gan Eden and Israel sinned at Mt. Sinai.
            ______________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi:

            Prove it.

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            You mention,

            Q: “Kavi, where does the Torah teach that “G-d promised us a Holy Redeemer so that the soul of mankind could be cleansed from sin?”

            Moses writes,
            A: G-d gave mankind a pure body and a pure soul [Genesis 2:7]
            B: Mankind sins– therefore the body “dies” [Genesis 2:17]
            C: Mankind sins– therefore the soul “dies”– it becomes “unholy” and cannot dwell with G-d in Gan Eden [Genesis 3:22-24]
            D: G-d gave mankind no repentance or good works to save the body from death
            E: G-d gave mankind no repentance or good works to save the soul from “spiritual” death

            Just one, single sin made such a massive, irreconcilable difference– we became evil and unholy and permanently “stained” by sin — and, imprisoned in those chains of unholiness, G-d Himself gave us no repentance or good works to shatter those steel shackles. . .

            ** Moshe Rabbenu sinned and died– and, just like the rest of us, he could not accomplish holy redemption for himself or anyone else. **

            ** Therefore, Elohim knowing that mankind could not accomplish their own redemption, the L-RD Ancient of Days promised mankind the HOLY L-RD Redeemer who would need to suffer in order to overcome sin and crush the power of satan [Genesis 3:15]

            By Faith in the L-RD Ancient of Days that His Words are True– mankind can come to believe that His Anointed L-RD Redeemer is the ONLY way to salvation.

            Moses expressed this same saving Faith in the L-RD Ancient of Days and the visible, tangible L-RD Redeemer– and by this Faith, Moses was granted G-d’s righteous holiness and taught Israel to follow the same path [Exodus 33 and 34; Deuteronomy 30:14]
            ______________________

          • KAVI If faith in Jesus reverses the effects of Adam’s sin so why is it that all of teh curses (death, pain in childbirth, sweating for food) still apply to Christians?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, I asked you for clear and unequivocal teachings. Instead, you provided passages upon which you imposed a Christological meaning which you can see only if you believe in Jesus. This is circular reasoning par excellence.

          • KAVI says:

            Rabbi,
            You wrote,
            Q: “KAVI – If faith in Jesus reverses the effects of Adam’s sin so why is it that all of teh curses (death, pain in childbirth, sweating for food) still apply to Christians?”

            A: The B’rit Chadashah/NT does not contain either the words “reverse” or “reversing”– so I am unable to directly respond.

            However, let’s ask– “Why didn’t G-d remedy both the death of the body and the death of the soul?”

            In a way, this profound question isn’t one limited to “christian” or “jewish” or any other “faith”.
            _________________________

            So, what does Torah teach?

            G-d said, “. . .but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” [Genesis 2:17]

            Yet did Adam/Chava physically die the day they ate of the fruit?
            Is G-d a liar?

            “No” to both– For G-d is True and mankind’s souls certainly did “die” to Him the day Adam/Chava disobeyed– we became evil before G-d’s face. . .

            Therefore, True to His eternal ways,
            [] G-d promised His own eternal remedy to “save” mankind’s unholy, filthy-dead “corpse of a soul” from its vile sinfulness
            [] G-d promised no remedy for death of our non-eternal physical bodies or the harsh consequences of our sinful disobedience

            For we find–
            > He separately curses satan [Genesis 3:14]
            > He binds together a curse on satan with a blessing to mankind by promising a Holy Redeemer [Genesis 3:15]
            > He separately curses Chava [Genesis 3:16]
            > He separately curses Adam [Genesis 3:17]

            G-d provides NO remedy to the curses of verses 16 and 17.

            G-d provides only ONE remedy in verse 15 to address the mankind’s eternal, evil innermost being.

            And that one remedy is the ONLY way back to G-d’s holiness for our souls through His Holy, Chosen Redeemer.

            _________________________

          • KAVI You are reading into Genesis 3:15 what is not there – your house is not standing on sand – it stands on your imaginati

    • Jim says:

      Junzey,

      The Dead Sea Scrolls do not say “pierced.” In the one readable text we have of Ps. 22:16 from the DSS, there is a question on the last letter, whether it is a yod or a vav. It appears in that scroll to be a vav, which would make “k’ari” (“like a lion”) look like “karu,” which is taken to mean ” they pierced.” This is not correct, however. “Karu” would not have an aleph in the middle of it. So, even if the ending were a vav rather than a misprint, the verse would still not say “they pierced.”

      Moreover, if the word were karu, it would not mean “pierced.” Karah means “to dig.” The verb appears quite a few times in relation to wells being dug, as well as pits and sepulchres. In Ps. 40, the verb is used in relation to opening ears. Here it is obviously not speaking of piercing ears, but cleaning them out, digging out a blockage as it were. (When a slave wishes to remain with his master, his ear is pierced, “ratsa” not “karah.”) Digging and piercing are not the same thing, and if one told Frieda Roos that “they dug out” someone’s hands and feet, she would probably not so quickly think of Jesus.

      I am sorry, but Ps. 22:16 does not say ‘pierced’ not even in the DSS.

      Jim

      • Dina says:

        Jim, my husband emailed me a link to an article about a fragment of parchment that, if memory serves correctly, is the oldest existing piece of Biblical parchment, I believe predating even the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because it was tightly rolled and badly burned, the archaeologists who dug it up several decades ago preserved it in the hope that technology would be invented that would enable reading the parchment without damaging it further. Such technology has now been invented, and this fragment is exactly, letter for letter, identical to the Masoretic text we have today. If I find the link I will post it here.

  2. Sharon S says:

    Hi Jim,
    Maybe you would like to check out Roy H Schoeman , a Jewish convert to Catholicism
    http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/christversion.html

    He has produced two books , one of which entitled “Honey from the Rock” -stories of 16 Jews who converted to Catholicism.

    His videos are available on Youtube. I learnt about Christian anti-Semitism firsthand from one of his videos , before reading it further in this blog.

    Thank you.

    • Dina says:

      Sharon, I hope you don’t mind my sticking my nose in, but I’m not sure what the point is of posting the testimonies of Jews who converted to Christianity. We do not deny their existence. In perhaps every case, they convert because they had a strong spiritual/emotional experience, as in the story you posted. As I am sure you must know, every religion can claim among its adherents people who have experienced a strong spiritual/emotional encounter. The practice of Orthodox Judaism produces powerful, frequent spiritual experiences which cannot be described in words.

      The point Jim was trying to make is that Jews who convert to Christianity tend to be Jews, like the Jew in the testimony you posted, who are not raised in the Orthodox tradition, which includes a rigorous religious education and knowledge of Tanach in its original language. This is something to consider, as spiritual experiences common to all religions cannot be a measure of truth.

      • Sharon S. says:

        Hi Dina,
        I’m just asking Jim or anyone in the know to check it out , that’s all.

        The person I’ve mentioned in my comment did not appear in this post and other comments in the previous posts (on Jews who have converted to Christianity) , and I would like to bring it to your attention.

        If this platform is not appropriate for that , then I apologize.

        Thank you.

        • Dina says:

          Hi Sharon,

          No need to apologize, I think it’s fine (I’m not the moderator, but I’m sure Rabbi B. doesn’t mind). As you can see, I did check out the online testimony and found it to be similar to other accounts I had read. Hence, my explanation.

          By the way, I’m rereading Thy Brother’s Blood by Malcolm Hay. The author, a First World War veteran and a Roman Catholic, can’t quite bring himself to blame the gospels for the persecution of the Jewish people, preferring the explanation that the followers of Jesus misunderstood the context and misapplied the words. Nevertheless, he writes with a refreshing honesty and does not shy from linking Christian piety to Jew hatred.

          While this grim account of Jewish history is painful to read, I cannot recommend it enough to anyone interested in understanding Christian-Jewish relations.

          Thanks for responding to me!

          • Sharon S says:

            Hi Dina,

            I’m now halfway through “Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate ” by William Nicholls , via Kindle.

            Couldn’t get the rest of the books you recommended on Kindle , so I’m planning to order online.

            No worries!

          • Dina says:

            Great, thanks!

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Rabbi B, CP’s point was that Dina engaged in the same ad hominem judgement that she accuses Christians of.

            An idolater is a human being, just as you both are.

            If it is acceptable by Torah standards to mock and impute nefarious motives to the idolater, the idolater will inevitably do the same to you in the name of the same reasons and justifications you give to justify Dina, because the idolater believes (like you do) that he/she mocks in the service of the truth.

            You were asking CP why he gives Dina (whom he agrees with) grief over mocking Junezy.

            The idolater believes that they posses the truth, just the same as a Jew believes they posses the truth about their Judaism.

            For you to imply “hey its idolatry, so it should be fine to say what Dina said,” takes away any sense of moral high ground you may occupy.

            Its the embodinent of the double standard to say “its ok for me, but not for you.”

            You believe that a Christian practices idolatry because of Deuteronomy 4,

            (teaching G-d in a way unknown to your fathers, and of worshiping one of the host of heaven, IE a creature.)

            That truth can stand without anyones insults. Insults close the path to repentance, close hearts.

            These Christians believe in ideas which have re emerged in the history of later Judaism, emerged out of a fully Torah observant environment in the cases of Sabbateanism, Breslov, and Chabad.

            They have fallen into the same exact pit that some of the most Frum Jews ever have fallen into, but its ok to Mock them?

            Acher had a full education in Judaism, yet he fell in the pit too.

            When they try to be critical of Christianity and yet can see this replication of their own ideas with their own eyes and also see Judaism’s historically positive view of a more monistic group (like Islam for example,) is it any wonder they believe you have a double standard of sorts?

            You will call Junezy a betrayer of her people, a betrayer of her G-d, even whilst you acknowledge that Jesus taught a plagarized Torah ethic, and even while you admit the existence of the replica that is Chabad’s messianism.

            CP was pointing out a very obvious thing. He shouldnt be faulted for calling Dina out on it. All due respect to Dina.

          • Dina says:

            No worries, Connie! I hear what you are saying and I agree that idolators are humans who deserve respect. I wasn’t mocking June, I was scolding her. And if you read her comments to Jim you may perhaps see why I thought a scolding was in order.

            Also please note that I told June what all Jews believe of apostate Jews; I did not call her names or call down Divine wrath upon her head (CP compared it to what Jesus said, but it’s nothing like what Jesus said, not even close). Look, it doesn’t sound very nice, but we do believe that Jews who convert to another religion betray their God and their people.

            Christians believe I’m going to hell because I don’t accept Jesus. I don’t think they are hateful for holding that belief. Is there a double standard here?

          • Concerned Reader Dina has written alot on this blog – she made it clear many times over that she does not judge the Christians on a personal level – much the same sentiment that you described here. This one comment is seized upon by CP to compare Dina to Jesus when Jesus never mitigated his condemnations in the slightest.

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  3. Concerned Reader says:

    I did read her comments Dina, and it seems to me that she brought up to Jim that “pierced,” or (more accurately) to “dig” could be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. She then pointed out that she was Jewish, and her husband also, and not to assume that she knows nothing about Judaism, that it is offensive to impute ignorance to people you don’t know.

    I then pointed out that arguing over that Psalm is absurd, because “like a lion” my hands and my feet, is necessary to interpret anyway due to its ambiguity, and “they pierced my hands and my feet,” is plausible based on the context in the verse of a general sense of righteous suffering being the intent. Both readings are consistent and justifiable.

    You decided to scold June for defending her position, by saying she has betrayed G-d, and her people. While you are entitled to your opinion, she is entitled to hers.

    I have read plenty of things where the worst punishments imaginable are believed by commentators and rabbis to befall the Meshumadim, without much moderation or mitigation in their speech either.

    Speaking as a former Christian, It may be more mild than burning for all eternity, but it is no less disturbing for an individual to read, or listen to, and the creativity in punishments and curses described for these people is no less colorful and horrible than what is in the Christian text. All one has to do is listen to some of Rabbi Mizrahi’s lectures to see how colorful one can be about describing the destruction of a sinner.

    A Yeshu who burns in crap is no less offensive than the Christian hell. Gehinom for a year is still Gehinom. The light of G-d obliterating the wicked is still terrifying. There is no non offensive way to tell people that G-d is possibly upset with them.

    • RT says:

      And that proves that maybe people should be more worried about checking their own relationship with G-d and see if what they in the right path rather than checking others…

    • Dina says:

      Con, yes, I totally hear why you find that disturbing (and I think Rabbi Mizrahi is a bit crazy, but hell-fire-and-brimstone sermons are popular among certain segments, both Jewish and Christian). Fact is, though, that I didn’t mention any of that! All I said is that she turned her back on God and His people. That’s how we see Jewish apostates. You’re imputing to me things I never said, and that is just not fair. Did I say she would be punished? No, I did not! For all I know, she is 100% sincere in her beliefs and has no idea she is wrong and will earn God’s compassion.

      I’m not going to quibble about what I found offensive about June’s comments, since it has to do with her history of posting here and I doubt you’re interested in all the details…still, I hear what you’re saying. I concede that I should have let well enough alone.

    • Dina says:

      Also, Con, my scolding of June does not further the cause of truth. It was more an act of catharsis than anything else, and I regret that.

      • CP says:

        Dina,
        It doesn’t feel very good to be looked at negatively, everything always being interpreted in the worst possible way. The only thing it promotes is hate, division and prejudice. I mean this with no malice whatsoever; I think an unhealthy preoccupation with the history of Christian antisemitism is affecting you.

        Speaking of “Exploiting Ignorance”; I often hear from some how Yeshua got after the religious leaders of his day with some extremely strong vernacular. They speak as that is all there is, ignoring the religious leaders who respected Yeshua. A balanced reading should include passages like this — if one is being fair and unprejudiced.

        Luk 9:51-56
        It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Yerushalayim, and sent messengers before his face. They went, and entered into a village of the Shomroni, so as to prepare for him.
        They didn’t receive him, because he was traveling with his face set towards Yerushalayim.

        When his talmidim, Ya`akov and Yochanan, saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from the sky, and destroy them, just as Eliyah did?”

        But he turned and rebuked them, “You don’t know of what kind of spirit you are.
        For the Son of Man didn’t come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” They went to another village.

        Dina,
        what is important here is the Talmudim were Torah Observant Orthodox Jews who thought they’d found the Messiah and wanted to call fire wn from heaven. They were also followers of Yeshua. You could rightfully say they were both Jew and Christian. Therefore the message not to call fire down on those who don’t accept a particular view is for BOTH Jew and Christian.

        Many Jews and many Christians do not properly represent their religion. What is that to us? I hope and pray we all can represent our Creator in a way He’d be pleased.

  4. Jim says:

    Concerned Reader,

    It appears to me that you have misunderstood the nature of the argument over “one word,” which is why you think it absurd to discuss. My argument was never over the general interpretation of the chapter and whether or not it refers to Jesus. It is over the use of the mistranslated word in missionary endeavors and how it misleads those that do not know better.

    The missionary attempts to maximize the word ‘pierced’. The question is asked, as it is of Isaiah 53: “About whom does this seem to be referring?” The word is highly suggestive, especially to one that grew up in the Western World. To Frieda Roos, the word was highly important. She related it to the image of Jesus she had. And the missionary knows the word is suggestive. In the Western World, another candidate does not so readily come to mind as one who had his hands and feet pierced.

    Certainly the reader does not think of David. And the Christian knows this. Indeed the missionary will be quick to point it out. He will say that because David did not have his hands and feet pierced, it must be referring to someone else. “So, who is this person?” the missionary asks. He will say that it refers to a Jew that would one day have his hands and feet pierced, implying the whole time that this figure is Jesus.

    He does not educate his target. The missionary gets as much mileage out of prophecies as he can. When he claims that Isaiah prophecied that Jesus would be born of a virgin, he does not teach the target for conversion the proper context of the verse or that Isaiah wrote nothing about a virgin. Certainly he does not point out that “virgin” is not in the text. Nor does he teach Isaiah 1-52 before handing the target Isaiah 53. He does not point out verses that explicitly call Israel God’s Servant. And he does not teach him that Psalm 22:16 does not say pierced. It undermines the strength of the claim. The missionary relies on the target’s trust, knowing that the target will take for granted that the word appears in the text and hoping that he will associate the word with Jesus.

    One can see the tactics of the missionary on display on this page and can see that the missionary does not seek to educate. Consider, if you please, Junzey’s first response to me. She writes, regarding the word ‘pierced’: “You would need to read the translation of The Dead Sea Scrolls writings on Psalm 22:16 to find the truth. For the truth lies in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls!” Notice that all she does is imply that my objection is answered there. She does not inform the reader what he will find in the DSS.

    Contrast this to my answer, which addresses the specific points of the word in the DSS. I raise specific objections, rather than make vague insinuations, addressing the following points:

    1. The actual issue under consideration is whether or not the word in the DSS ends in a vav or a yod, and that it appears to be a vav in the DSS rather than a yod, altering the meaning. (Junzey did not even go that far.)

    2. I address the aleph in the middle of the word, which indicates that the word is not ‘karah,’ which is being taken to mean pierced.

    3. I address the meaning of ‘karah,’ which means ‘to dig,’ and not ‘to pierce.’

    June did not explain any of these topics. Instead, she only implied that the DSS read ‘they pierced’. That insinuation ignores many of the issues surrounding the word in the DSS, but educating the reader would remove the impact of the word from the text. As the missionary does, she attempts to leave one with an impression but not knowledge.

    Her second response shows the import of the word to the missionary. She tells the reader that she cares nothing for the aleph, that it will not affect her faith. She protests that it means nothing to her changed life. Yet, only the day before she was insinuating that the word in the DSS would reveal the truth. Suddenly, it is of little importance.

    Then she falsely maligns me, accusing me of “misquot[ing] letters or Scriptures in ‘dispute’”. This is a false charge. I did not misquote anything. And she certainly did not show that I had. To be blunt, she is lying about me. And she wishes to make me appear a villain, writing that I “put down people for their faith,” another false change. I put down no one. Her method is to distract.

    The word that the missionary maximizes, she now minimizes. In that second response, she informs the reader that the passage is in dispute. Note that she did not tell the reader that fact when she said the DSS held the truth. She did not educate the reader. She made a vague claim. Only after the claim was challenged did she repudiate the word in question. Only then was it in dispute. First, it revealed the truth and then…

    This is not about Christian interpretation generally and all its myriad problems. This is about the fact that even though missionaries boast about the many Jewish believers that seem to authenticate their faith, many of those Jewish believers come to Jesus because they lack knowledge. They do not know the Torah. They do not know Isaiah. They do not know the Psalms. They have vague impressions of them, largely influenced by the Christian culture by which they are surrounded. When they hear a verse that seems to be talking about Jesus, because a word is badly translated that is a problem. They are being misled.

    That a word should be the focus of a study is absurd, but that word is the tool of the missionary. And we have seen from Junzey how the missionary will put great emphasis upon that word when it suits his purpose and deny its importance when it does not. The missionary does not educate his target. He relies upon his target’s ignorance. The only way to counter the false employment of this word is to explain its actual translation. It is absurd that it must be done, but it must be done.

    Jim

    • CP says:

      Jim, the evidence for Psalm 22:16 (17) seems to favor Junzey:

      http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf

      • LarryB says:

        http://www.torahresource.com
        Statement of faith:
        We affirm without reservation that Yeshua is Immanuel, “God With Us,” and that being the promised Messiah, He is worthy of our worship as the eternal, uncreated Son of God.
        TorahResource fully affirms justification through faith alone in the Messiah Yeshua. Once justified, God sanctifies us unto Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Scriptures.
        We labor in producing materials and teaching classes (through TorahResource Institute) in order to help Torah Communities become established and well-founded in following in the footsteps of Yeshua our Messiah.

        • LarryB says:

          Its actually in the Mission statement, but what surprises me the most is that a christian would fine Jesus in the Torah. 🙂

          • Dina says:

            This comprehensive study by Professor Uri Yosef shows that Jim is correct and June and CP and the author of that pseudo-scholarly article are dead wrong.

            http://www.thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa22.pdf

            Since this study addresses several passages in the Psalm, the discussion of the relevant verse begins on page 6. However, the whole paper is well worth reading in its entirety.

            A word to the wise: if you don’t read and understand Hebrew, stay away from these subjects, as you appear absurdly silly to us Hebrew speakers. I won’t argue about Greek usage in the New Testament for that reason. I’ll just look like a fool because I won’t know what the heck I’m talking about.

          • RT says:

            I think that the main evidence that it is not “pierced” is found in the new testament. The authors of the NT would have Jump at such Bible verse as their intent was to prove that Yeshua was predicted. So, that would have been quite something to have missed such “prophecy” if Yeshua mentioned the beginning of that Psalm during his crucifixion…

        • RT says:

          That’s quite a deception form them! They do that to lure Jewish people to their website!

          • Dina says:

            I noticed that too, RT, and I find it horrific. Starting with such deception taints anything they have to say.

  5. Concerned Reader says:

    One issue that I commonly find regarding rabbinic objections to the Christian use of scripture in general is that the rabbis always say the Christians do not stick to the context.
    Uri in his article says that the context of Psalm 22 is historical, and not messianic, so the Christian reading is already off to a rocky start.

    How can a verse which (according to Uri) is speaking about Melech Hamashiach David, not be possibly understood as also a messianic verse?

    I heard an objection voiced about the Christian use of Daniel 9 once that went along the line that David wasn’t mentioned, and that this therefore disqualified the Christian reading, see below for a paraphrase.

    “It says in general that an annointed one is cut off, it doesn’t specify David, so the verse can’t possibly be interpreted in reference to the messiah.”

    In this instance however, we have a verse which does mention David, an actual king messiah of Israel, but this verse cannot apply to David’s descendant the messiah?

    Already, the deck seems stacked against a Christian’s understanding of the verse, because the rabbis wont even entertain the possibility of this as a messianic psalm.

    Uri then proceeds to show (in his opinion) the biased Christological coloring inherent in the use of the word sabachthani, (which he connects to the concept of Slaughter,) even though a little further down he freely admits this could be a case of loss in transliteration of Azavtani.

    As I’ve mentioned in other posts, whether it says pierced or not does not of necessity make it a Jesus proof. (Off course the gospel will say it does, its a BIOGRAPHICAL book Chronicling Christian experiences.)

    Also, I would like to draw your attention to the Jewish translation where brackets are present.
    For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.

    The brackets containing the phrase “they are at” is not in the text. The text reads “like a lion my hands and my feet.” The literal text is ambiguous to the point in its plain meaning, that whichever reading is offered, it involves an interpretation.

    The verse’s context clearly expresses David’s sense of anguish, suffering, and a plea for help to G-d that goes unheeded. Rabbinic literature itself has read “like a lion” as indicative of a lion biting or crunching the hands and feet.

    I see that you do not like the missionaries asserting that their reading is the sure thing by putting the word pierced in there.

    You believe it is a biased coloring of the text.

    However, Even if we disregarded the Christian text, there would still be a basis (just from Jewish sources,) to regard this as possibly about a righteous sufferer who has hands and feet that are crunched or dug. How are hands subject to digging? Being bored through.

    When you have a mitzvah in the Torah, and the oral Torah comes to explain the verse, do you say “it could mean X or Y or Z, etc.” or do you say, “we say in our tradition it means X as the plain sense”?

    We also know in Jesus’ time, Jews played more freely in translation of the texts, sometimes including their interpretations as part of the text.

    • Dina says:

      Con, you are way, way off here.

      First off, you ask how it can be that a verse about David not be understood also as messianic. I don’t know where you got that idea. Where did you get the idea that any verse about King David must also be related to the Messiah?

      You complain about stacking the deck against the Christian interpretation as if we have to give Christian interpretations of OUR BIBLE a fair hearing.

      How is that fair? We are the target audience, not Christians. This chapter was never understood as messianic, neither before nor after Jesus. Why do you think we should change our position, other than an emotional appeal to “stacking the deck”?

      You unfairly misrepresent Uri Yosef. He offers two speculations for “sabachthani” and explains why it therefore does not present a problem as some Jews might think. In this case he is showing his even-handedness.

      As for the bracketed words, take it from a fluent Hebrew speaker–it reads perfectly fine in Hebrew.

      You can’t rely on the word “dig” either. Yosef’s point was that if the letter yod was really a vav, and if there would be no alef, then it could mean “dig.” But the letter yod may well have been an elongated yod, as we see in the Great Isaiah Scroll, same word. And there is that pesky aleph in the middle of the world.

      Missionaries make a huge big deal about this word meaning pierced, so I think you need to consider that when you try to defend their position.

      Also realize that the rest of the Psalm’s “proof texts” deflate under scrutiny.

      This Psalm is plainly talking about David’s travails.

      As for midrashic interpretation, the plain meaning never gives way before the midrashic interpretation; the midrashic interpretation does not contradict the plain meaning; and the midrashic interpretation cannot contradict any fundamental Jewish beliefs. The plain meaning is always the primary meaning.

      To your last point, the Jews who played freely with the text were not part of our tradition. Their teachings were not preserved among God’s remnant, the witness community of Torah observant Judaism. They are as irrelevant, as I have explained to you in the past, as Philo, to our observance and to our understanding of Torah.

    • LarryB says:

      CR
      Looking at the literal text I am at a loss, but, The deck is stacked if this messiah is not a descendant. This deck stacking was not done by man. The only man trying to stack the deck are those who are trying to claim Jesus is a decendant.
      “In this instance however, we have a verse which does mention David, an actual king messiah of Israel, but this verse cannot apply to David’s descendant the messiah?”

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I’m not saying the verse has to be messianic Dina, I’m asking how a verse that is LITERALLY about a messiah named David, could be said not be about a possible messiah claimant. I agree it is dishonest for Christians to declare “pierced” as the most accurate literal reading.

        I accept the reading of “like a lion,” my point in my first post was that the idea of piercing can be easily read into the verse (contextually) without presupposing a Christian reading.

        For instance, I could see a person in ancient times thinking this Psalm could possibly refer to Antigonus II Mattathias, the last king of the Hasmoneans who was beheaded/crucified.

  6. RT says:

    “Already, the deck seems stacked against a Christian’s understanding of the verse, because the rabbis wont even entertain the possibility of this as a messianic psalm.”

    I agree, but this goes into both sides… Chrisitans will never agree that it is “like a lion”… Each side tries to justify his belief…

    “As I’ve mentioned in other posts, whether it says pierced or not does not of necessity make it a Jesus proof.”

    Yes, but that would be misquoted from generation to generation by Christian “scholar” that a Jewish Rabbi would agree that it is “Pierced” and that would be the proof they needed to finally Close the story. Imagine all the messianic “rabbi” quoting that RABINICAL rabbi’s opinion as fact and as proof that the word was actually pierced, and that would render in most Christian opinion the ultimate proof that they needed… Because, who else has been pierced in his hand and feet than Yeshua? Have you ever agree with a Christian and that was just the proof they needed to stuck you in the corner and say “who else would it be?” And he would say “well, David was never pierced in his hand and feet, and you are just unwilling to see the proof”. Cause one proof is enough to accept Jesus and one trickery is enough for you to be labeled as “blinded by satan”.

    “For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.”

    isn’t it common practice in Hebrew to not put verse in all sentences? I think so, and I think it is grammatically correct to do so as well. I will let the expert confirm if it is the case or not…

    • Concerned Reader says:

      No, RT I don’t get stuck in the corner because of a Christian’s interpretation of various texts. The question “who else could it be?” is obliterated by the New Testament itself. Let me explain.

      Christians will offer an alleged list of fulfilled prophecies like:

      Messiah will suffer: Isaiah 53
      Messiah will die before the 2nd temple was destroyed: Daniel 9
      Messiah will be a priestly king: Zechariah 6

      Unbeknownst to many Christians is the interesting fact that there is a New Testament figure other than Jesus who also fits all of these texts, namely John the Baptist.

      John himself testified that he was not Elijah the prophet, (contradicting Jesus’ statement that he was.)

      John was killed by beheading under Agrippa before the temple was destroyed. His father was a priest and his mother a relative of Mary, a descendant of David, meaning that he would be a priest with royal relatives.

      Was John the messiah because he could be easily plugged in to those verses? NO!

      Revelation 13 (according to Christian interpreters themselves,) refers to a false messiah figure who will come in the future, claim to be G-d, seek worship, suffer a deadly wound, survive it, and thereby trick all nations into believing that he (the antichrist) is the real messiah.

      Reading between the lines, these texts tell us some important things.

      1. Texts that Christians use as proof of Jesus are truly ambiguous enough that they can fit other people.

      2. Revelation 13 shows us that Christians themselves knew this, and therefore shows us that they expected other people to come and to say that they, (and not Jesus,) fulfilled this picture of a suffering messiah.

      (the fact that revelation was written in the late 1st century shows us that according to revelation”s author, the idea of a suffering messiah was known to contemporary 1st century rivals who would say it was them, not Jesus.)

      3. History (independent of Christianity,) has shown us that indeed other messiah claimants in later Judaism would come, (and their students) would claim that they fit this picture of a suffering messiah.

      So, no RT, I don’t get stuck if a Christian brings me a proof text. He can bring me his proofs, I can accept his premises, and it still doesn’t prove what he wants it to prove.

      • Dina says:

        That’s a very interesting way of putting it, Con. I never thought of it that way.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          It is interesting for several reasons.

          1. Christian proof texts are believed by Christians themselves to be ambiguous enough that false messiahs will try to claim them.

          2. History has proven that this happens.

          3. Judaism has tried so hard to say that Judaism does not entertain the notion of a suffering messiah, when this is clearly not true based on the above facts.

          These two traditions have ripped each other to shreds when the argument is very circular in a lot of ways. Christians can claim (and back up with evidence) that a suffering messiah is not an alien notion, and Jews can retort with, “yeah, ok. However, it doesn’t mean its Jesus.”

          • Dina says:

            I mostly agree with you, Con, but you contradicted yourself here. You wrote that Judaism refuses to entertain the notion of a suffering messiah, but when Christians present the proof, they say, “yeah, okay.”

            Judaism does not refuse to entertain the notion, it’s just entertained in a very different way. Christians cherry pick verses to support their theology. This drives Jews crazy! You can prove anything about anything that way. Did you read Jim’s article “Horace’s Tree”? This illustrates the concept very well. Also they read things into the text, which you can also use to prove anything about anything.

            For example, I can prove that there will be three comings because the redemption from Egypt took place in three stages (plagues, sea splitting/exodus, Sinai revelation). Another proof is that Joseph interpreted three dreams; the third dream resulted in his release from prison and elevation to prince of Egypt. If I were a Christian, I could add that each coming represents another person in the godhead. Do you see what I’m driving at?

            It’s also unfair to accuse us of ripping each other to shreds. We are so not interested in doing that. We would be very content to let well enough alone, but Christians won’t leave us alone. We have no choice but to defend our faith. Do you think we should just sit back and agree with everything they say? Please say no!

            I can promise you one thing, Connie. If Christian missionaries would disappear, Rabbi B. would take down this blog tomorrow.

      • RT says:

        I agree with that and love the example of John the Baptist. Unfortunately, I found that talking with Christians is quite hard and will not have a reasonable conversation like you and me… You talk with enough people to know that….

  7. Jim says:

    It should be mentioned that Rashi is being misused by any who refer to his commentary on Ps. 22:16 to suggest injury to the hands and feet, their being crushed. His commentary is most decidedly not about hands and feet being crushed. He relates Ps. 22 to Israel, reading the whole thing as metaphor. A nation does not have hands and feet, and taking his metaphor to justify a literal reading or semi-literal meaning is an abuse of Rashi.

    Jim

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Yes, he does use the verse as a metaphor for Israel as a whole, expressed in the text as a single individual. Commentators also say the verse refers to David himself. The king (the head,) and Israel, (the body,) are both referred to.

  8. Alan says:

    “Like a lion, my hands and feet”. Perhaps there’s no verb here because it wouldn’t sound poetic if David repeated the verb “to surround” a third time – “[dogs] s’vavuni (have surrounded me)” and “[a group of evildoers] hikifuni (have surrounded me)”. I don’t think King David needed to say “surrounded” a third time. For example, I could say “I devoured my breakfast like a wolf. I devoured my supper like a dog” or I can say it more eloquently “I devoured my breakfast like a wolf, and my supper like a dog”. “My supper like dog” or “like a dog my supper” has the same form as “like a lion my hands and feet”.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      I see that poetic aspect Alan, the point is, when you read the verse, you understand that he is speaking poetically about wolves and lions surrounding him, making him suffer.

  9. Dina says:

    Moral Legacy, Moral Equivalence

    Is it fair to judge a religion or its sacred texts by its adherents?

    No but yes.

    No, it is not fair to judge a religion or its sacred texts by the behavior of a few individuals in a few select time periods, for good or for ill.

    But yes, it is fair to judge a religion or its sacred texts by the behavior of the majority of its adherents over most of the course of its history.

    If the majority of the followers of Islam, for example, sympathize with terrorism as a legitimate political tactic, if the majority of the followers of Islam have mistreated the non-Muslim members of their society for most of their history, then it is fair to judge the Koran and the religion it creates as immoral.

    Disclaimer: There are many, many, many good and decent and moral Muslims. This is not a judgment on individual Muslims. It’s a question of whether it is fair to judge the religion and its texts by its adherents.

    My friends in the audience, you know where I am going with this.

    Let us compare the moral legacy of Christianity with the moral legacy of Judaism. By this, I mean: let us compare the behavior of most of the followers of Jesus with most of the followers of the God of Israel over most of the course of their respective histories.

    A good place to start is with writings. Let us compare the writings of Christians beginning with the gospels to the present day with the writings of Jews beginning with the Talmud to the present day.

    In Holy Hatred, Professor Robert Michael compares the number of Christian documents filled with venomous writings directed against the Jews versus the number of Jewish documents against Christians. I cannot find my copy, but if memory serves, he found 1500 Christian writings over a 2000-year period–not obscure writings but penned by important Christian leaders and clergymen.

    About five percent of the verses of the Christian scriptures (known to Christians as the New Testament) are anti-Jewish (about 450 verses out of 7956).

    The Talmud, with its nearly 3,000 pages, is a much larger volume by far than the Christian New Testament. In this massive work, we find no more than three passages that could be construed as talking about Jesus that are negative (the Jesus burning in his excrement referenced by Connie is not necessarily Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus/Yeshu being a common name of the time).

    As we move to the early Church Fathers and the subsequent leaders of Christianity such as popes and other clergymen, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation, and so on down through the centuries, we find numerous writings viciously excoriating the Jews. Martin Luther’s words are so obscene I cannot repeat them; he is not the only one. The taint of Jew hatred infected even respected philosophers like Voltaire and Pascal (of Pascal’s Wager fame).

    Many of these writers did not even have any contact with real, living Jews.

    You would expect that Jews, living as they were under the near-constant oppression of the Christians, would have written volumes expressing their bitterness and resentment.

    But…barely a word.

    I do not know the number of Jewish writings excoriating Christians, but by comparison it is negligible.

    In Memoirs of Gluckel of Hameln, the memoirs of a seventeenth-century Jewish woman, Gluckel writes matter of factly and not at all bitterly of anti-Semitism, a fact of life she took for granted. So she writes of having to put off a trip to Vienna because “the rage was simmering against the Jews” in the same tone people might use to say that they can’t travel due to inclement weather. She speaks of someone catching a Christian dumping a body into a Jewish house (to start a blood libel) as if she were speaking about a bus strike. She writes that they lived and died by the whims of their Christian neighbors as if that is the norm.

    The Jews gave no reason to the Christians to write such evil about them, yet the Christians poured forth torrents of ink abusing them. The Christians gave Jews good cause to complain about them in writing, yet the Jews were mostly silent.

    Who really practiced “turn the other cheek” and “do unto others”? That is one aspect of the moral legacy of each religion that must be considered.

    Another is murder, the greatest crime a human can commit against another.

    Throughout Christian history, Christians tortured and murdered each other, Jews, and other non-Christian sects or Christian sects deemed heretical. Over the centuries, Christians killed each other by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in holy wars, the Spanish Inquisition (which targeted also Christian heretics), and witch hunts. They also killed countless Jews.

    Some Christians would like to whitewash this history. They would like to believe that the history between Christians and Jews consisted mostly of good Christians protecting and/or saving Jews from a few rogue “fake” Christians. One could be excused for wondering how the death toll had reached the millions by the time of the Holocaust.

    These Christians also claim that those who engaged in persecution were not real Christians. True followers of Jesus would never do such things.

    Malcolm Hay, the author of Thy Brother’s Blood, observes that when Christians refer to people who commit misdeeds, they call them “so-called” Christians, yet when they speak unfavorably of Jews, they never call them “so-called” Jews. When Jews behave well, they say they are acting like Christians.

    The case cannot be made that those who engaged in the persecution of the Jews were not real Christians. Until very recently (say, the 1960s), Christians hated Jews because they loved Jesus. They hated those who tortured and killed him and whose descendants continued to reject them. Until now, the more you loved Jesus, the more likely you were to hate Jews. Historians who study the subject, even devout Christians like Malcolm Hay, link Christian piety with Jew hatred. (Thank God those days are over, I hope forever.)

    While the followers of Jesus were filling up the pages of their history with bloodshed and torture, what were the followers of God doing?

    Mostly, they were just trying to survive. History does record, in addition, that while Jewish society was not perfect, the rate of drinking and sexual immorality was extremely low, while violent crime was virtually non-existent.

    Jewish society encouraged literacy, and a rate of 100% or close to it was achieved for all of our history. The same cannot be said of Christian society. Christian clergy discouraged the masses from talking to Jews about religion because the average Jew knew Scripture far better than the average Christian.

    Christianity claimed to lead its followers down a path morally superior to Judaism. It failed spectacularly. The screams of the tortured echo through its history; the blood of millions soak its pages.

    If you are a Christian, that is your moral legacy.

    There is a particular commenter on this blog who believes that to speak about this history is to be a hate mongerer. Why do the actions of mass expulsions and massacres not sow division and hate, while speaking of them does?

    This commenter keeps himself in ignorance. He does not realize the extent and magnitude and severity of Christian oppression, nor the silent depth of its successor, modern Christian contempt for the Jewish position.

    I speak a great deal about this topic because I believe that if Christians read about it and educate themselves about it, they will understand us better. I believe that opening our eyes to the past will open the door to healing. Knowing the truth will not sow more hatred; it will bring us closer.

    This commenter has also stated that both religions have adherents that don’t represent their respective religions.

    Let us say this is true. Let us say that Torquemada doesn’t represent Christianity, and I (as the designated hate mongerer) don’t represent Judaism.

    Is there a moral equivalence?

    Are there some here who say that talking about Torquemada’s evil is as evil as Torquemada?

    Perhaps, you say, I should choose a Jew who destroyed people’s lives. Say, Karl Marx. Oh, wait, he converted to Christianity. What about Nicholas Donin, the one responsible for the Paris book burnings in the Medieval Ages? Oops, he also converted to Christianity.

    So folks, comparing religious Christians to religious Jews, we put on one side the ones who don’t represent Christianity, like the murderers and otherwise oppressors, and on the other side we put the Jewish people who weren’t as respectful of their parents as they should have been, who didn’t give as much charity as they should have, who complain too much about anti-Semitism…

    If you think there is a moral equivalence then your moral compass is broken.

    • Sharon S says:

      Hi Dina,

      As someone seeking the truth , I have to evaluate your post against the Abrahamic religions i.e Judaism , Christianity and Islam.

      You have valid points on Christianity and Islam there .However ,I have some concerns on the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions . Your feedback , from an Orthodox Jewish perspective will be much appreciated.

      a.Non Jews i.e “the nations” are not described favourably in the Hebrew Scriptures -some examples include Deutoronomy 7, Isaiah 34 , Jeremiah 46-51 and Joshua chapter 2 .
      If I’m a Hindu and reading these scriptures for the first time (without Christian influence), I would assume that the God of Israel is a God of wrath and my nation and people are under judgement!

      b.I’m not familiar with your Traditions , but there are certain websites which claimed that the Talmud contained teachings which are anti gentile as per link below:
      http://library.flawlesslogic.com/goyim.htm

      There was some explanation from the Jewish perspective as follows:
      http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/israel-and-anti-gentile-traditions/

      Does Judaism promote these teachings? Does the Law stated in Leviticus 19:18 applies to the Jewish community only or does it govern relationships between Jews and non Jews as well?

      What then is the guarantee that these teachings are not used to justify terror to non Jews i.e in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , or some rabbi come up with a statement disparaging non Jews and circulated in the Internet? Won’t it further fuel anti-semitism?

      I’m not accusing that the Jewish adherents to the Hebrew Scriptures here . There are no Jewish community in my country, so I can’t judge .However , I am familiar with bigotry displayed by some Ulamas (Rabbi in Islam) towards non muslims , which has some basis in Islamic scriptures (Quran and Hadith) . Islam and Judaism is similar , though not identical (as per Rabbi Tovia Singer). I see its similarities in that its adherents are strictly monotheistic and follow a divinely revealed set of Laws.

      Is it likely then that bigotry towards non Jews will arise within the Jewish community as well?

      Thank you.

      • Dina says:

        Hi Sharon, thanks for asking such thoughtful questions. I will need a little time to look up all the sources, but in the meantime I’ll leave you with some food for thought. Whatever the scriptures of each religion have to say, it is easiest to judge the behavior of the majority of their adherents over most of the course of their history.

        Mass murder and oppression were common among the adherents of Christianity and Islam. Whether Jews harbor anti-Gentile (for lack of a better word) notions is irrelevant in light of the way we have treated Gentiles throughout history–with unfailing courtesy and respect (I speak generally; I’m sure you can find some exceptions that relate to a few individuals here and there).

        Turning the other cheek in the face of persecution has been a Jewish trait rather than a Chrisitan trait, historically.

        There is so much to be said on this topic, I cannot do it justice in one post (especially while my kids are running riot in the house!). I’ll try to get back to you later this week.

        I hope you are finding my recommended books enlightening, in the meantime!

        • Sharon S says:

          Hi Dina,

          Thank you for looking into these queries .It is truly appreciated.

          I’m still stuck with William Nicholls’ book for now ,at Part 3. It was a struggle to read the first few chapters of the book when the author puts it bluntly that the Jew appears as the enemy of Christ in the central story of Christianity (page 3), but truly enlightening as I go along . I would recommend this book to those interested.

      • Dina says:

        Sharon, it takes a lot of guts to do what you’re doing and I commend you for it.

        You are concerned about Biblical passages that seem to promote a negative bias toward the nations of the world.

        I examined your references and found that the first and last ones describe the conquest of the Land of Canaan. Since this is limited to a specific period in history, and since the Canaanite peoples have disappeared from history, I think even a Hindu without Christian influence reading this in context would not feel as though the Bible is placing him under God’s judgement just for not being a Jew.

        The other citations discuss God’s vengeance upon the nations who oppressed the Jewish people. I think that is also obvious from context. Do you have any other questions on that?

        The link you posted with Talmudic passages comes from a White Nationalist anti-semitic website. The passages are quoted out of context and distorted. I searched for a Jewish response to Israel Shahak (the author), and found none. This tells me that he is not to be taken seriously. Jews don’t engage with anti-Semites because who is going to argue with a racist? They are not rational human beings.

        You seem to be concerned that these passages can be used to incite terror against gentiles. To this, I say, take a look at history. When has that ever happened? The rare instances of terror attacks against Palestinians are swiftly and universally condemned and the perpetrators brought to justice immediately. The terrorists never quote these passages as the motivating factor: it is always vengeance against Palestinians for previous attacks.

        The opposite is true of Palestinian attacks against Israelis. Condemnations are not always forthcoming and the terrorists are celebrated as heroes. Religious motivation is often a factor. Finally, the ratio of terror attacks, Palestinian against Israeli versus Israeli against Palestinian, are staggeringly disproportional.

        The most important and relevant factor when evaluating a religious text is to examine the behavior of the majority of its adherents over most of the course of its history. As a Jew, I’m proud to proclaim that, of the three major religions under discussion, my people wins hands down.

        Please let me know if you have further questions.

        • Sharon S. says:

          Hi Dina,

          Good day.

          Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions .Also ,I apologize if these questions offends your Jewish sensitivities.

          I do agree with that the biblical passages mentioned relates to a certain period in Israel’s history and should be read in its context .

          However don’t you think verse 5-6 of Deutoronomy chapter 7 is eerily synonymous with what ISIS had done a few years back? The rational to destroy the idols is to purge the land of idolatry .I believe ISIS has the same intentions when they destroyed historical artifacts ,such as the ancient Assyrian statues and items deem polytheistic .I believe a Hindu ,reading these verses would be concerned.Is there any difference between the call to drive out the nations in Deutoronomy chapter 7 and what ISIS is doing these few years?

          Please don’t get me wrong.I’m trying my best to evaluate all three scriptures as objectively as possible .Rabbi Blumenthal had pointed out that the testimony and relationship of the Jewish people with God precedes the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures .You have your testimony ,we who are not Jews can only know the God of Israel through these scriptures.

          On the Talmud-Again ,let me emphasise that I’m not familiar with your oral traditions and I have no intention of looking into your traditions to find any faults in it.The Talmud is a sacred book to your people and I respect that .My encounter with these so called negative teachings arise when I’m researching on your people in the internet and it really bothered me.

          I’m used to listening anti Israel news/anti Jewish rhetoric from state controlled media or from the clergy -without a Jewish voice to counter these news/rhetoric.Hence ,I think it is necessary to bring this to your attention rather than letting it fester in my mind and generating anti semitic thoughts.

          I am grateful that you looked into this query and for making clear that these are baseless allegations.Thank you.

          The statement at the right hand corner of this blog states “Judaism Resources-Tap into the strength of Judaism ” .With this in mind ,I hope that Rabbi Blumenthal and your goodself are open to consider the following suggestions:
          1.Produce articles on how to interpret and apply the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures for the non Jew in their lives .These could include how to handle difficult passages in the Scriptures .
          I had tried to search for these guides ,but results are mainly from Christian sources.
          You had written once on “How to understand the Hebrew Bible” which is more to counter the errors of Christians reading the bible .I found that helpful.
          2.Address misappropriation of certain teachings in the Talmud because misunderstanding of its teachings can cause antisemitism among non Jews .Perhaps no harm to produce an introductory post on the Talmud for non Jews and proper interpretation of the so called anti gentile teachings?

          I have no further questions to ask.

          Thank you.

          • Dina says:

            Sharon, it is a testament to your strength of character and sensitivity to truth that, though you live in one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world, exposed to a barrage of anti-Semitic rhetoric, you approach this dialogue with respect and compassion. Please rest assured, you have not offended me at all.

            Again, your reference in Deuteronomy refers only to the conquest of Canaan. The Israelites, after driving out the Canaanite peoples, needed to destroy the idols that remained so they could inhabit the land and serve God.

            If I were to compare your perspective with the perspective of the typical American:

            You live in a highly anti-Semitic country with zero Jewish population.
            The typical American lives in a philo-Semitic country with a 2% Jewish population.

            This will tell you that people who come into contact with real, live Jews learn that they are humans like everyone else (and in fact make important contributions to society).

            The chasm between ISIS and the Jews is wider than the universe. Jews are the most harmless people in the world. And those who know us are not at all concerned about ISIS-like behavior. They are not afraid of us.

            As for your request for explanations on the Talmud, I’ll try to post more on the Talmud another time. As for resources on understanding the Bible, Jim, Larry, Southern Noahide, RT, cflat7, Con, Eleazar, Rabbi B., and anyone else I left out, do you have any suggestions for Sharon?

            Thanks for writing, Sharon. Please feel free to ask me whatever’s on our mind and don’t worry about offending me.

          • Dina says:

            Sharon,

            Below is a compilation of quotes from the Talmud on gentiles that will perhaps set your mind at ease concerning the Jewish attitude towards non-Jews:

            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.

            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).

            Whether Israelite or heathen, if he only executes a righteous deed, God will recompense him for it (Tanna Devai Eliyahu, Section 13).

    • CP says:

      Dina writes;
      “…..modern Christian contempt for the Jewish position.”

      Myself and every Christan I know is extremely tolerant of the unrepentant Jewish position of murdering Yeshua.

      • Dina says:

        Anti-semitic slander against the Jewish people. The Jewish people did not murder Jesus. They did not even conspire to kill him. The Romans executed Jesus for a political crime. Everything else in the gospels is false anti-Jewish propaganda.

        This is why I don’t talk to you anymore, CP. You continue to spread Christian calumnies against the Jewish people.

        Millions of Jews died because of this lie. Only since the Holocaust have Christians finally come to their senses and perhaps have begun to understand that blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus has terrible consequences.

        • KAVI says:

          Dina,
          It would seem appropriate to repeat what a Jewish survivor of Bergen-Belsen, Dr. Vera Schlamm, said in Ruth Rosen’s book, “Jesus for Jews”,

          Vera said,
          “When I hear my people tell about the Holocaust as though it should justify prejudice against Jesus, it makes me very sad. If we allow the memory of the Nazis to keep us from our own Messiah, we give Hitler the power to reach beyond the grave and destroy us in an awful way that even his evil mind could not imagine.”

          Vera believed in L-RD Yeshua as her Redeemer and went on to say that Jews should, “guard ourselves from prejudice which can cause us to mistakenly label the truth as a ‘disgrace.’”
          ________________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, have you ever educated yourself on the history of Christian anti-semitism? If so, what books have you read on the subject?

            This is such a huge topic, it would be a waste of time discussing if you lack the requisite background.

            If you are open to understanding the position of the Jewish people with your heart and mind, let me know, and I can recommend a few helpful books.

          • Dina says:

            Also, Stockholm syndrome comes to mind.

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            Is Vera uneducated?
            Am I?
            Do I ask you for your credentials?

            Isn’t your question another example of what has become the Orthodox norm? Namely, the questionable practice of the “art of deflection”?
            __________________

            Over the years, I have witnessed on this blog Orthodox Judaism’s inability to address essential questions and teachings of Torah.

            It is as if Orthodox Judaism defines itself by “what is not. . .” rather than “what is. . .”

            It never answers the tough questions– just deflects.
            __________________

            As such, I need to conclude that Orthodox Jewish theology is based on just a portion of Torah– and here’s just a small sampling
            [A] “Half” or less of the Mt. Sinai revelations– skipping by Exodus 33 and Exodus 34 which teaches us about G-d’s essential existence as One, complex Unified Being of the L-RD who is seen and the L-RD who refuses to be seen.

            [B] “Half” or less of the Deuteronomy discourse– skipping right by Deuteronomy 10:16 which is a command to circumcise our hearts NOW, not just during some future Messianic age.

            When a Faith like Orthodox Judaism is based on a partial Scripture, doesn’t it become just like any other exclusive cult?
            __________________

          • Dina says:

            Kavi, I did not ask for your credentials. I asked if, as a truth seeker, you have educated yourself on the subject of Christian anti-semitism. Can you find the compassion in your heart to want to try to understand the weight of 2000 years of suffering that bears down so heavily on the Jewish people?

            As for the rest, I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I do know this: Orthodox Judaism has proven in the last 2000 years to be the only viable form of Judaism. If you are advocating the end of Orthodox Judaism, you are advocating the end of the Jewish people. In fact, if you are advocating the mass conversion of the Jewish people, you are advocating the end of the Jewish people, because we would disappear through assimilation within a few generations. Perhaps that is what you want, but then you oppose God, Who promised that the Jewish people would never disappear.

            And He also promised that one day the Gentile nations will realize their error regarding their perspective on the nation of Israel and they will turn to the Jews to learn the truth about God.

            However, you don’t have to wait till the end of days to learn the truth about God. You have a golden opportunity to learn from us, right now, if you so choose.

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            Yes, I have studied the history of anti-semitism– and despite the “history”, history shows that Jews still come to faith in L-RD Yeshua as their Saving Redeemer.

            Why do you consistently ignore the testimony of a Holocaust survivor like Dr. Vera Schramm?

            Let’s repeat what she said,
            “When I hear my people tell about the Holocaust as though it should justify prejudice against Jesus, it makes me very sad. If we allow the memory of the Nazis to keep us from our own Messiah, we give Hitler the power to reach beyond the grave and destroy us in an awful way that even his evil mind could not imagine.”

            Her love of G-d as expressed through L-RD Yeshua warranted the rejection history and the acceptance of the Truth.

            Vera’s sincere compassion for her Jewish brothers and sisters was to tell them the Truth of redemption through L-RD Yeshua.

            Does Vera’s love offend you?

            Vera’s compassion mirrors that of the L-RD Yeshua who honorably gave up His earthly life in order to give Jews eternal life.

            Does the love of G-d through His Anointed, L-RD Yeshua, offend you?
            ____________________________

            You mention,
            “If you are advocating the end of Orthodox Judaism, you are advocating the end of the Jewish people.”

            I advocate nothing– It is Moses and the Prophets who advocate belief in the visible L-RD as the Chosen Holy Redeemer of promise.

            Did Moses and the Prophets stop being Jewish because of their Faith in the Promised One for salvation from their sins?

            ______________________

            You further write,
            “As for the rest, I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

            You speak the truth, for G-d says,
            “For He says,
            ‘Order on order, order on order,
            Line on line, line on line,
            A little here, a little there.’”

            Indeed, He will speak to this people
            Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

            He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
            And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen. [Isaiah 28]

        • CP says:

          Dina, there you go again; jumping to conclusions to further your agenda. You end up saying things that dont make sense, for instance; “Everything else in the gospels is false anti-Jewish propaganda.”. If you ever read the Gospels with a mind forwards truth, you’d know NEVER ONCE are Jews as a people blamed or put down, rather it is select individuals, usually in leadership (suggest you educate yourself on the Hasmoneans and what was going on during the second Temple period). But this is all besides the point because you still are unrepentant. You rail on historical Christian antisemitism one second then commend modern Christians for their repentance yet stand by the decision of our forefathers to hand a innocent man over to Roman authority to be executed. Even though this is just plain wrong, most modern Christians tolerate your unrepentant position, instead choosing forgiveness and reconciliation.

          As long as you continue to embrace and support the decision of 2000 year old religious leaders, whom you don’t even know, you will continue to look for ways to justify your position rather than confess and repent.

          • Eleazar says:

            Wrong, CP. Claim what you want and twist it however you feel necessary, but that’s not what is says translated from the Greek-

            John 7:13 Young’s Literal Translation ” …no one, however, was speaking freely about him, through fear of the Jews.”

            John 20:19 Young’s Literal Translation
            “…and the doors having been shut where the disciples were assembled, through fear of the Jews….”

            John 19:38 Young’s Literal Translation
            “And after these things did Joseph of Arimathea — being a disciple of Jesus, but concealed, through the fear of the Jews.”

            Are you going to confess and repent for your false witness?

          • CP says:

            Eleazar, seriously?
            John 7:13 ~ who are the ‘no ones’ unable to speak freely?

            John 20:19 ~ who is behind the shut doors?

            John 19:38 ~ who concealed their discipleship?

            Are these not all Jews?

            Dear sir, reading selectively is not reading to discover truth.

          • Dina says:

            “As long as you continue to embrace and support the decision of 2000 year old religious leaders, whom you don’t even know, you will continue to look for ways to justify your position rather than confess and repent.”

            This is the lie.

            Folks, the gospels contain terrible lies about the Jewish people, including the lie that they handed Jesus over to be executed for a “crime” that is not punishable according to Jewish law (it is not blasphemy, nor is it forbidden, to claim to be the messiah). The gospel stories about the trial and execution of Jesus are anti-Jewish propaganda.

            The Jews had no desire to see Jesus killed.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Just to be clear. Are you saying Yeshua’s trial by the Sanhedrin and subsequent handing over to Pilate to be executed is pure fantasy made up out of thin air with the sole purpose of encouraging anti-semitism?

            Are you able to supply any proof of this?

          • Dina says:

            Yes, I’m rereading a book that addresses this. It’s called Christian Anti-Semitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls.

            Folks, do you realize the vileness of CP’s words? He holds the entire Jewish people guilty of deicide, forever and for all time, a charge that caused untold suffering and countless for the Jewish people. Then he claims Christian love and tolerance despite our wickedness.

            This would be like telling an innocent man that he is guilty of murder but your tolerate him and forgive him. The innocent man is sure going to love that.

            If Christians want to move forward with Christian Jewish relations, they need to remove all guilt for Jesus’s death from the Jewish people then and now.

            CP has tipped his hand. He has revealed his true colors. He likes to say that the religion he practices is closer to Judaism than Christianity, but his assumptions about the Jewish people are thoroughly Christian and thoroughly anti-Jewish.

          • CP The Sanehdrin did not operate the way the gospels describe – for one they did not judge at night – two they did not hand people over to be killed – they did it themselves or they didn’t do it there is no record of their handing someone over to the Roman government 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            In the spirit of practicing my promised teshuva towards you, I choose to ignore and forgive your accusations, but rather stay with the point at hand.

            You say you can supply proof Yeshua’s trial by the Sanhedrin and subsequent handing over to Pilate to be executed is pure fantasy made up out of thin air with the sole purpose of encouraging anti-semitism?

            Would you please supply this proof?

          • CP says:

            R’B, obviously you deny the Gospels as reliable records. I know there are a couple extra Biblical accounts of Yeshua being put to death by Pilate (Tactius & Josephus I think) but I don’t remember if they implicate any Jews. (I’ll have to look when I have time)

            Btw, would you also deny the High Priest of Yeshua’s day was appointed by the Romans?
            And what about the Hasmoneans? Did they hold offices as religious leaders contrary to the instructions of the Torah?
            With the recorded history you do accept of Israel’s leaders, what makes you think these in this era were a righteous lot?

          • CP I never said that they (the Sanhedrin) were righteous – just that the story makes no sense

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B, I agree it makes no sense, unless there was a crooked bunch running the show at the time. I think that’s the whole point, why else was Yeshua calling for national repentance?

          • CP Let’s accept that a crooked bunch was running the show – I have no problem with that – but the story historically makes no sense because even a crooked bunch has a pattern that identifies them – even the evil Christian Scriptures identify them as sticklers for petty rules 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B, (human nature + rules) + (corruption + authority) = following or exaggerating rules which further your cause and diminishing or ignoring through rationalization or interpretation those that hinder it out of a sense of “Justice”.

          • CP yes, corrupt people twist and bend their own rules – but there is still a limit to what is believable for them to do 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • LarryB says:

          Dina
          Not to down play CP outrageous remarks, and his ignoring centuries of murders while pointing to today’s unrepentant Jews for something that happened over two thousand years ago, which no one alive today had anything to with. Here are some other things he ignores and hasn’t brought up for apparent reasons.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/shockingbeliefsofjohncalvin/
          Its not just about Jon Calvin it covers many other Christians online to be followed up in a book. I posted this in case some others cannot buy the book you recommended.

          • LarryB says:

            Sorry, it’s not meant to replace the book you recommended either.

          • CP says:

            LarryB,
            You really want to go tit for tat? Are your really that naive that you don’t think the same kinds of things can be posted straight from the Talmud and various Rabbis? Out of respect I won’t even start, but suffice to say there are enough evil twisted abuses by perverted men in Christianity AND Judaism that we’d be at this for a very long time.

            The more I study, the more I appreciate the simple teachings of Yeshua on Torah and the more I despise religion.

      • Eleazar says:

        Actually, it was the Italians who “murdered” Jesus for treason in claiming to be the king of Judea, as well as killing Peter, Andrew, James and Paul. I hope Christians can find it in their heart to be tolerant of the Italian “christ killers”.

        • Dina says:

          Exactly, Eleazar! The gospel writers took great pains to try to make the Romans look innocent and the Jews culpable, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, they could not escape some of the truth and thus had to have the Romans carry out the actual crucifixion. Still, the Jews were the ones who were hated. No one till today points to Italians as the Christ killers.

          • CP says:

            How does stating the already known involvement of the Romans implicit in the execution of an innocent man absolve those who knowingly handed over a innocent man? Does not such a deflection reveal an unwillingness to accept the truth?

        • Dina says:

          Larry, also one of the things many historians acknowledge is that the Jesuses related in the Talmud are not necessarily Jesus of Nazareth, as Yeshu was a common name back then. One of the reasons for this acknowledgements is the dating: the Yeshus in the Talmud often belong to a different century (i.e. either shortly preceding or shortly following the Nazareth one).

          • LarryB says:

            Dina
            Thanks for that. Maybe some day I’ll study the history of Jesus closer, Na, probably not:)
            For now I’m just thrilled people are tolerant of something someone else did 2000 years ago, even though they have never repented. They probably won’t repent any time soon either, you know how slow dead people are to act.

          • Dina says:

            Larry, it’s nice to know that people today are consider themselves tolerant of the Jews yet still hold them responsible for the death of Jesus, something that the Romans only are guilty of.

          • CP says:

            LarryB and Dina,
            The twisting and spinning may enable you to avoid coming to grips with the truth, however on this end it is painfully apparent.

            I’m just encouraging you to give up the milk toast position and stand up for what you believe. Do you endorse the actions of the Sanhedrin in dealing with Yeshua or not? Do you know anything about the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day?

            Simple questions

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            Although we do not agree on crucial aspects of Faith– I think we do agree that these Orthodox distractions and deflections need to cease.

            And even though I do not always agree with Dr. Michael Brown on certain matters, he nevertheless makes a strong case of Orthodox “distractions” in his last two Youtube debates with Rabbi Blumenthal.

            ___________________

            For it is modern Orthodox Judaism that has developed over the centuries into a cultish Faith based on “scraps” of Scripture–

            And as I pointed out earlier today, we can examine just a few of Orthodox Judaism’s faulty foundations,
            [A] teachings of “half” or less of the Mt. Sinai revelations, and
            [B] teachings of “half” or less of what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy

            . . . but there’s so much more!

            And since these and other “bulwarks” of the Orthodox Faith are without solid foundation [i.e., just “a little here and a little there”]– one must conclude that modern Orthodox Judaism has simply developed into just another cult-like “faith” based more on a clique culture rather than Truth.

            ___________________

          • CP says:

            KAVI,
            I think we only may disagree on what is considered “crucial aspects of Faith”. An obvious example would be ‘complex unity’ or commonly called Trinitarianism. I know from reading you what you believe about complex unity, but don’t know where you stand on it being a crucial aspect of Faith.

            I fully caught the ramifications of your above post and embrace the totality of what the Torah records concerning Theophanies. Yet you and I provide differencing explanations for the unknowable and unprovable. Even Second Temple Judaism held to a possible ‘two power’ theory. There should be no division on these matters.

            It was the proto Roman Catholic Church which penned the Nicene Creed. Therefore acceptance of it should not be an additional condition of salvation where Scripture has already clearly laid out the conditions for salvation.

            In other words, even though I am condemned by the majority of Christians and the Church for strict monotheistic beliefs, I condemn no one for holding Trinitarian beliefs. We as mere man, dust in the wind, cannot define God. We can know his attributes and obey His instructions, knowing they are given because He loves us, and that’s about all we are imperfectly currently capable of.

            Yes, I do think Orthodox Judaism is in denial of early accepted Orthodox truths now deemed as heresy as a result of Greek/Romanized Christian proliferation and the thought of possibly rejecting the Messiah. Unfortunately Christianity is to blame for some of this push back against Yeshua for falsely misrepresenting him.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            I cannot believe your having this conversation. My response is get over it and have a little respect. YPF, Eleasar, Dina and others have answered you, explained things. And Although it’s not your way, you might try asking questions. The truth you speak of is yours and a handful of others. It’s not surprising most here don’t agree with you, I to was not raised in a Jewish home and never went to their schools. So to me it makes sense to learn from them, their teachings, you have to be blind to not trust them. Sorry for rambling on, but for you to acuse anyone here of twisting and spinning their beliefs after so many here have given you hours upon hours of trying to explain to you their heart felt belief and teachings, is to admit your really not interested in understanding their teachings. BTW, milk toast is trying to squeeze Jesus into the Torah where he don’t fit and playing make believe he does.

          • CP says:

            LarryB,
            You write: “you might try asking questions.”

            I did, repeatedly, the same questions, no one answers. They are deflected time and time again. Do you think this goes unnoticed?

            Again:

            “Do you endorse the actions of the Sanhedrin in dealing with Yeshua or not? Do you know anything about the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day?”

            Simple questions

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            Everyone is ignoring you again? I hate that. Hang in there, I’m sure things will get better.

          • CP says:

            LarryB,
            I hadn’t noticed. What I have noticed is people trying to deflect pointed questions and when they can’t deflect they disappear. I understand you can’t speak for others, but surely you can speak for yourself. Why do you still refuse to answer a couple of direct simple questions?

          • Dina says:

            “Do you endorse the actions of the Sanhedrin in dealing with Yeshua or not? Do you know anything about the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day?”

            You can’t endorse an action that wasn’t taken. That would be like asking someone whose grandfather never harmed a hair on his wife’s head, “Do you stand by your grandfather’s wife beating?”

            Yes, we know more about the Sanhedrin of Jesus’s day than misled Christians who believe the lies and propaganda of the gospels, which portray the leaders of the Sanhedrin (who were Pharisees) in a way that had nothing to do with the real, live Sanhedrin and Pharisees of the time period.

            CP betrays his ignorance of the Sanhedrin when he assumes that the Pharisees formed in response to its corruption. One wonders where he gets his historical information from, and if he reads anything other than Christian apologetics and Christian propaganda.

            Serious New Testament scholars reject the stories of the trial and execution of Jesus as ahistorical. CP asked for proof. There are plenty of books on the subject that do a fine job showing how impossible the stories are historically. If he is interested in the truth, as he claims, then he ought to read Professor William Nicholl’s book, Christian Anti-Semitism: A History of Hate.

      • LarryB says:

        CP
        “You really want to go tit for tat? Are your really that naive that you don’t think the same kinds of things can be posted…..”
        Your latest comment to me kinda fits right where it all started.

      • LarryB says:

        Reply
        CP says:
        February 26, 2017 at 10:49 am
        Dina writes;
        “…..modern Christian contempt for the Jewish position.”

        Myself and every Christan I know is extremely tolerant of the unrepentant Jewish position of murdering Yeshua.

        I hope this works

        • CP says:

          You’ve totally defected the comment to you, a sure sign you know exactly some things from the Rabbis and things found in the Talmud are equally as vile as what Christians have produced. I guess outside of admitting the truth, you’ve really no recourse but to deflect.
          Sad.

          • LarryB says:

            “you know exactly some things from the Rabbis and things found in the Talmud are equally as vile as what Christians have produced”
            actually I don’t and since you are specific neither will I be.
            “I guess outside of admitting the truth”
            What truth Yours? even when I was a christian I never believed this crap.

          • CP The Talmud is a book that elevated countless people into moral giants – the Church teachings led people to hate and murder – no comparis

          • CP says:

            R’B, with all due respect I don’t want to start posting that kind of stuff here, it will only make people mad and I’m having a problem with that already. But maybe it would be a good idea to post a couple things to be able to address the issue. I’ll leave that up to you.

          • CP There are many websites posting stuff from the Talmud – most of the quotes are taken out of context many are fabrications – but I don’t need to answer any of them – books don’t kill people people do – see the words as ingredients to the cake and the behavior of the readers as the cake – I am very proud of the Talmud 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B, your words: “books don’t kill people people do”
            Respectfully, a pointed question:
            Why don’t you apply this same attitude to the NT books?

          • CP i do – I suggest you look up the article entitled ‘The Guilt of Books” in which I address this very point 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  10. Concerned Reader says:

    A correction. John was killed by Antipas.

    Dina, I don’t mean that you literally refuse to acknowledge a suffering messiah, (I shouldn’t have generalized,) but that the rhetoric that both groups use ends up obscuring the fact that you both do in fact have a suffering messiah concept. Its not so simple as to say its just all nonsense.

    As you say, its a concept entertained in a different way. If people were simply told that fact, it might go easier in the world.

    A Christian who reads how foolish he is for believing in X concept, or Y concept, thinks “yeah, but your tradition has themes that run parallel.” Christians hear how “pagan” the concept of a dying or suffering messiah is in rhetoric, when its demonstrable that we could get that theme just from the Bible.

    This actually encourages the discord between communities that we would all like to see dispelled.

    • Dina says:

      Con, why are blaming us for any of the discord? If Christians would stop trying to convert us, the discord would disappear. It’s the Christian who holds us in contempt for refusing to accept their notion of messiah.

      There is ZERO culpability for the discord on our part. It’s all one-sided. Let them just respect and leave us alone. They would then never hear a single argument from us.

      When was the last time you saw a Jew approaching a Christian first to challenge his beliefs, Con?

      • Dina says:

        Con, think about it for a minute. Why do Muslims and Jews not wrangle over these issues? It’s because Muslims don’t proselytize. It’s not because we agree with the Muslims’ version of true prophet in any way, shape, or form.

        • CP says:

          No, it’s because Muslims and Jews don’t share and venerate the same Scripture.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Dina, where do you get the idea that Muslims don’t proselytize? They are commanded by their Quran to do so. There have been Jewish converts to Islam, and also syncretism between the two. Judaism has less of an issue with Islam mainly because it is monistic.

          As Maimonides said, the Muslims are not idolaters in any way. This despite the fact that Muhammad violated Deuteronomy 4, and Muhammad is venerated as sinless, and as Allah’s mouthpiece, to the point of violence against people who desecrate Muhammad’s character.

          I’m not blaming you, I’m saying Christian rhetoric against Judaism, and Jewish rhetoric against Christianity clouds the historical fact that there are deep links between Judaism and Christianity.

          Jews and Christians share a fundamental ethical code, their traditions share similar warnings, etc.

          • Dina says:

            Con, my experience and the experience of pretty much every Jew I know: we’ve all been approached by Christian missionaries. NEVER by Muslim ones. That’s where I got the idea that Muslims don’t proselytize.

            You missed the point. You morally equate Christian rhetoric against Judaism and Jewish rhetoric against Christianity. The Jewish rhetoric exists only because Christians can’t leave us alone. There would be no rhetoric against Christianity if not for proselytizing. This is self-evident!

            Maimonides, by the way, did not have friendly feelings toward Muslims, having been traumatized in his childhood from the Almohad terror that swept through his hometown. He stated that Islam is not idolatry as a fact, not as a stamp of approval of the religion. That doesn’t condone the other aspects of the religion, such as the indifference to human life, especially the lives of non-Muslims. But that is beside the point.

            I know you tell Christians that they should respect the fact that we can’t accept Jesus as the messiah, and I appreciate that. So why the moral equivalence? One side uses rhetoric as the offensive position, while the other side uses rhetoric as the defensive position.

            It’s like William F. Buckley’s famous analogy. One man pushes an old lady in front of bus. Another pushes an old lady out of the way of the bus. And you say, they’re both the kind of guy who push old ladies around. Do you see what I’m trying to say?

          • LarryB says:

            Dina
            I have never had a Muslim come to my door and wanting me to discuss the Koran. I have never seen a Muslim booth with books you could buy or given away. Once I have seen a Koran only one time in a motel. I have seen them on tv but not speaking English. I have talked to a few on blogs such as this only Christian. Muslims have one thing in common with Christians I’ve noticed on the blogs, They agree with the Torah until it disagrees with the Koran. Like Christians, who agree with the Torah until it disagrees with the New Testament, then they show how you misunderstand the Torah until you agree with the New Testament. To be fair, Muslims agree with the New Testament also until it disagrees with the Koran.

          • Dina says:

            Exactly!

        • dina, here is a dialogue between a muslim apologist and catholic mary and jebus worshiping christian.

          after you read this dialogue, please tell me if you think muhammad broke deut 4

          quote :

          Robert :
          > Muhammad’s dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and > Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa’d’s biography, “Kitab al-Tabaqat
          > al-Kabir”, vol 2, p322:

          These were not the Prophet’s dying words. These are some of the things he is reported to have said during his last few days. His last reported words reflected his desire to meet his Lord. Prior to these words, “prayer” was on his lips.

          > “When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over > his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said > ‘Allah’s damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their > prophets objects of worship.'”

          Why not try to understand? This statement was one of many statements he made, knowing that his time was approaching.

          If you would take a minute to think, before you speak, you wold have realized that this phrase was directed to the Muslims, and how they need to react once the Prophet leaves this world, i.e. he died. The Prophet, whom you would like to claim as self-serving, is warning his own ummah from falling into worshipping him, unlike the Jews and Christians, who took to excess, and moved away from the worship of God by worshipping their Prophets. He, even to the point of death, was keen n preserving the tradition of monotheism that all Prophets preached.

          Self-serving?

          Robert:
          > No, the curse was directed at Christians and Jews, though no doubt it > had point for Muslims. And Muhammad’s curse is false: Christians and > Jews do NOT worship the graves of prophets.

          Yes, they do. They build monuments around the bodies of past saints. The Catholic Church declares certain places sacred, because a particular saint died there. People invoke saints at these grave- yards. Maybe to you, this is not worship. But to Muslims and our world-view it is clearly worship.

          Robert:
          >>You are again completely > misinformed – no doubt it is a current Muslim canard – Christians and > Jews do not worship Prophets. No doubt you will cite Jesus as a > Prophet who is worshiped, but he is not worshiped as man, but as God.

          And the idol-worshippers bow to stones because they believe they are gods? Does that mean that they are invoking gods?

          “These are just names, which ye and your forefathers have made up.”

          You can worship Jesus as God, but that makes you guilty of two things:

          1. Foolishness for worshipping a man
          2. Believing that Jesus said He was God, yet he bowed to God in paryer

          Robert:
          > Thus there is no idolatry. If Muslims were not wholly ignorant of > Christianity and Judaism they would not believe such canards.

          Than the idol-worshipper isn’t guilty of idolatry, because he believes that the stone he actually worships is a god.

          Robert:
          > If you check out the Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I > have said about the Koran’s allegation that Christians worship saints.

          According to our world-view this is worship. Worship is the practical manifestation of extreme reverance for a particular being. One does not worship something one does not have reverence for. Further, worship, according to the Quran, also is to follow a people who declare certain things forbidden that God has declared allowed, and indulge in things forbidden that God has ordaiend because these very people consider it allowed. One does not do this unless one reverences a particular person so much so, whether from social conditioning or some other reason, that one follows him not matter what. God does not accept claims of belief in his oneness, but practical manifestation of belief in his oneness.

          Robert:
          > Christians give honour and respect to Saints and ask them to intercede > and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and > NEVER to saints.

          That is your claim, but that is not our world-view. And again, you missed the point. The idol-worshippers believe that the idols they bow to actually have power over the affairs of the heavens and the earth. This belief has no effect on reality. So you can say the Christians believe that they are worshipping God, but they are not when they indulge in these acts.
          Dead saints cannot hear. People pray to Saints, because they believe they have some uncanny ability to hear, even from beyond the graves. They fall into exxageration, which is ultimately how all polytheism starts. This exxageration than turns into worship, and people start erecting monuments, wasting money on gold tombs, instead of social justice and alleviating the misery of the poor. Pope’s begin to wear extravagant clothes, because he has some special status with God. People cry when the Pope comes to town, but the rest of their life, they are neglecting the real obligations of their religion. This is how Satan deceives men.

          Robert:
          > Pagans, whether they believe their idol is a god or not, are guilty of > idolatry because they accord divine worship to what is not God.

          So what… Your argument is predicated on the notion that Christians believe that they are doing something that is worship. The idol worshippers do the same thing. But the reality is, they both, just as Muslims who indulge in these type of activities, are living in delusion.

          Robert:
          > You seek to replace the concept of worship with the “practical manifestation > of extreme reverence.” There can be no objection to this reverence if the > person is worthy of such reverence. Muslims express extreme reverence for > Muhammad; do you object to that? You must, by your argument; you must find > Muslims guilty of idolatry.

          1. Yes, I object to Muslims who pray to Muhammad, asking him to benefit them. Our Prophet (S) hated that his Companions even stand for him when he came. He explicitly warned his followers not to turn his grave into a place of worship.

          2. Where did I seek to replace the word worship with ‘extreme reverence for a particular person”? What I stated is that worship is a RESULT of EXTREME reverance for a particular person. It is the PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION of this EXTREME reverance that a person hold’s in his heart for that personality. One does not pray to dead figures unless you believe that person to be HOLY. And when one does such things, one also comes forth with humility to that being. And once that humility is there for another being, than idol-worship is the necessary result. One begins to serve that person, i.e. worship them. One begins to pray to them. Whether you deny it or not, the reality is still present. It is God that is neglected, and the saint is not. And it is God, in whose hands is ALL GOOD.

          What is ironical is that the majority of these types of situations, the saints that an ignorant person turns to has no affiliation with the person praying to them. While a person directly experiences the manifestation of God’s mercy in his life everyday, the only relation a person has to a saint is social conditioning. Saint Augustine or Sufi Muinudeen Chisti have not done anything for you and me to deserve that we call upon them to ‘intercede’ with God, as if they can somehow influence the decisions of God to benefit us. It is the result a mere condition that a person does so.

          We experience God’s hand everyday in our lives, and by common sense and reason, it is only logical we turn our hands to him in prayer and ASK HIM directly. Nobody has any reason to deny the connection between God and man, while everybody has reason to deny man’s connection to another saint.

          Robert:
          > As I have said in practical terms, for Christians, a saint is someone > already enjoying the Beatific Vision because of his or her holiness of life > and who is asked TO PRAY FOR ONE. There can be no objection to this: one can > ask anyone to pray for one.

          How do you measure the ‘sainthood’ of a person? The only reason one asks a dead saint is because one ASSUMES, i.e. one lives in conjecture. One assumes the dead person can hear, i.e. has access to absolute knowledge. People who pray to Saints, they in reality do not recognize that God’s bounty extends over everyone, even though they experience it everyday in their lives

          Robert:
          > You say that for Muslims to follow people who declare things forbidden that > God allows is worship. In that case Islam is simply wrong and ought to > choose a word other than “worship”; in the English language and in religious > cultures across the world this is not worship. It’s not a matter of world > view, it’s a matter of conceptual confusion.

          The conceptual confusion is really on your side. A person does not choose to follow another being, unless he holds that person holy, i.e. has exterem reverence for him. He begins to live his life in accordance with the dictates of that being he reverences. He begins to STOP THINKING for himself, and start obeying, i.e. worshipping, that ther being.

          WORSHIP, once again, is the PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION of an extreme reverence a person has for another being. IT IS PRACTICAL through and through.

          Robert:
          > Christians are not deluded when they say they do not accord divine honours > to saints: it’s a simple matter of fact that can be readily verified.

          They are deluded, just as Muslims are deluded, and followers of other religions are. Even the OT affirms that God is zealous and proud over His RIGHT that he be worshipped. He does not accept that his worship be mixed with false adulation for other beings.

          here are more responses

          http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?10892-Muhammad-in-prayers&p=161245&viewfull=1#post161245

          quote :
          As Maimonides said, the Muslims are not idolaters in any way. This despite the fact that Muhammad violated Deuteronomy 4, and Muhammad is venerated as sinless,

          end quote

          so are children sinless. so are new born babies. if a powerful god had a chat to one of his chosen ones, is he so impotent that he can’t keep his rep from sinning ?

          • RT says:

            “As Maimonides said, the Muslims are not idolaters in any way. This despite the fact that Muhammad violated Deuteronomy 4, and Muhammad is venerated as sinless,”

            I am not Maimonides or any Jewish sage, but Muslims worship another god. When you take G-d, and change all His attributes and Character for something totally different, how could that still be the same G-d?

    • CP says:

      Concerned Reader writes; “This actually encourages the discord between communities that we would all like to see dispelled.”

      Amen Amen!

      —If you don’t mind me adding: Repetitive accusations of true historical Christian antisemitism also encourages discord between communities; damaging the world rather than repairing it.—-

      (I don’t want to be misquoted here. I do believe there is a time and place to discuss such things, such as with those who are ignorant of such history or when it can be compared to a current event. However this being a time in history where many in both camps desire and are actively seeking peace and unity, historical antisemtism becomes (or should be) a delicate matter.

      There are some self proclaimed prophets of historical Christian anti-semitism. What do they hope to achieve? Educate? That’s what they claim, okay, but when those they are “educating” have already stated they agree, and they continually, repetitively go on and on, this tells a person there is something else is afoot.

      In their mind this ‘something else’ goes like this: ‘If I can prove Christian antisemitism — And if I can prove the source of Christian antisemitism came from the Gospels — Then I can prove Yeshua as a false messiah/prophet worthy of death — therefore my historical religious leaders acted correctly.

      There is no acceptance or tolerance for one another’s views in this venue because it is based on showing one’s self right at the expense of showing another wrong. There are much better ways to establish truth)

  11. Pingback: The Missionary Exploitation of Ignorance | The Musings of David P. Neff

  12. Dina says:

    Folks, there was a reason why I stopped talking to CP directly which was brought home to me with his recent posts.

    You can’t have a fair and honest discussion with someone who makes stuff up. I’ve been responding only to highlight his errors to you, so this will be, I hope, the last time. It should be clear by now that you can assume guilty until proven innocent. In other words, anything he posts is suspect until thoroughly investigated and proven true.

    Recently, he insisted that the verb “prostrated himself” in a passage in Joshua means “worship.” This verb does not mean worship, end of story. I will simply not take this absurd argument further.

    He also claimed that every time there is an angelic encounter where someone prostrates himself, the angel says not to, except in the incident with Joshua. Besides for being completely irrelevant, it’s completely not true. There are no angelic encounters in the Hebrew Bible that show an angel telling someone not to bow to him.

    This was a distraction, by the way, from a question I asked Kavi, who worships Jesus as God. I demanded an unambiguous, absolutely clear teaching in the Bible that we are required to do this. CP’s post is therefore irrelevant.

    I have nothing more to say on this topic, my friends. I hope I have cleared misconceptions in your minds that may have been created by this commenter.

  13. CP says:

    The Missionary Exploitation of Ignorance | The Musings of David P. Neff

    “David tells his story of how he grew up in Tel Aviv with a family that was not very religious, though did celebrate the main Jewish Holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur). After WWII, his parents abandoned God entirely and was raised an atheist. In his own words:

    After WWII, when my father found out that two of his sisters and one brother and their families had been killed in Nazi Germany, he took every Bible and everything in our home that was remotely religious and threw it out. “Where was God?” he would ask. “How could God allow such a thing to happen?” From then on I was raised as an atheist.

    He later describes how he became ill during his honey moon to South Africa. This illness caused him to become permanently paralyzed from the waste down. He describes how he became a Christian and was watching the 700 Club (a missionary TV show) one day and suddenly was healed after the preacher prayed on TV.
    Whether or not he was “healed” by “jesus” or the pastor is not the issue. Jews do not rely on miracles and signs for truth. Our Torah states that there are times in which false prophets and idols can perform signs and wonders for us. Don’t be swayed by the fireworks. Hashem is testing us to see whether or not we truly love him with all our hearts, minds, and souls.”

    “”healed” by Jesus… is not the issue. Jews do not rely on miracles and signs for truth”

    Ummm…… he believed BEFORE he was healed, which invalidates the point being made.

  14. Eleazar says:

    “How does stating the already known involvement of the Romans implicit in the execution of an innocent man absolve those who knowingly handed over a innocent man? Does not such a deflection reveal an unwillingness to accept the truth?”

    No sir. No deflection, just a reminder of the bigger picture. I responded to the precise substance of your statement. Such a direct response to the point cannot be a deflection.

    The TRUTH is that the Italians killed several of the apostles without Jewish assistance. Am I to believe that the same Italians who destroyed our Temple and sacked Jerusalem killed Jesus and the apostles out of concern for pleasing the Jews? The huge anti-christian movement was Italian, not Jewish. So I’ll ask you, why do you push what you believe to be a single point , Jewish opposition to Jesus, and refuse to give larger weight to the mass of Italian brutality against ALL THINGS Christian? Are you of the opinion that had the Sanhedrin kept their mouth shut, the Italians would not have ever crucified Jesus? If so, then how do you answer for Italian persecution and killing of the innocent apostles outside and removed of any Jewish influence, as well as destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple?

    And while you are at it, I hope as a Christian you can find it in your heart to tolerate the unrepentant Egyptians, Eastern Indians and Asians who supposedly murdered the other innocent apostles.

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      All you’ve done is try to legitimize your deflection and add some more, I’m not taking the bait. If you are going to respond to the question, Tell me; why don’t you answer the question?

      Back to the point:
      Roman involvement in executing Yeshua have been acknowledged. Again I ask; how does this absolve the ones who handed him over to the Romans?

      To go further:
      Why the deflections? Either commend your 2000 year old religious leaders actions or condemn them. The inability to do either suggests an internal spiritual problem you’ve not yet wrestled into submission to the truth.

  15. Eleazar says:

    “Eleazar, seriously?
    John 7:13 ~ who are the ‘no ones’ unable to speak freely?

    John 20:19 ~ who is behind the shut doors?

    John 19:38 ~ who concealed their discipleship?

    Are these not all Jews?

    Dear sir, reading selectively is not reading to discover truth.”

    That the disciples were Jewish is irrelevant, Cp. The point you made was that it was not “the Jews” that the NT condemned, but “only certain individuals”. That was the point I responded to. These texts prove your point wrong. The disciples were considered “Jewish Christians” and historically exempt from those accusations of Jewish evil ( the wall of separation was down, remember?). You yourself have made that point continuously (e.g.- “rejecting God’s anointed”) We can also get into Peter’s three denials too, if you want. It was not “Certain leaders” that Peter was fearful of that caused his denials , but according to the NT, it the Jewish rank and file who scared Peter into denying Jesus.

    It is you who are reading selectively, as I have clearly shown by posting several texts where “the [non-Christian] Jews” as a group are shown in a bad light, not just “certain individual leaders”.

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      If you want to insist on ignoring context and reading anti-semitism into the Gospels, that is certainly your prerogative. However the reality in the Gospels is friction between Jewish believers and Jewish unbelievers, not anti-semitism.

      Your view is not consistent with history; for largely until the destruction of the Temple and the later Bar Kokbha revolt, Jewish believers in Yeshua and all other Jews worshipped God side by side in the same synagogues together as Jews. Edomites and the Narzerenes were just different sects of Judaism.

      The word “Christian” obviously betrays itself as Gentile and this is when we the separation from Judaism. The friction is no longer only about Yeshua, but has evolved into differences of race, religion and law. However the original question remains; was Yeshua an advent of Messiah. Today most all argue from differing positions on race, religion and law, but very few from a second Temple understanding of Scripture.

      People arguing modern Christianity vs modern Judaism is akin to arguing what the truth is in a novel of fiction. As the saying goes; “You can’t get there from here”. First one most go back to a Second Temple view of Scripture to evaluate the claims of Yeshua.

  16. Eleazar says:

    “Roman involvement in executing Yeshua have been acknowledged. Again I ask; how does this absolve the ones who handed him over to the Romans?”

    Is “acknowledging” the same as “tolerating the unrepentant murderous Jews” and 2000 years of hate poured out on the Jewish people as “Christ-killers” while none has been poured out on the actual murderers? You make my point for me.
    The Jewish leaders found Jesus guilty and worthy of the death sentence, according to the NT. First, if that is true, then why was Jesus not stoned according to Jewish law? Why would they have to take him to Pilate? If you say it was because Rome did not allow the Jewish leadership to carry out stoning, then how was it that Stephen was stoned according to Jewish law?

    In direct answer to your question, if the Sanhedrin ruled Jesus guilty with two or more witnesses, then that is the law and it stands. Your personal belief in Jesus’ innocence is 2000 years removed from context and historical fact, as well as any understanding or observance of Jewish law in 30 CE.

    The Italians also found Jesus guilty of treason and worthy of the death sentence. The only party held culpable for 2000 years is the first party, while the second party, whose “part is acknowledged”, was absolved and never persecuted or condemned as “Christ-killers”. In fact, they eventually became the ultimate murderers of the innocent in Jesus’ name, once they converted to his religion.

    “….The inability to do either suggests an internal spiritual problem you’ve not yet wrestled into submission to the truth.”

    Careful, friend. I do indeed have many issues I have not yet sufficiently “wrestled with”. But I suggest you not call the kettle black. From what I have read so far, you have invented your own religion based on smalls craps of info here and there which you have interpreted according to your own feelings. You are the last one who should be judging.

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      It warmed my heart that you referred to me as friend, therefore please allow me to speak bluntly and honestly as a friend.

      During the days of Yeshua, the people in charge of “religion” were either chosen puppets of Rome or those trying to survive until Messiah. Had Yeshua kissed up to the religious leadership, do you honestly think they would have handed him over to Rome to be executed? The reason they didn’t stone him as they did Stephen is because Yeshua was the leader of many followers who may of been perceived as a potential army. The Sanhedrin was corrupt, in fact Pharisees formed as a response to a corrupt Sanhedrin. Even the trial as recorded was corrupt. Yet you would chose to side with their decision?

      In the opinion of this black kettle whose self invented religion is based on small balls of crap gathered from here and there; Judaism and Christianity have been duking it out since the Temple destruction over the issue of who has authority. Had Judaism held on to Yeshua, they would have prevailed, had Christianity held onto the Torah they would have prevailed.

      If Judaism would acknowledge they had 2000 years ago some corrupt leaders who made some bad decisions; specifically handing Yeshua over to the Romans to be executed, and open their gates to Torah keeping believers in Yeshua, I suspect Judaism in terms of numbers would soon be the top religion in the world. But that’s probably not going to happen because they worry the Gentiles would take over like they did with Christianity.

      So everyone awaits Messiah to sort this mess out. But sometimes I wonder if God would be pleased if we sorted this out ourselves?

  17. Eleazar says:

    >>>>“Do you endorse the actions of the Sanhedrin in dealing with Yeshua or not? Do you know anything about the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day?”<<<<

    I answered this directly. I stand by whatever the Sanhedrin decided, even if that meant stoning.

    Point is we have no evidence that it happened the way the NT said it did, since the NT is so full of lies, distortions and contradictions it cannot be trusted. And even so, I stand by the fact that Jesus is venerated as God by billions of Christians. Those same Christians, like the one who posted yesterday on the trinity thread, actually back up the Sanhedrin's accusation that Jesus claimed to be the literal eternal divine son of God and demanded to be believed in and worshiped as a deity on penalty of eternal torture. If anything deserved the death penalty, that did. And 14 BILLION Christians (all tolled) believe Jesus claimed both and IS both.

    Take your argument up with them.

    • LarryB says:

      CP
      Eleazar is so much more qualified about this than me. See Above !

    • Dina says:

      Eleazar, nobody believed Jesus was literally the divine son of God until much later. For the crimes the NT puts in Jesus’s confession, he did not deserve the death penalty. There is no death penalty for claiming to be the messiah or claiming to be the son of God as people understood the term at that time.

      The only reason the leaders might have had for handing Jesus over to the authorities is the messianic fervor surrounding him that they feared would lead the Romans to massacring Jesus’s followers and other Jews. It would have been the kind of painful and difficult decision of allowing one person to die to save the lives of many others, like the decisions some Jewish kappos were forced to make during the Holocaust.

      • Dina says:

        Still, your point that the Sanhedrin had to act according to the law if Jesus did indeed commit a serious transgression is well spoken. The medieval scholar Peter Abelard argued that if the leaders had believed that Jesus had violated the law and not taken action they would have been guilty. He was one of a kind! Not a single other Christian writer until the more enlightened period of today has taken such a liberal stance toward the Jews and viewed them as fellow humans. Sadly, he was opposed by the more powerful and influential Saint Bernard (who to his credit is nevertheless responsible for saving many Jewish lives, yet preached the degradation of the Jews; his lack of indignation coupled with his preaching ensured that he couldn’t be very successful in stopping the Crusader attacks against the Jews), and one can’t help wondering what would have happened with the road not taken.

    • CP says:

      Eleazar, do you realize the Pharisees were formed in response to a corrupt Sanhedrin? You do realize Jewish writings, history and the NT are all in agreement on this issue. There is also the testimony of God. According to the promises of God in the Torah, the Temple couldn’t be destroyed unless there was corruption.

      The evidence clearly favors an unfair trial by corrupt religious leaders.

      There is also a record of Yeshua’s teachings; all in line with Torah. NO WHERE does he ever claim to be God or demand worship due God alone. He did claim to be Messiah, even the charge hung on the cross was “King of the Jews”. By their own standards he was innocent but nevertheless arrested him and turned him over to Pilate to be executed because in the eyes of Rome there was no King but Caesar.

      Forget the religion part; these men were cowards, puppets of Rome and traitors to Israel to turn a fellow Jew, (innocent or not) over to Pilate.

      Btw, do you know why Rome was in Israel in the first place? Squabbling, backstabbing, sneaky traitors to Israel, that’s why.

      Messiah or not, Yeshua didn’t deserve to be treated this way. Far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks the Sanhedrin righteous for turning over a fellow Jew to be tortured and nailed on a cross to die for teaching a return to Torah and claiming to be Messiah should share in their judgement, however Yeshua’s interpretation of Torah teaches to forgive them and leave it to God to sort out. Therefore I do. However agreeing with the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day is not a position I would ever want to defend before God.

      • Eleazar says:

        I realize the question itself was a “gotcha” question in which any answer would be wrong. Jesus used these all the time. You have learned well. Bravo!

        • Dina says:

          Exactly, Eleazar. Whatever you say, CP will turn his ears off and pretend to hear you saying that you support the Sanhedrin turning over an innocent Jew to die just because he taught a return to Torah and claimed to be the messiah. This is in fact one of the proofs that the story can’t be true. The Sanhedrin did not find fault with anyone who preached a return to Torah because they fully supported that teaching, and anyone who wanted to could claim to be the messiah without fear of retribution. It is not blasphemy according to Jewish law and it isn’t a violation of any law altogether.

          Eleazar, as I’m sure you know, the charge of deicide that hangs over all Jews, forever and for all time, a charge that CP fully supports, has caused the deaths of more Jews than anything else.

          Here are some quotes from William Nicholls:

          We have now arrived at a central point in considering the historicity of the myth of the Christ-killers…

          We can say straightaway that the accounts of a religious trial before the Sanhedrin cannot be grounded in any historical truth. The reasons are numerous and overwhelming. To begin with, the writers represent the judges as condemning Jesus for blasphemy. The basis of the offense is said to be his claim to be the Messiah or failure to deny it when the question was put to him by the high priest.

          It is not a religious offense at all in Jewish law to claim to be the Messiah…Moreover, there is nothing blasphemous in a Jew claiming, even falsely, to be the Messiah. So far, all the claimants have proved to be mistaken, but they have not been accused of blasphemy…

          No Jewish court could have condemned Jesus for blasphemy. It is quite clear, therefore, that in this central respect the accounts in Mark and Matthew of a religious trial before the Sanhedrin are devoid of historical basis; it follows that no theological conclusions can be legitimately drawn from the words here attributed to Jesus.

          There are also major problems with the procedures attributed to the court…[Geza] Vermes [a New Testament scholar] concluded that if indeed such a trial as the Gospels describe took place, the Sanhedrin achieved the considerable feat of breaking just about every rule in the book on a single occasion.

          One of the most relevant of these rules prohibits holding a capital trial by night or on a festival. We are asked by the synoptic writers to believe that Jesus was arraigned before the full Sanhedrin on the evening of the Passover celebration. Given the especial sacredness for the Jews of the first night of Passover, such a claim alone will strain the credulity of anyone who has ever thought about its implications. Once again, only a Gentile audience, ignorant of Jewish laws and Jewish feelings, could have found it credible. There are many other instances of improper procedure in the hearing as recorded. They alone would have been sufficient to invalidate the trial and make a death penalty grossly illegal…

          The historicity of the whole affair is more than suspect. Paul knows nothing of it, and the accounts in the first two Gospels are both conflicting and highly tendentious. As for Luke’s even more tendentious account of what amounts to a Jewish lynching of Jesus, while Pilate uselessly tries to declare him innocent, it is even less worthy of credence.

          From anything we know from other sources of the character and conduct of Pilate, the accounts in all four Gospels of his inadequate attempts to defend Jesus against a Jewish mob howling for blood are so improbable as to border on the ludicrous. Pilate was eventually relieved of his post for brutality in his administration excessive even in Roman eyes. It is not easily conceivable that this administrator, who did not shrink from massacres, would have gone through scruples of conscience on whether it was legitimate, in view of the nobility of Jesus’ character, to yield to Jewish demands for the crucifixion of one individual.

          Matthew adds an even more devastating but no less improbable touch when he has the crowd shout, “His blood be upon us and our children,” words that have been used down through the centuries to justify many a pogrom and persecution…

          The conclusion cannot be escaped that the accounts of the trial in the synoptic Gospels are false to history. As well as the demands of the structure of a rapidly developing myth, they undoubtedly reflected the need of the Church to be in good standing in the Roman world at the time they were written. The Romans come out reasonably well from these gospel accounts, collectively and individually, while the Jewish authorities are represented as unscrupulous and unjust and the crowds as bloodthirsty. We do not know if the device worked to save Christian lives in the dangerous times of the first century. We do know that it cost countless Jewish lives in subsequent centuries.

          Was this falsification of history deliberately and knowingly undertaken by the gospel writers? It seems impossible to say. If these writers were Gentiles, remote in culture and religious background from the Jewish events they chronicle, and powerfully influenced by the demands of the myth, perhaps they might have supposed they were recording events truthfully. If so, however, they are not likely to be reliable witnesses in their picture of the Jewish world in which Jesus lived, or of the events of his life…

          The truth has come, and came long ago, for Christians to drop all accusations against the Jewish people in the death of Christ. The facts set out in this account of his death are no longer in dispute among serious and impartial scholars. There can be no doubt that the Romans bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death, which they and not the Jews actually brought about. If any person is to blame for Jesus’ death, it is Pontius Pilate, so implausibly represented in the Gospels as his defender. In any scholarly inquiry, many conclusions remain uncertain. This is not one of them. The Jews are innocent of Jesus’ death.

          From Christian Anti-Semitism: A History of Hate, Chapter 3.

          • Dina says:

            CP says that, unrepentant as we are, we are also culpable in the murder of Jesus, but he has been taught to forgive.

            We do not have the right to forgive, on behalf of the countless innocent Jews murdered, the attitude and belief that caused their suffering and deaths and that still mark unrepentant and uncaring Christians such as CP.

            Only God can forgive, and God only forgives the repentant.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Yes, I’m familiar with Vermes, however I think you’ve missed the entire point being made. The Sanhedrin was corrupted and the trial illegal. We both agree if there was a trial as described in the NT, it was a gross miscarriage of justice. Apparently you think the Sanhedrin of Yeshua’s day were so righteous that such a thing was beyond them, however the evidence favors the opposite conclusion.

            Btw Dina; you’ve written: “…the charge of deicide that hangs over all Jews, forever and for all time, a charge that CP fully supports”

            Just to set the record straight; you’re grossly mistaken, I’ve never said any such thing. I would challenge you to prove your accusations, but we’ve been down this road so many times where you’ve been unable to back up such accusations, it has become wearisome, based on past experience; not worth the effort.

        • CP says:

          And you did stand up and answer; whether I agree or not, I respect that you answered straight, Bravo!

        • Dina says:

          Another lie CP keeps repeating is that the Pharisees formed in response to the corrupt Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was in fact made up of Pharisees. The Pharisees held this institution in great esteem. They did not form in response to a corrupt Sanhedrin because they never held that the Sanhedrin had become corrupt.

          • CP says:

            Wrong. Sadducees held the majority of the 70 seats in the Sanhedrin.

          • Eleazar says:

            Yeah, first I heard that theory. It would be interesting because if the Pharisees formed to battle the corruption of the Sanhedrin, then why would Jesus continually bash the Pharisees and not the Sanhedrin?

          • CP says:

            Eleazar,
            It is my understanding Yeshua had much in common with many Pharisees, although not all and was at odds with most if not all of the Sadducees. John the Baptist implies Yeshua was a Pharisee when he answers them Messiah is among them.

            On a side note, given what is recorded in the Tanakh, it is hard to understand the blatant disbelief at the possibility of a corrupt Sanhedrin.

  18. CP says:

    Reading though comments this morning the Jewish position on the death of Yeshua began to materialize. It seems to be ‘its a lie, our leaders were not involved, the Romans did it’. It certainly reminded me of the excuses Adam and Chava used.

    Actually this wasn’t a position I ever expected. It will take some looking into to see if in fact such a position is tenable outside of the Gospels.

  19. Conxerned Reader says:

    CP, the high priest was a Sadducee. You are here blaming descendants of Pharisees, innocent people, on a blog for somehow being implicated in Jesus’ death, when their sect didnt have final say. ALSO, YOUR GOSPEL WRITERS CLAIM THE PRIEST DID G-d’s will. SO NO BLAME CAN BE METT OUT BY YOU.

    1st off, what did your messiah say to EVERYONE RESPOBSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH?

    FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. Your messiah forgave those who may have been implicated in his death, before he even went to the cross to die, and yet your sect is STILL incapable of forgiving people unless Jesus is embraced.

    THIS FACT PROVES YOUR MESSIAHS DEATH DOES NOT END SIN THE WAY YOU SAY IT DOES.

    Jesus forgave people who clearly did not accept him, yet you want to lay blame on people generations later WHO YOU ADMIT HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING BY LOVING TORAH 1ST? YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

    You also failed to take note that the Pharisaic reaction to Jesus, in contrast to that of the Sadducees, was lenient. Gamliel was lenient in judgement on the Christians, and said for Jews to leave Christians alone, which is exactly what Jews have done.

    As pointed out by the excerpt that Dina posted, there is very high liklihood that the account is not historical, but even if it were, it would still not make you correct in charging these people with any sort of wrongdoing.

    • Dina says:

      CP is also wrong in his claim that the Sadducees sat on the Sanhedrin. Some historians aren’t sure if the Sadducees participated in the Jewish court, but the Pharisees themselves weren’t in any doubt, recording in the Talmud that it was composed of the sages (who were always Pharisees).

      The Pharisees and Sadducees opposed one another; it strains credulity to believe they would have worked together in the Sanhedrin.

  20. Dina says:

    CP wrote this:

    Btw Dina; you’ve written: “…the charge of deicide that hangs over all Jews, forever and for all time, a charge that CP fully supports”

    Just to set the record straight; you’re grossly mistaken, I’ve never said any such thing. I would challenge you to prove your accusations, but we’ve been down this road so many times where you’ve been unable to back up such accusations, it has become wearisome, based on past experience; not worth the effort.

    I have backed up every accusation I have ever made, and in fact I do think it’s worth the effort to expose the shameless lies of this man. So I’m posting below the following direct quotes from CP which I have culled from this page:

    Myself and every Christan I know is extremely tolerant of the unrepentant Jewish position of murdering Yeshua.

    But this is all besides the point because you still are unrepentant. You rail on historical Christian antisemitism one second then commend modern Christians for their repentance yet stand by the decision of our forefathers to hand a innocent man over to Roman authority to be executed. Even though this is just plain wrong, most modern Christians tolerate your unrepentant position, instead choosing forgiveness and reconciliation.

    As long as you continue to embrace and support the decision of 2000 year old religious leaders, whom you don’t even know, you will continue to look for ways to justify your position rather than confess and repent.

    Far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks the Sanhedrin righteous for turning over a fellow Jew to be tortured and nailed on a cross to die for teaching a return to Torah and claiming to be Messiah should share in their judgement, however Yeshua’s interpretation of Torah teaches to forgive them and leave it to God to sort out [so generous of you!].

    CP’s own words speak for themselves. I need say nothing more.

    • CP says:

      Dina,
      You said you have a book on the New York Best Sellers list?

      I admit you use excellent granmmer and a commanding use of synonymous to subtly spin another’s comment. However your reading comprehension skills could use some work!

      -Again- you’ve written: “…the charge of deicide that hangs over all Jews, forever and for all time, a charge that CP fully supports”

      Show me Dina where I said the Jews killed God
      Show me Dina where I said all Jews for all time are to blame
      Show me Dina where I ever said I support such an absurdity

      -You can’t do ANY of the above- because it hasn’t happened.

      I have said if a person supports an illegal trial by corrupt judges to condem a innocent man, they should repent of such a position or be held guilty for supporting wickedness.

      • Dina says:

        CP’s words speak for themselves. I rest my case.

        • Southern Noahide says:

          Dina, I agree, his words do speak for themselves. It also looks like CP has removed his “I’m-here-to-learn” mask.

          • CP says:

            Southern Noahide, you learn nothing by pussyfooting around. The best way is to be open and honest and work from there rather than just telling others what you think they want to hear.. Trust me, I’m learning more than I bargained for!

          • RT says:

            Unless you learn that the claims of messiah Yeshua are not based on any intellectual reason, but merely on emotion, then you’ve learn nothing… I am still waiting for the smoke that will turn to reality, but so far nothing… Why do you still hope in him, if you have no evidences that he was really the messiah and all his prophecies are those of his second coming?

          • CP says:

            RT, Many prophecies where fulfilled in the first advent of Messiah. No sense listing them, because just like everything else they can be interpreted in different ways depending on what you want them to mean. If there was one or two, okay you’d have a point, but since there are many that can be interpreted to point to a first advent of a suffering Messiah, that should give pause. Even if there wasn’t any, so what, was there any prophesies pointing to Moses coming?

            What can be said is because of Yeshua the Torah has been translated into almost every human language and has spread to every nation. A once polytheistic world has now become predominately a monotheistic world. And there are probably more Christians who support Israel than the total population of Jews in the world. All thanks to Yeshua. Tell me what other Jewish person has made such an impact on mankind?

            But that isn’t only why I have hope, I’ve seen supernatural things and personally witnessed miracles and answers to prayer. Granted others will dismiss these using various tactics, but they weren’t there. I wondered as I started studying Judaism if perhaps God was over looking my ignorance for believing in Yeshua. That eventually brought me here about six months ago. Admittedly I learned many errors of Christian doctrine, but as of yet no good reason to ditch Yeshua as the first advent of Messiah.

          • RT says:

            “No sense listing them, because just like everything else they can be interpreted in different ways depending on what you want them to mean.”

            Or maybe you interpret them as the way YOU want… If a prophecy is not clear enough to prove a point, than it is useless.

            “What can be said is because of Yeshua the Torah has been translated into almost every human language and has spread to every nation. ”

            You mean the OLD obsolete testament and a three head god… Quite useful…

          • Dina says:

            Southern Noahide, I believe that masked slipped off a long time ago.

            You know, I was just thinking. No serious New Testament scholar accepts the historicity of the gospel accounts of the trial and death of Jesus. They offer problems with the stories (as I have shown) that are insurmountable. But there is another thing. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Being that the NT is notoriously unreliable, it behoves Christians to prove that the events happened as recorded in the NT.

        • CP says:

          Dina, Yes, my words do speak for themselves, but not what you say. Words mean things. I tried for many comments for you to take a position on the Sanhedrin actions, either support them or repent from supporting them, but you refused to take a position, finally denying it ever happened, calling the Gospels one big lie; Christian conspiracy propaganda specifically designed to create anti-Semitism and a future holocaust. (of course I could say the same of the Talmud towards Christians, but out of respect I don’t)

          I asked for proof, you gave none, choosing rather to quote the latest book you’re reading on how Christians hate Jews.

          Good grief, sorry I messed with your fantasy. When you get some actual proof the Gospels are all lies purposely designed to promote anti-Semitism, let me know, I will listen with a open mind.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s