These are things that are defined differently between the two religions. I came to the conclusion that the kind of cleansing and holiness required by God according to Christianity was not possible within the framework of the Christian faith. As I have posted elsewhere, the book of Hebrews proclaims that the superiority of Christianity is based on its ability to overcome sin COMPLETELY, to the point of never needing another sacrifice for as long as you live, by changing one’s nature from that of sinner to that of never-sinning saint. This is echoed by Romans 8:1 , which states that “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus , WHO WALK ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT AND NOT ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”. IN other words, one who walks accordion to the flesh is condemned. It is only by “walking in the spirit” that one avoids condemnation according to Paul. This is because belief in Jesus leads to indwelling of the holy spirit, which in turn causes one to never sin again, for it is GOD who is “doing the works” ( John 14:10) and not the man. If one is walking according to the spirit,says Paul, it is NOT POSSIBLE to sin!
The reality is that this is an empty and hollow promise, and as such, Christianity has no better answer for sin than Judaism does. In fact, Christianity’s answer is far worse, because sinful people think they are sinless in the eyes of God! In Judaism, we strive and reach for righteousness one decision at a time. But nowhere does Torah/Judaism say or imply that a human being must be COMPLETELY PERFECT to avoid an everlasting burning hell, as does Christianity several times in the New Testament. Nor does Torah say or imply that all men are completely useless, incorrigibly evil, pieces of trash BY NATURE, NOT BY CHOICE as the NT implies.
The bottom line is that Judaism is a religion of salvation by grace and forgiveness. Christianity is a religion of the promise of salvation by human blood sacrifice and by total practical, actual sinlessness ( here and now) by the holy spirit. The first feature is an abomination forbidden by God, the latter feature has been historically proven false in every known case.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Hello
Paul or the NT doesn’t say one never sins again once they believe in Yeshua, he says one is never condemned for sin, ie the sinful nature. The sin nature remains, that’s his point of Romans CH 7.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. ( paraphrase).
One will only become sinless at the resurrection.
Hebrews 10 disagrees with you. And you are taking Paul out of context. In Romans chapters 5-7 he is speaking of the contradictions the unconverted face when walking after the flesh. Chapter 8 is the culmination and the conclusion to 5-7. 8:1 is clear that condemnation does not come to those who walk after the spirit because the spirit cannot sin. Please read Romans 8 and Hebrews in connection with each other.
Hebrews is an apologetic on the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Jesus. The reason given for its supremacy is that the animal sacrifices of Judaism had to be repeated because the people did not stop sinning:
Hebrew 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins…”
1- the author calling God a liar, since it was God who ordained a very complex system of both animal and vegetable sacrifices specific to many different situations.
OR
2-is saying blood NEVER did anything, in which case he is double-speaking because the author is already building his case on the text “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. Hebrews 9:22 ( quoting Tanakh out of context)
OR
3- Is saying that the blood of animals functioned as an atoning offering but could not stop people from sinning and thus requiring a new sacrifice over and over again. While the blood of Jesus, a one-time for all time offering, changes the nature of the sinner to a being who no longer needs blood sacrifices.
The answer is #3. We know this because the author says blood of bulls “cannot take away sin”. But since the text has already affirmed that forgiveness is by blood, he can ONLY be referring to removing the sinful nature! To the point where Hebrews10:26-27 gives a grave warning concerning those who still sin after becoming Christians:
“If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire that will consume all adversaries.…”
Now, you tell me that the sin-nature will be there until the resurrection. If that is true, then how can God give such a warning knowing we will continue to make wrong choices. Also note that it says “NO FURTHER SACRIFICE REMAINS”.
Eleazar,
If I understand correctly, you authored “The Trinity Chronicles” which begins with an interesting story about Isaac Cline and his disastrous decisions concerning the Galveston hurricane in the year 1900.
Isaac Cline evidently came to an incorrect conclusion because he based his actions on his own opinions and emotions rather than facts consistent with the evidence.
Likewise, I see some similarities when reading phrases like “sin nature”, and “walking in the Spirit”, and “pieces of trash”, etc– all of which can be interpreted in various ways based on prior bad experience, weak doctrinal foundation, or inconsistent theology renderings between the Tanakh and BC/NT…
_______________________________
Your essay is important because some of the concepts you describe represent a Gentile worldview rather than one of a first century Jewish author [hence, the many poor or false interpretations of the Book of Hebrews]…
We may disagree upon matters of interpretation– but that would be no different than disagreement among Orthodox Rabbis when interpreting Tanakh.
_______________________________
So, at this time I would like to pose one question…
Q: Should you rely “solely” upon the outdated KJV rendering of Romans 8:1 when the other major, modern versions [based on the oldest and best Greek texts] leave off the last phrase and read simply, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”?
________________________________
KAVI, I see you’ve resorted to the tactic of suggesting an emotional motivation over a discussing and refuting the substance of the argument. As such I will ignore your amateur psychological evaluation of my motivation from here on and respond to your substance only.
Regardless of which version of Romans 8:1 one uses it does not change the doctrine. Regardless, Romans 8:1 KJV is not about the translation, but about the source document. Every version based on the Received Text will render Romans 8:1 in a similar way. We need not change the subject to manuscripts because it changes nothing. Regardless, I do not and have never made a conclusion based on a single sentence.
Hebrews 10 is of monumental importance to an understanding of the Christian faith, since it was written to answer the questions, “How does the blood of Jesus and belief in him save anyone?” and “Why didn’t the blood of bulls and goats provide salvation?” Christianity is based on the idea that “believing in Jesus saves you” and “Jesus died to take away our sins”. Hebrews is the explanation of how. Therefore, if the how is proven wrong, then the premise of belief in, and “acceptance of” Jesus as one’s only method of salvation is useless.
Now, you asked me a question regarding holiness and fitness for standing before God. Hebrews 10 answered it.
Hello
Just to add something on one of your comments, you stated that the purpose of the book of Hebrews was written to show how does the blood of Jesus and belief in Him save anyone. Of course the book does show this, however, technically and historically the book was written for practicing believers in Jesus. They had already, by faith, made the decision. The book was written as a encouraging reminder. The then new Jewish believers were experiencing great persecution from there own nation, and some were being pushed into going back into practising animal sacrificing as a means of fellowship etc. Chs 2, 3, 4 and 6 open with words only akin to believers.
Just thought That needed clarity.
“The sin nature remains, ”
WHAT WAS THE POINT IN violently executing “innocent ” god if GOD BUILT THE SIN NATURE? i didn’t make my “sin nature”
neither did sin make my “sin nature”
Hello Mr Heathcliff
Was this comment made for my attention or someone else?
Sin nature is the worst teaching of the church and a nice excuse to justify atrocities…
Hebrews 10 disagrees with you. And you are taking Paul out of context. In Romans chapters 5-7 he is speaking of the contradictions the unconverted face when walking after the flesh. Chapter 8 is the culmination and the conclusion to 5-7. 8:1 is clear that condemnation does not come to those who walk after the spirit because the spirit cannot sin. Please read Romans 8 and Hebrews in connection with each other
Hello, Due to time restraints I can only answer your quotes in bite size, so I will try and do this piece by piece.
Im trying to understand your view here on Pauls letters, and your overall view on the NTs teaching on sin, grace, and forgiveness.
Firstly ch 5 speaks of Gods grace through His Son, it speaks that faith in The Son has justified us to God. It teaches that while we were separated from God by unbelief, Gods grace was poured out to all through His Son. It teaches that through Adams sin, death spread to all men, but through Christ all who believe by faith through Gods grace, the penalty of sin which is death (spiritual and ultimately physical )will one day escape punishment and have eternal life in heaven. At the end of the chapter Paul explains two of the reasons why God gave the Law of Moses.
Im not sure what you mean by contradictions in the unconverted?? There is of course differences in the believer and the not, but Paul is writing to the Church, not unbelievers.
I will try and post ch 6.
Thanks.
Brother Paul, it seems to me that Christians have added “salvation by faith doctrine” into the text of Romans 5:12-21. Apostle Paul simply says God’ s grace came through the one righteous act of Yeshua (which means i think his perfect obedience and faith toward his father HaShem). Throughout the Original Greek texts reveal that It is the faith OF Yeshua, not our faith IN Yeshua, which extingushed the wrath of God; thus God has already forgiven the sins of His covenant people even when they broke the covenant!
Hello
Yes you are right to say it is Gods grace that is given, and the wrath for sin was by means of Jesus death, Him, Christ receiving the penalty through His obedience to the Father.
However one has to believe in the act to receive the benefits. The individual has to apply faith so the resulted acts of Christ can have a direct result on the ones soul.
God did His part, but man has to exercise his faith.
Thanks.
I think the requirement of believing in the act of Christ applies only for Gentiles. That is why Galatians 3:8 mentions only Gentiles! The Jews are already in the eternal covenant; but they received the benefit not because of their faith in Yeshua but because of faith OF Yeshua as a representative of Jews and as righteous one of the household of Israel.
GGJ,
Are you saying that if not for Yeshua, Hashem would have broken his covenant with the Jewish people even though Hashem said in Tanakh hundreds of years before Yeshua was born that He would never break His covenant with them?
I don’t think HaShem would have broken His promise. However the glory of Hashem might have been blurred. what would gentiles say to Hashem? He once made the Sinai Covenant in which the penalty is death if failing to observe the Torah and later declare the new covenant in Jeremiah 31? How can the eternal covenant reconcile with the judgement upon the covenant people?
How can Hashem restore the eternal fate of those Israelites who were judged because of their disobedience in the wilderness?
The penalty for not keeping the Torah is death? Only for a small number of laws, only if there are witnesses who give the person proper warning, only if the person ignores the warning, only when there is a fully functioning sanhedrin, and only if the times are relatively normal when capital crimes are rare. You have been told a lie that the penalty for not keeping the Torah is death. The Tanakh says over and over again the essential and required remedy for sin is teshuva – not sacrifices, not blood.
Hello
Ch 6
The overall teaching of this chapter is to remind the believer that now they are not obligated to follow the sinfulness passions which they once walked, according to the flesh.
They should walk circumspectly with the power of the Holy spirit. Because Christ died believers should align themselves with His death and walk in the newness of there spiritual new life, just as Christ was physically resurrected into a new life.
When Paul is teaching about sin reigning in our bodies he isnt talking about the sin nature which is corrupted flesh or our DNA, gynetics, he is talking about wilful habitual sin which should be controlled by faithful obedience. If the overall sin nature was completely removed from the believers DNA as it were, all belivers should live for ever, and never die. The Bible doesnt teach such. The NT believer still has the sin nature of dying, Genesis ch ch 3 v19, but has the spiritual re birth John 3 16. That spiritual death came about in Gen ch 2 v 17.
“When Paul is teaching about sin reigning in our bodies he isnt talking about the sin nature which is corrupted flesh or our DNA, gynetics, he is talking about wilful habitual sin which should be controlled by faithful obedience.”
So you are saying corrupted flesh has no connection to habitual sin? What then is the source of this habitual sin if not the corrupted nature of the flesh ( as defined by Paul). Paul speaks of “crucifying the flesh” in order to gain the victory over sin. One cannot walk in the spirit if one has not “crucified the flesh” and “become a new creation”. Besides, you need to put this in the context of the whole, including the promise of perfection found in Hebrews and in 1 John:
1John3:5-7 “But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning ( Present tense). No one who continues to sin ( present tense) has seen Him or known Him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous.…”
“JUST AS CHRIST IS RIGHTEOUS”
“JUST AS” In the same way! Just as righteous! Christians claim Jesus was as righteous as God. (even though Jesus was clearly not perfect if you accept the words of the NT).
Hebrews 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased? Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins…”
Please read verse 2 over and over again until it sinks in what is actually being said here:
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?…”
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”
The truth of the matter is, the gospel that is presented in the promise of tangible total sanctification here and now, is the great promise of Christianity. That IS THE GOSPEL! Now, I know your arguments and have heard them many many times. But they are Christianity’s response to its own historically proven unfulfilled promise. It is NOT what the New Testament teaches!
You want to convince me that like every other prophecy left unfulfilled by Jesus, that this too is kicked down the road to the 2nd coming and the resurrection! These texts say NO SUCH THING! This full sanctification was Christianity’s major apologetic argument when Hebrews was written. It was what Christianity could promise that Judaism could not, according to the text. It was the reason Jesus even came according to the NT… to put an end to sin by humanity entering into a New Covenant with a better promise. That better promise is the ability to stop sinning COMPLETELY, not just a little less, in THIS LIFE.
Following.
So you are saying corrupted flesh has no connection to habitual sin? What then is the source of this habitual sin if not the corrupted nature of the flesh ( as defined by Paul). Paul speaks of “crucifying the flesh” in order to gain the victory over sin. One cannot walk in the spirit if one has not “crucified the flesh” and “become a new creation”. Besides, you need to put this in the context of the whole, including the promise of perfection found in Hebrews and in 1 John:
Hello
No Im not saying they are NOT connected, The NT is saying by nature we are born sinners because of Adams sin. His sin has been imputed into man. So we now are aligned with adams fall. All are born sinners, live as sinners, and die as sinners. The new birth does not instantly change the corrupted mortal flesh there and then, ie visibly. However the removal of immortality and incorruption does, is guaranteed by the Death and resurrection of Christ when a believer dies, or when the rapture occurs.
The text of John that you quoted isnt talking about the sin nature generally , he is referring to wilful, disobedient sin that is keeping the beliver from fellowship with God. Paul says “why are you still/ now doing the things which you were THEN NOT ashamed but now still practicing.
When the NT believer comes to Christ the future of there soul is heaven, there walk with God, Christ here on earth will go through 3 stages.
1. Justification. There faith has been justified through belief in the completion of the crucified Messiah and resurrection.
2. Sanctification. The on going process of being Christ like. ((( Our topic)))) No man can be ever, ever, ever like Christ in our present fallen condition.
3. Glorification. At the point of our resurrection and subsequently the Judgement all believers will finally become complete, as Christ.
John does teach that we are still sinners, 1 John ch 1 v18. Again this verse doesnt teach that we need to confess our daily sins to be eschatology forgiven, but forgiven in the one to one fellowship sense. Something that the RC church woefully got wrong.
Comparing Hebrew 10 v 2 with this topic is simple. The text isnt saying believers are instantly sinless, the text is simply saying that the animal sacrifices only atoned on a temporary basis, they covered the sin. They were a down payment in preparation for a better sacrifice. OT saints never went to heaven when they died, they went to Abrahams bosom. Their faith was justified by the animals blood but it wasnt a completed works until the blood of Christ was shed.
The OT sinner and the NT sinner are not different in the sense of general genetic sin, the difference is the change from daily, weekly, sabbatical and yearly sacrifices to the one off sacrifice which has completed the works of God by the blood through the crucified Yeshua.
Sorry have to go.
“1. Justification. There faith has been justified through belief in the completion of the crucified Messiah and resurrection.”
Response: How? Why?
“2. Sanctification. The on going process of being Christ like. ((( Our topic)))) No man can be ever, ever, ever like Christ in our present fallen condition.”
Response: Ongoing process? So you believe in evolution? You are not “a new creature in Christ” but “an evolving creature in Christ that can never reach full evolution”? The holy spirit able to make you “some” better and “sort-of” able to conquer the flesh, but not completely? If it is not possible to ever, ever, ever be like Christ, and we MUST continue to sin due to fallen nature, then what is the point? We can do that without Christianity. If fallen nature is responsible for sin, as you say it is, then what does Jesus offer to solve this that God could not offer without Jesus?
You see, it makes sense if we are on our own , working toward righteousness, to say there will always be a struggle between the two natures ( Yetser Harah and Yetser Tov) and they are always at odds.
But if you are saying that because of Jesus’ death, God is in you “doing the works” there is no excuse to continue sinning or you are saying God is only semi-effective in changing the person and will always be no more than semi-potent until man’s human nature is taken away. This is accusing God of unjustly giving a law that man could NEVER keep or obey in his humanity, and then damning him to eternal flames for not keeping it. Also, if Jesus was “the second Adam” and walked over Adam’s steps, but emerged victorious, it is also cheating because Jesus had something Adam didn’t have, deity.
3. Glorification. At the point of our resurrection and subsequently the Judgement all believers will finally become complete, as Christ.
Response- Again, why can’t God do this without Jesus? Why does belief have any bearing on the solution to sin being the granting of a new sinless nature that was not available prior to death or “secret rapture”? If God decided to grant this to Hitler, then Hitler would be perfect, Jesus or not, because our sin is the result of our nature. As you and Christianity say, “We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.” Jesus either changed this or he didn’t. Christianity either solves this or it doesn’t. Hebrews is either right or it is not. Jesus’ blood either “took away sin” or it didn’t. You are saying that this is yet another promise left unkept until the 2nd coming.
Convenient.
Reprinting until you “get it”:
Hebrews 10:1-4 “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?…”
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”
“If it could, would not the offerings have ceased?”
10:11 “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT ( past tense) forever those who are being made (PRESENT TENSE) holy.
10:26
“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins” Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Don’t like that version? here’s a few more:
“For if a man sin, voluntarily, after he hath received a knowledge of the truth, there is no longer a sacrifice which may be offered for sins” Peshitta
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” KJV
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” Young’s Literal
“For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins” Jubilee Bible
“For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins” Douay-Rheims Bible
Get it yet?
Eleazar,
Hebrews 10:26
“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins” [Aramaic Bible in Plain English]
Absolutely! There is no Temple sacrifice that can be made for sins after one receives L-RD Yeshua as their redeeming Savior.
Why does this pose a problem?
_____________________
The problem, Kavi, is that it is speaking in the context of Jesus’ sacrifice, not the temple sacrifices. IN the temple sacrifices (which cannot “make you perfect”,) a person could sin and then another sacrifice could be made ( if he were repentant). Hebrews was written while the temple still stood and sacrifices were being made!
Read carefully:
Hebrews 10:1-2- “The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. IF IT COULD, would not the offerings have ceased?”
Please continue reading:
“Day after day every [ Jewish] priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest ( JESUS) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.
Now continue reading the conclusion, which is directly tied to the above statement:
“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins ( Because Jesus cannot be sacrificed AGAIN) But that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies. For if any violated the law of Moses, he would die without mercy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. How much more do you think he will receive capital punishment, he who has trampled upon The Son of God and esteemed the blood of his covenant to be like that of every person, who also was made holy by it, and he has despised The Spirit of grace?
Jesus cannot be “crucified afresh”. That is the point he is making. If Jesus’ sacrifice and indwelling spirit does not stop you from sinning intentionally, you’re out of luck because Jesus cannot be sacrificed a second time. His human sacrifice (God forbid) was a ONE TIME FOR ALL TIME sacrifice!THAT is what is being said here, if you read the context!
Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into Hebrews 10:26
However, Gentiles often commit such mistakes because they are steeped into a culture foreign to the mind of a 1st century Jew accustomed to the Temple sacrificial system.
To be honest, it’s a shame that the Book of Hebrews is so terribly misinterpreted due to the absence of Messianic Jewish understanding…
Not that I blame you personally– I just feel you been tripped-up by bad church doctrine.
__________________________
The conclusion of Hebrews 10:1-14 is Verse 18 [not a leap to verse 26]
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
__________________________
You do see the classic Hebrew parallelism between these two verses, right?
“…. there is no longer any offering for sin.” [v18]
and
“…. there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” [v26]
Both of these verses show a comparison:
[a] First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] and
[b] Second, each THEN looks back to the Temple sacrificial system [which leads to death and judgment]…
___________________________
Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into the second half of Hebrews 10:26 as you have done…
However, Gentiles often commit such mistakes because they are steeped into a culture foreign to the mind of a 1st century Jew accustomed to the Temple sacrificial system.
To be honest, it’s a shame that the Book of Hebrews is so terribly misinterpreted due to the absence of Messianic Jewish understanding…
Not that I blame you personally– I just feel you been tripped-up by bad church doctrine.
__________________________
The conclusion of Hebrews 10:1-14 is Verse 18 [not a leap to verse 26]
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
__________________________
You do see the classic Hebrew parallelism between these two verses, right?
“…. there is no longer any offering for sin.” [v18]
and
“…. there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” [v26]
Both of these verses show a comparison:
[a] First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] and
[b] Second, each THEN looks back to the Temple sacrificial system [which leads to death and judgment]…
___________________________
“The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into Hebrews 10:26”
Eisegetically? Read the text! All the temple sacrifices are spoken of in the present text. This was written while the temple still stood. How can you miss that?
You are doing semantic backflips to twist the plain meaning of these texts!
Also, your subtle ad hominem ( paraphrase- you’re just a Gentile, how could you understand?) does not change the plain meaning of the text. That is why you are reduced to taking parts of sentences rather than reading the entire paragraph or entire chapter.
But explain something to me. You wrote:
“First, each looks to the redemption offered through L-RD Yeshua [which leads to life and righteousness] ”
How does this work? How does belief in Yeshua bring life, righteousness or redemption? Especially, how does belief in Yeshua bring righteousness? Is this a real tangible righteousness or an imagined one? How righteous is this righteousness? A little? A lot? Complete? What does this righteousness look like?
I am sure Paul Summers would also be interested in your answer, since his original questions to me were ( paraphrase) “How righteous does one need to be to stand before God” and “How do you attain to that level of righteousness?”.
Hello
I will try and respond asap to other statements.
You are correct that the then temple offering’s were still in place. Hebrews was written pre temple destruction. Of course non Christian Jews were using and believing in the system. As stated earlier the newly converted Jews were thinking or even were actually going back to the old system. Hebrews is telling them not to, because its pointless, and more importantly they needed to stay away from Jerusalem because unknown to them the Roman onslaught and destruction of the Temple was still future.
Eleazar,
It appears you did not read my second post clarification,
“The Book of Hebrews was contextually written to an audience of Jews who formerly sought forgiveness and righteousness through offerings and sacrifices at the Temple….as such, there is no reason to eisegetically read Yeshua into the second half of Hebrews 10:26 as you have done…”
The misinterpretation of the Book of Hebrews [and particularly 10:26] is caused by an unsupportable Gentile viewpoint foreign to the mindset of 1st century Jews– despite contrary evidence.
Remember Isaac Cline’s interpretative errors concerning the Galveston hurricane [which he thought was only a “normal” storm]?
___________________________
Although you disagreed with the evidence in my prior post, you could not disprove those words–
And actually, I only provided part of the ample evidence that the word “sacrifice” in Hebrews 10:26 refers to the “Temple sacrifice”.
So, here is more…
[a] Q: Is your interpretation logical?
According to your own words, “Hebrews is an apologetic on the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Jesus.”
As such, can you truthfully argue that Hebrews 10:26 is now going to make a case against the supremacy of the one time sacrifice of Yeshua?
[b] Q: What is the summary statement of Hebrews Chapter 10?
“But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” [Hebrews 10:39]
Here, we find the writers of Hebrews:
** continue the same comparison between L-RD Yeshua VS the Law’s Temple sacrificial system [as in verses 18 and 26 and elsewhere] AND,
** indicate faith in Redeemer L-RD Yeshua is an eternal, secure redemption VS the Temple sacrificial system which only brings wrath and judgment…
__________________________
As to the last point regarding eternal redemption, Tanakh teaches,
“How blessed is the man to whom the L-RD does not impute iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit!” [Psalm 32:2]
… Hebrews 10 teaches the same [when correctly interpreted]…
__________________________
““Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
Absolutely! Hebrews is clear of two things concerning Jesus’ death:
1- One time for all time meant sacrifice was no longer needed because it was a complete atonement. That is the intent of the text you posted.
2- One time for all time there is no longer a sacrifice AVAILABLE any more, either. That is the meaning of v 26. And as you will see, 6:4-6.
Now, your insistence that “one time for all time” ONLY means “sacrifices no longer needed ” does not stand in context of several verses, including Hebrews 6:4-6
“But those who have descended once to baptism and tasted the gift from Heaven and received The Spirit of Holiness, And tasted the good word of God and the power of the future world, Who would sin again, and AGAIN crucify The Son of God, and become contemptible, cannot be renewed to conversion.”
This text says that those Christians who sin again, who backslide, cannot return. Why can’t they return? Because it would require another sacrifice! It is clear in this text that Jesus’ one time sacrifice is meant in the context of “no sacrifice available”, not “no sacrifice needed”. Moreover, the believer in this case is sinning AFTER receiving the holy spirit! Put this in context of what the author says the reason why temple sacrifices are inferior:
Hebrews 10:1-2- “It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. IF IT COULD, would not the offerings have ceased?”
But speaking Jesus’ sacrifice it says:
“For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.”
So according to this text in Hebrews, we have TWO sacrifices:
1- Animals ( and flour/oil) that needed to be continued due to the fact that the people were continuing to sin, and thus a need for sacrifices every year. If they could make people perfect, then do they continue?
2- Jesus’ blood- a sacrifice that only needed to be done once because it made people perfect and sacrifice was thus no longer needed because it had the power, by the holy spirit, make believers stop sinning.
The perfection of character and the solving of sin is the issue in view. Plain as day. The gospel according to Hebrews and 1John is this: Judaism does not solve sin. Jesus death and Christianity do.
But history shows clearly that Christianity has NOT solved sin. It is a theory that has been proven wrong.
“For by ONE sacrifice he has MADE PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.”
Hi
Yes the sacrifice of Christ removed the need of animal sacrifices.
Yes Christ cannot be re crucified, this teaches eternal security, which is true, A better sacrifice. One cannot lose there redemption.
As stated previously, believers retain the sin nature after the re birth. Christ’s Blood sanctified and redeemed sin. The penalty of sin was/is death. Plus the sinful condition that keeps man from God. This gap has been bridged through Christ by Gods Grace. This salvation is applied to an individual by faith. The fullness of a sinlessness person is acquired at the resurrection.
The NT does not teach that a person becomes sinless here on earth. When sinless is mention the text refers to the ultimate goal which will come, future.
The opening statement which I pasted States “Those being made perfect” Its in a future tense. That’s sanctification which I mentioned, not evolution as you stated.
“Yes the sacrifice of Christ removed the need of animal sacrifices.
Yes Christ cannot be re crucified, this teaches eternal security, which is true, A better sacrifice. One cannot lose there redemption.”
Hebrews 10:26 plainly disagrees, as does Hebrews 6:4 and 1Corinthians 9:27
“For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins ( Because Jesus cannot be sacrificed AGAIN) But that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies. ”
“But those who have descended once to baptism and tasted the gift from Heaven and received The Spirit of Holiness, And tasted the good word of God and the power of the future world, Who would sin again, and AGAIN crucify The Son of God, and become contemptible, cannot be renewed to conversion.”
1Cor 9:27:”No, I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified..”
“The opening statement which I pasted States “Those being made perfect” Its in a future tense.”
Actually, it is present tense (Must we really argue over basic grammar?), and refers to people who are becoming Christians. As they are becoming Christians, they are being made holy, no longer needing a sacrifice because the difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity “makes you perfect” and Judaism, by the same sacrifices year after year, does not. Please read some other versions of Hebrews 10:14-
For by one offering he has perfected those who are sanctified by him for eternity. Aramaic BIble
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who ARE sanctified. NASB
For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that ARE sanctified. Douay Reims
For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that ARE sanctified. ERV
for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified; Young’s Literal;
For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who ARE made holy. NET
In all of these versions, the sanctification is in the present/past tense.
1Cor6:10- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you WERE sanctified ( past tense), you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Try to understand that Hebrews is the only NT Book that makes the claim that Jesus is the literal fulfillment of the New Covenant as worded in Jeremiah 31.
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
Hebrews 8:7-12 : “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
Here, Hebrews is claiming Jesus/Christianity is the literal fulfillment of this text! I ask anyone to read this through, especially verses 10 and 11, and tell me this has occurred and has been fulfilled. Remember that Hebrews chapter 10 is in context of this foundational doctrine.
Paul,
“As stated previously, believers retain the sin nature after the re birth. Christ’s Blood sanctified and redeemed sin. ”
Isn’t it a contradiction to claim that Christ’s blood redeemed sin (past tense) but at the same time sin still exists? How can sin be redeemed and unredeemed at the same time?
Hi Alan
It seems a contradiction by many because when they see the word redeemed they automatically assume that the person in question becomes sinless there and then. Sinlessness in our present body, or tent as Paul calls it, is still ever present. We see this result by God telling Adam in Gen ch 3 v 19. Even faithful OT saints were still under a death sentance.
Death/sin has now entered into the human experience. That death is the penalty caused by sin. Our human flesh is now contaminated with sin/death, everyone dies, everyone is a sinner.
When Followers of Jesus talk about sin, its not simply about being good or bad or indifferent. Its reffering to the death which all humans experience which needed to be reversed.
The believer is baptised by the Holy Spirit at the instance one believes. The Holy Spirit indwells in all believers. 1 Corintians ch 12 v12, However the Holy Spirit sits alongside the old sinful nature of the believer, and as Ephesians ch 6 v 10 – 21 teaches believers struggle because 2 natures war against each other. The old and the new.
Most of Pauls letters are words of encouragement in difficulties, words of praise or some strict harsh words when required. This simply shows that believers are far from perfect or from harm in this world.
So ultimately Chtists blood has redeemed mankind. Futuristic the believer is saved from eternal punishment, presently he/she is aligned with Christs death, burial and resurrection, but while they are still breathing here on earth they are being sanctified, waiting for the blessed hope of the resurrection.
Let me try to say it back and please let me know if I am following you:
What you mean by “Christ’s blood has sancified and redeemed sin” is as follows-
The sanctification of the believer is due to the Holy Spirit that dwells in the believer’s body, and sinning is no longer an impediment to being holy (like G-d). The redemption of sin means the believer will not be tortured for eternity after death for whatever sins he did while he was living with the Holy Spirit in him.
Hi Alan
The NT doesn’t teach that we should continue in the things which we know are wrong. It teaches quite the opposite. The point at salvation is the Holy Spirit regenerates the dead human spirit, the soul/ spirit which is alienated from God. This is of the spiritual realm not the physical. John CH 3.
Physically the flesh is still corrupted.
We cannot save ourselves. God did all the works of salvation through Jesus. We can never make ourselves holy in the sense of complete God like holiness, but we should separate ourselves from following fleshly ways etc. Again sanctification is a process following the exercised faith in the completed works of the death, burial and resurrection.
And finally all past, present and future sins are completely and utterly blotted out from the presence of God in any believer in Christ Jesus God and King.
That is Grace. Not earned, or worked for, but a free gift offered to all who believes in the Only Begotten Son Of The Father.
Just to add, If a believer, say in a church environment falls into a wilful sin, say adultery, and he/she fails to repent and refuses council from the elders, then that person, scripturally, should be disciplined accordingly. Then that unrepentant person breaks fellowship with God. That person is disciplined by God, but the soul still belongs to God, as it was purchased with the Blood of Christ.
Paul,
You wrote: “Again sanctification is a process following the exercised faith in the completed works of the death, burial and resurrection.”
“Exercised faith” – what is the difference in sanctification after the believer passes on from this earth between the believer who “exercised” faith and the believer who didn’t exercise faith? I’m assuming that by exercised faith you mean practicing the ways of God on earth and not just believing. And I’m assuming that by sanctification you mean the Holy Spirit dwelling with a person both on earth and after one leaves this earth. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Hello Alan
Exercised faith is walking through this life, learning, prayers, works, relying on God not materialism, just generally walking, and maturing in the Faith. Exercising spiritual gifts.
Going through life’s tribulations and suffering in Christ’s Name will sanctify a believer. He or she will make many mistakes on route but the process will ultimately mature and sanctify the believer.
All believers grow and mature at different levels. Matthew 13. The NT teaches that there are crowns of rewards waiting for the believer in Heaven. Depending on how much one grows here in obedience is revealed by position in the Messianic Kingdom, here on earth.
That’s the future kingdom after Christ’s return.
However salvation isn’t balanced on how much we do here and now, only rewards. Salvation is based on the regeneration of the believer once they are saved. Something that cannot, cannot, cannot be lost.
Good morning Paul,
I’m following what you’re saying. So if a believer decides that: 1). they don’t care about rewards in the next world and 2). they don’t care about doing good on earth, they just want to pursue materialism even if it means hurting people – is such a believer good, holy and beloved in the next world?
I didn’t understand anything you said . At one hand you think that all your past, present and future sinful thoughts and deeds have been washed in the bloody violent killing of your god, on the other you still need to fight evil thoughts and evil deeds because there aren’t any divine consequences? a christian hiding under jesus is guaranteed to sin in the future and at the same time tells himself that there are no divine consequences because all his evil sin has been washed in the blood of god. You also have a NATURE which helps you do sin.
the christian remain in his corrupt and polluted state, but god is cool with that because he violently killed himself. TILL this day I don’t see the connection. I don’t get it.
Hi Alan
That’s a great question.
The NT only teaches on what is given not what isn’t.
Positionally all believers are in the kingdom, some just have greater rewards which comes with more blessings.
I think the best way to look at your question is actually to ask, why wouldn’t you want to grow, once you see ones salvation?
The NT teaches about fruits as a visible sign of believers, not there works. Fruits are growth in spiritual matters etc.
Its like falling on love with some one, or loving your children. You don’t need to be told to say “I love you” its natural and you want to say it because you do love the person.
If one follows material things of this world and hurts people, its not the actually harm that person is doing that effects there rewards, it more of a case of what type of relationship they have with Christ presently that should be of concern. They should!!?? be more discernible with there new current spiritual condition instead of pursuing wealth and hurting people intentionally.
The NT does teach that tares grow with the wheat in the same field, ie confessing Christians who are not.
If you need biblical texts to substantiate my quotes just ask. I’m working at the mo, so no time to find the chapters and verses.
Paul,
I agree that believers should be growth-oriented. But I think you’re saying that in the final reckoning, even if someone did not believe their whole life but becomes a believer only at the very last moment, they partake of eternal holiness and life in the next world (albeit on a lower level than those who tried harder in their earthly life). But what if such a person was not only a non-believer until the last moment but also did much evil on earth, e.g. murder, stealing and sexual sins – what would such a person need to do or believe in the last moment in order to merit eternal holiness and life?
Hi Alan
Some great questions here.
Firstly you have to see that individual sins past, pay no regard to ones future role in the kingdom. The sins individually are the actions of a unregenerate person. The overall generically sinful nature of man are the primary goal for the crucifixion. As the sinful nature has been purchased by Christ, so has individual past actions. They are blotted out.
In regard to a person being saved at the last moment in their life, here are a few pointers;
1. Because there is no sin within a believer in the Messianic kingdom, there cannot be any animosity because, envy, jealously, greed are all actions of sin, and resurrected believers have lost there sin nature.
2. Nothing can compare to the joy of salvation. Any Position in the Kingdom would out do the very sad alternative.
3. As far as God is concerned sin is sin. It is not measured by ones individuality. Even Paul/Saul was the earliest church’s enemy. By Gods grace even with Paul’s history, Paul was saved and then counter used to spread the Gospel news.
Hello again Alan
Sorry I didn’t actually answer your last and most important question.
Christ Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for mans sin. No matter who that person is. Jew, gentile, black, white, Asian, rich poor, slave, free, man woman.
Or man needs to do is to believe by faith that through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, one has been redeemed, purchased and totally forgiven for all sins and their sinful nature.
He took it on Himself to save you and me. Its a free gift that costs us nothing but cost God everything.
Hi Paul,
So if an incredibly wicked monster like Pol Pot, for example, at the last moment of his life accepted upon himself the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for all his sins, he would be a holy member of the community in the world to come?
The bottom line, Paul, is that you are putting off to the 2nd coming what Hebrews claims has happened in the past, and should happen in the present, in the Christian experience. You MUST do this because you know as well as I do that Christianity does not produce, in tangible reality, a sinless person or a person who has gained the victory over sin as promised in Hebrews.
Christianity has had to resort to the formula of “Unprovable Invisible justification is complete and experienced by the Christian, but complete , tangible and literal sanctification is a process that can never be achieved by a mortal human being, even one filled with the holy spirit”
Its back to the basic Christian apologetic argument that, “ANYTHING provable and visible will be accomplished by Jesus in the future. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING unprovable and invisible has been fully accomplished”
Hi
Hebrews doesn’t teach what you say. It aligns Christ blood with animal sacrifices as a mode, but teaches that it is superior in the remission of sins.
You keep stating that Christians are supposedly sinless, I keep telling you the NT teaches otherwise. Believers do ultimately have victory through the resurrection. You keep stating, again!! That Holy Spirit filled believers don’t reach perfect sanctification, and by you that’s proof of a non actual process. But the NT does teach that you cannot reach perfection here on earth. Its not a contradiction, its actually written and seen by believer’s. You just mid read Hebrews.
“You just mid read Hebrews.”
No sir, it says exactly what it says. The reason animal sacrifices were inferior is because they did not make people perfect. Because it did not make them perfect, they had to have sacrifices continually because they continued to sin. It says that in plain black and white.
It is you ( and the church) who cannot handle the reality of the gospel, Paul. Plain and simple. Christianity has always struggled with the insurmountable problem of:
1- Presenting Jesus and the indwelling holy spirit being the answer to solving sin…
and
2- The Christian inability to stop sinning no matter how “spirit-filled” he becomes.
EVERYBODY PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING!
Take John for example, Paul. In both his gospel and his short epistles, he presents Jesus and the indwelling spirit as the answer to sin, proclaiming that anyone who sins is not a Christian!
PLEASE READ VERSE 6! You say this is not possible and the the New Testament does not teach this! ( emphasis mine)
1John2:3 “We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him MUST LIVE JUST AS JESUS LIVED”.
Continuing
PLEASE READ THIS NEXT ENTIRE PASSAGE, ESPECIALLY VERSE 9! You say this is not possible and that the New Testament does NOT TEACH THIS! Now go back and read Hebrews! You will see that my reading is spot-on! ( emphasis mine)
1John3:5-9 “And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whoever stays in him sins not: WHOEVER SINS HAS NOT SEEN HIM, NEITHER KNOWN HIM. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”
It is you, Paul ( and the church) who are denying the very gospel of Jesus and denying your own scriptures!
I read the passages you brought. The average person reading this would very likely understand this to mean what you say it means – one who believes is no longer able to sin and one who sins is of Satan, neither has he seen or known Jesus (to know is to do the commandments according to these passages). However, the more mature Christian can’t understand it on the simple level because it contradicts reality. My educated guess is what they do is the following: as long as a Christian maintains a conscious awareness of Jesus he cannot sin because where there is light there is no darkness. But this consciousness takes effort and it is not automatic. As soon as one forgets Jesus, the darkness returns and one is now “of the satan”. But as soon as one catches oneself and reminds oneself of Jesus, the light dispels the darkness and one can at that moment not sin. There are Chassidic writngs that speak in similar language to the passages you quoted and they give a similar explanation to the one I just wrote. These kinds of mystical-sounding writings can be very confusing and are not to be understood literally. I think what these NT passages want to do is to simply say that Torah is no longer good enough and Jesus is the replacement for all the sacrifices and in order to have eternal life bound to God, one must believe in Jesus. The goal is the same – the world to come – but the NT wants to change the means because the old means is too difficult in many ways. There is still a fight with evil but the old way is too hard.
But Hashem says in the Torah about observing the commandments, including the commandment to do teshuvah (return): “for the thing is very close to you – in your mouth and in your heart to do it.”
We can all do it. Only a sadistic God would command something we couldn’t do and then punish and kill us for not doing it.
Pardon me- that should have been a lower-case “g” in “sadistic god”.
Eleazar,
Apostle John teaches the same as Psalm 32,
“How blessed is the man to whom the L-RD does not impute iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit!”
________________________________
Paul Summers
Eleazar is, as usual, making really great points here. It would be helpful if you would back up your arguments with scripture like Eleazar does. It’s good to know your opinion, but it would also be nice to know what you base your opinion on. I’ll admit I haven’t read everything but a quick review shows you have a lot to say but little to back it up with.
Larry,
I fully concede that Paul can bring in TONS of NT texts which he can claim refer only to “imputed righteousness” ( justification) or can claim that all texts referring to “righteousness in christ” are referring only to imputed righteousness. No different than the Christian apologists who claim Isaiah 43:10-12 in Tanakh is a reference to Jesus. The problem for Paul ( or Kavi) is that he has nothing to refute the clear case for complete imparted righteousness as laid out plainly in the texts I have posted. And to try to refute those is to try to refute his own religion’s scriptures.
Whatever the text says, I still don’t see that they are forced to interpret it literally to mean complete imparted righteousnes 24/7 for the rest of one’s life and that without this perfect practical righteousness one is not saved.
There are chassidic texts that say that complete righteousness 24/7 365 is possible for everyone but then the chassidic commentators all interpret the text non-literally. I personally don’t like it which is one of the reasons I am not chassidic. I am referring to one prominent chassidic group but I will not name them here.
Hi, That’s fine and I agree. Time at the mo is my problem, I did previously explain this to Alan if he required texts.
Hi Alan
All of mankind has the ability to be saved. God wishes no man to perish.
However a couple of Scriptural principles have to be followed.
1. The gospel message has to be given. Romans CH 1 v 16~17
2. The said individual cannot be a atheist, There must be a very basic foundation of Gods existence. Romans CH 1. 18~ 31.
3. Gods sovereign reign does put into power who he wishes. Daniel CH 2 v 21 and CH 4 v 35.
The point of no 3 is that some people are given over to satanic control to be used to see Gods prophetic plan through to the end. John 13 v 30.
“He or she will make many mistakes on route but the process will ultimately mature and sanctify the believer.
All believers grow and mature at different levels. Matthew 13.”
the problem is that jesus thinks that lusting with eyes = adultery. he didn’t say that he will give up his eye on behalf of lusting eye, he said that christian needs to pluck out his eye.
i think even jesus realized that violently killing a god doesn’t really help problem of sin.
and why does christian need to mature in anything since his sin nature will infect his repentance and sincerity . remember that jesus died for insincere repentance. insincerity .
blood sacrifices have helped christian get away with sins.
Hello Mr Heathcliffe
The point Jesus is making about eyes and list are this,
The law of Moses states that Adultery is committed when one physically commits the act. Jesus Is teaching the righteous requirements or the proper interpretation of the law.
He is stating that adultery has already happened in the heart before the physical act because the individual had looked and longed for the adultery to take place. So its not the act per we but the want to, which led to the act.
When He States “Pluck out your eyes” its not literal, but a term of reference to show how serious the problem is.
Your other statements make no sense to me.
Lust, sorry.
But your beliefs are teaching that all past, present and future adulteries have already been atoned for in the sacrificial murder of god. Jesus told you how to cure a serious problem, he told you to pluck your eye out. in your beliefs, you have Jesus dying for past,present and future lustful thoughts, so you have taken out the “serious” in “serious problem”
what I am saying is that you are lying to yourself if you think you as Christian can live holy life because the whole point of your god KILLING himself was because you CANT live holy life. your god allows you to get away with sins because he is always reminded of the bloody crucifixion ritual.
Hi
Firstly The NT and I have never ever stated that one is holy in this life, please confirm where I stated otherwise.
Jesus wasn’t murdered. Also He never killed Himself.
Can you confirm where Jesus is reminded of His own death?
As explained previously, Jesus was using a common practice of extreme analogy to make a point.
That point was adultery starts in the heart of one.
“Extreme analogies” don’t undo lustful thoughts. Jesus gave you practical advice , he told you to cut your eye off, otherwise you might end up losing your rewards. The strange and funny thing is that you guys tell yourselves that the sinful thoughts, past , present and future have already BEEN CLEARED and wiped off from your wrongs. You are free.no more divine consequences, but then you are in a BIND, you still NEED to acknowledge the wrong and be responsible ,indicating you view remorse, repentance and acknowledgement GREATER than Jesus’ sacrifice/murder.
jesus did kill himself, he said in john that he had power over his own life.
Hello Mr Heathcliffe
Answering your points in no order.
When Jesus makes the point in John 10 v 18, He is making the point of His own power in the resurrection. Not sure if you know how crucifixion works, but nailing oneself to cross is a neat trick by any standards!
Scripturally speaking God His Father was responsible for His Death. Isaiah CH 53 v 10.
The point, again! is that Adultery begins in the heart when one constantly looks after another outside the marriage. The analogy, yes analogy’s are allowed, was simply teaching one to stop looking. Its not just a matter of a lustful thought, its more of building on that thought and pursuing it until it becomes a reality.
You seem to think that being self disciplined and responsible for ones moral actions are stupid and irresponsible?
your god says he KILLS himself
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
even if the pagans NAILED your god, they did not KILL him according to john. jesus , according to john ,thought he switched himself off. so jesus took his own life. jesus KILLED himself.
if jesus PUT an end to his life because the father gave jesus the power to do so, then jesus is responsible.
“The point, again! is that Adultery begins in the heart when one constantly looks after another outside the marriage”
and what helps your heart? THE eyes. what did jesus advice you ? Lose your eye.
“The analogy, yes analogy’s are allowed, was simply teaching one to stop looking. Its not just a matter of a lustful thought, its more of building on that thought and pursuing it until it becomes a reality.”
you don’t even need to build on it a SECOND time, jesus told you LOSE the eye. if that doesn’t work lose the second one too. your eyes help you in building on the thought. your god gave you advice to lose your eye.
if your hands help you do sin, lose your hands too. this is advice from jesus.
“I think the best way to look at your question is actually to ask, why wouldn’t you want to grow, once you see ones salvation?
The NT teaches about fruits as a visible sign of believers, not there works. Fruits are growth in spiritual matters etc.
Its like falling on love with some one, or loving your children. You don’t need to be told to say “I love you” its natural and you want to say it because you do love the person.”
now it sounds like there is no original sin or cursed nature.
“My educated guess is what they do is the following: as long as a Christian maintains a conscious awareness of Jesus he cannot sin because where there is light there is no darkness. But this consciousness takes effort and it is not automatic. As soon as one forgets Jesus, the darkness returns and one is now “of the satan”.
Alan,
I understand, and that would be a decent compromise, except for one thing: John says that if one is in Jesus “He will live JUST as Jesus lived”. But being “in Jesus” is a condition of Christian salvation! If one can be “In Jesus, out of Jesus, In Jesus, out of Jesus”,etc., then one would be caught in an ever-revolving door of righteousness and sin, of salvation and damnation. Of needing a sacrifice and not needing one, needing one and not needing one, and on and on.
That was the accusation against Judaism, since Christianity taught that one must be “perfectly righteous and holy” to be saved and that Judaism failed in this regard. THAT “perfect cleansing to stand before a perfectly holy God” was Paul’s first question to me that began this entire discussion! It was that question that spawned the post at the top of this page! This was the very situation Christianity promised to resolve! To solve the “saved/not saved” revolving door was the purpose of Jesus’ incarnation according to the books of 1John and Hebrews! According to Hebrews’ quoting of Jeremiah 31, the prophesied New Covenant is intended to solve that problem, is the “covenant based on better promises”, and Jesus was the ratifying sacrifice required for the covenant ( since all biblical covenants are ratified by blood).
In the New Testament, there are two kinds of righteousness that come from faith in Jesus:
1- Imputed righteousness- God *counts* you as perfectly righteous because of Jesus’ blood sacrifice, thus Jesus’ perfection is *imputed* to you. This is what Paul Summers keeps talking about, and claims that this is completed and fulfilled. This cannot be proven to exist and is taken entirely on faith.
2- Imparted righteousness – The actual and real righteousness of Jesus is given to you in the form of the holy spirit sanctifying you and making you perfect in the practical and tangible sense ( to stand before a holy God) no longer needing yearly, continuing sacrifices. This is what 1John and Hebrews is is talking about. God cannot lie and call a sinning person sinless just because of what he professes as a belief system. This imparted righteousness, according Hebrews chapters 8 through 10, is what Judaism lacked in the sacrificial system, thus requiring continual sacrifices.This imparted righteousness is as much a part of being saved as imputed righteousness is, especially to John and Hebrews ( and Jesus in the gospel of John). Thus, the stern warnings found in 1John 2&3 and Hebrews 10:26 and 6:4. According to 1John, this imparted righteousness,”HE CANNOT SIN BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD” is the sign of a true Christian.
That being the New Testament definition, I have never met a “true Christian”.
This is very helpful! In light of what you wrote, here’s how I think a mature Christian would answer:
The combination of the imputed rigteousness and the struggle with the imparted righteousness makes a person clean and pure enough to stand before God and not be rejected by him. These are both ideas borrowed from the Torah. It’s all in the Torah – they just transfered everything in the Torah to Jesus. I might not be making myself clear.
Yes, Alan,
The difference is that Torah does acknowledge the struggle ( Ysrael= one who struggles with God and with man) and that is understood. Yes, we can all do it. But the truth is that we don’t all do it. God is not going burn someone in eternal hellfire because he is not 100% perfect. The whole point Hebrews is making is that this “struggle” , which requires a yearly sacrifice to cover your short-fallings, is where Judaism,Torah and the Mosaic Covenant fails. Read this carefully:
“The law ( Torah) is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would NO LONGER HAVE FELT GUILTY FOR THEIR SINS. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
The only ways a human can not feel guilty about their sin is to-
A- Abolish any standard of sin
B- Stop sinning
C- To be a sociopath.
So was Hebrews promising make people perfect and no longer needing a sacrifice or promising to create a religion of spiritual sociopaths who didn’t have to care if they sinned or not?
SIDE NOTE:Do Christians feel guilty for their sins? Paul, Kavi and any other Christian who comes here would say absolutely! So how has the Christian covenant resolved this dilemma that is considered a failing of Torah? IT HASN’T!
I read it carefully and it is saying that Hashem in the Torah was a sadistic liar when he said that the Temple offerings, especially Yom Kippur, atone. Thanks for being patient with me. I’m finally starting to see what you’re seeing in these passages – these are impossible claims of no more revolving door and yet admitting to a revolving door at the same time.
Eleazar,
The Book of Hebrews roots itself in the teaching of Tanakh in order to describe how G-d redeems mankind and makes them holy…
And like Apostle John and Apostle Paul, the Tanakh forms the basis for their writings as well– for example, in describing the completeness of the L-RD’s redemption based on Psalm 32 and other passages of Tanakh,
How blessed is the man to whom the L-RD does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit! [Psalm 32:2]
Anyone unafraid to read the Book of Hebrews for themselves might very well find a logical presentation of the good news of the L-RD’s complete salvation in L-RD Yeshua…on the other hand, maybe they won’t…but at least they will have read and made their own decision…
_______________________________
Kavi, imputed righteousness is not what is under discussion. But while you’re at it, explain why this Psalm says nothing about this imputed righteousness being the result of “believing in” a dead man or a human sacrifice.
Read my posts and you will see why imputed righteousness ( “justification” to use the Christian term) cannot be what is in view in Hebrews 10 or 1 John2 and 3.
Hi
I don’t feel guilty at all for my sins.
I’m profoundly and abundantly joyful that my sins have been forgiven.
Paul,
You don’t feel guilty about past sins, but do you ever feel guilty when G-d forbid you do?
Regarding the last post about Pol Pot, so you are saying even a monster like him was capable of being a part of the kingdom and it’s even possible (though highly unlikely) that we will see him there?
1John2:3 “8He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”
Paul Summers,
This says that he that commits sin is of the devil. And whoever is in Jesus cannot sin.
Do you believe that you, Paul Summers, cannot sin?
And if you know that you still sometimes sin, do you feel responsible for the sin or do you feel it has nothing to do with you?
“I don’t feel guilty at all for my sins.
I’m profoundly and abundantly joyful that my sins have been forgiven.”
Paul,
In Psalm 51 you can see how King David felt about his sins. He felt joy for being forgiven but at the same time the regret/guilty feeling never went away as long as he lived. This is the attitude of the true line of David to sin –
Psalms Chapter 51
5 For I know my transgressions; and my sin is always before me.
18 For You do not delight in sacrifice, else would I give it; You have no pleasure in burnt-offering.
19 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
20 Do good in Your favor to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem.
21 Then will You delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt-offering and whole offering;
then will they offer bullocks upon Your altar.
Alan,
In regards to Pol Pot, what are Orthodox Judaism’s teachings regarding true teshuvah and vile, murderous sin?
__________________________
Kavi,
“In regards to Pol Pot, what are Orthodox Judaism’s teachings regarding true teshuvah and vile, murderous sin?”
On the one hand, nothing can stand in the way of teshuva. On the other hand, the more severe a person’s sins are, the more difficult it becomes to do teshuva, even to the point of having the privilege of teshuva finally being taken away so there is no longer any possibility of doing teshuva. The effort it takes to successfully do teshuva increases in proportion to the weight of a person’s sins. In Christianity all one has to do to make it into the kingdom is to not be an atheist, to be made aware of the ‘good news’ and to believe that somebody else already paid the price for one’s sins.
Alan,
Since you quote from Apostle John, I thought it might be best to show you the parallel concepts rooted in Tanakh…
In Psalm 32, I think we find two ideas presented…
[a] The L-RD will not impute sin to certain men and women [Psalm 32:1-2 and the “seed” in 1 John 3:9]
[b] Yet, David did sin after achieving that perfect state of righteousness and, as such, see how G-d deals with him until David confesses his sin to the L-RD to remove the “guilt” associated with that sin [Psalm 32:3-5 and 1 John 2:1]
We know that mankind has a body and Nephesh– and it would appear that when first created, the L-RD imparted His Holy Spirit as well into mankind’s Nephesh.
Does it seem inconceivable to you that the L-RD can make holy again the Nephesh [which is eternal] while not cleanse body [which is temporal]?
______________________________
“Alan,
Since you quote from Apostle John, I thought it might be best to show you the parallel concepts rooted in Tanakh…
In Psalm 32, I think we find two ideas presented…
[a] The L-RD will not impute sin to certain men and women [Psalm 32:1-2 and the “seed” in 1 John 3:9]
[b] Yet, David did sin after achieving that perfect state of righteousness and, as such, see how G-d deals with him until David confesses his sin to the L-RD to remove the “guilt” associated with that sin [Psalm 32:3-5 and 1 John 2:1]
We know that mankind has a body and Nephesh– and it would appear that when first created, the L-RD imparted His Holy Spirit as well into mankind’s Nephesh.
Does it seem inconceivable to you that the L-RD can make holy again the Nephesh [which is eternal] while not cleanse body [which is temporal]?”
I read the above several times, and I’m not following. Also, there is no such thing as a “perfect state of righteousness” according to traditional Judaism. If one has flesh and blood, then sins and mistakes will happen.
When a Christian sins in front of his god, then he tells himself that the present sin and future sin and past sin has already been forgiven/atoned/cleared. Animal sacrifices were to take away guilt and Christian thinks that his god took away guilt from all years. This is not matter of sorrowful heart, this is celebration for the Christian.
Eleazar, your intimate knowledge of Christian scripture makes you a formidable opponent of Christianity. I find your arguments on this page unassailable. Good work!
Hi Alan
Postionly, once I was seperate from God, before my salvation but this, then, I of course never new. However looking from Gods perspective future, then, I was always predestined to be saved. That is something I never new of past. Romans ch 8 v29. Ephesians ch 1 v 5 and v11. However Im well aware of it now. So no guilt trip, just blessed thanks for His Grace.
Unless Pol Pot repented to the fact that he himself was a sinner and Christ Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for his sins, then no salvation for Mr Pott. Plus I think?? He was a Buddhist and definitely at communist. Communism is founded on atheism. So unless he repented on his political and religious stances prior, his eternal life is quite grim.
I think the passage that you are referring to is 1 John ch 3 vs 4-9??
These verses are contextually speaking about believers and non believers. ie, v 9 states “Who ever has been born of God does not sin” The text isnt saying who believes does not commit sin or have the sin nature. The next part states His seed remains in him. The His seed is Christ and the Gospel truth. The him cannot sin in the sense of becoming a unbeliever. The opening verses set the context, Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor know Him. So the sin is unbelief and unrighteousness, lawlessness.
If it meant what you think it means in the sense that John is referring to the absence of general sin in a believers life, then the whole message of the Gospel is flawed on the basis that sinners are irrelevant to Christs death, because how can a sinner get to know Christ if he has sin to start with??
Jesus very clearly stated that He had come to call sinners to repentance. Luke 5 32.
Once you repent the seed remains and the sin is no longer.
I dont disagree with your comments about David and his knowledge of his own faults and sin nature. However David was well aware of the inherited sin nature from his mother, and of course he understood how God could restore him. Personally I cannot advise completely about Davids feelings only my own, but you do get the sense from the text that Uriahs death troubled him, if it was this death that he was talking about. I dont see any repentance about the adultery though?
Hi Paul,
So if Pol Pot had admitted he was a sinner and Jesus died for his sins, he would be saved.
“9 Whoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God.”
So you are saying that “he cannot commit sin” and “he cannot sin” only mean that once he’s a believer he cannot be an unbeliever even though he can still commit sin? So once one is a believer, the sins are not really sins anymore simply because one is a believer?
You said you feel no guilt at all for your sins anymore – i assume you mean past sins. Do you ever feel any guilt for new sins?
Hi Alan
Not sure if you’ve had chance to read my last response.
The text that you quoted is referring to the sin of unbelief in contrast of belief. Its not talking about sin in a believer’s life. Again, contextually its the sin of unbelief.
And yes If pol pot has repented on his nature, and seen that Christ had died for his sins, and through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection he, pol pot had been forgiven, then yes, even a man as such would be saved. John 3 16.
Hi Paul,
Yes I read your last response. I just wanted to make sure you are saying that the impossible sinning was exclusively referring to disbelief. Can you please define this disbelief as well as repentance that is required to be saved?
Hi Alan
Sorry didn’t finish.
I personally don’t feel guilty for my present sins, but that’s not to say that I’m not aware of them. I would liken the feeling as more annoyed and frustrated. The feeling of being weak in the flesh.
2 Corinthian s CH 12 v9.
Paul,
The feeling of being annoyed by sins – does this mean you don’t feel personally responsible, that it’s not really your fault, it’s beyond your control and free will?
1 Corinthians 10 v13
Yes we are responsible for our personal sins. That’s the frustrating part. But because of weakness and lack of self will, we falter and sin.
Paul understood this completely. Rom CHs 6,7,8
2 Corinthian 12 v9
Paul,
So we have free will to choose good or bad. But with Christ there is no more punishment? (as in reward and punishment)
What does a person need to do (or think or say) in order to do the kind of repentance that is required to be saved?
Hi Alan
We do have the choice between good, bad. Non believers do not have the this choice. Non believers can only serve the flesh. Believers can serve either. That’s the issue which is a spiritual struggle.
There isn’t a special ordered prayer for salvation. One just needs to believe by faith, that Christ Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins.
Paul,
When you say that only believers can choose between good and evil –
1. Please define “believer”.
2. If the believer can choose to think, say and do evil, then – is the believer of the devil? And in what sense has Christ destroyed the works of the devil?
Hi Alan
At first I was under the impression that you were genuinely seeking some answers on theological doctrine. However I’m now under the impression that its a mere mocking quest that you seek. I’m afraid our discussions end here.
Paul,
I give you my word that I am not mocking. What did you see in my last comment that made you think that?
Paul Summers
So you are here to learn?! – Tell me – is Psalm 41 speaking of Jesus or not?
Paul writes: “At first I was under the impression that you were genuinely seeking some answers on theological doctrine. However I’m now under the impression that its a mere mocking quest that you seek. I’m afraid our discussions end here.”
This is a bit rich coming from someone who was kicked off this blog (and squirmed his way back in a most unethical manner) because he refused to engage and insisted on one-way preaching.
Paul, you are not hear to learn but to try to convert others to your way of thinking. Are you projecting your own motives onto others?
Alan,
I understand your line of questioning and it is perfectly reasonable…
Since Paul Summers will not address the questions you raise, I will…
[Note: …though first, I still would like to elaborate a bit more upon Psalm 32]
_____________
Apostle John says it is a liar if we say we did not sin or we do not sin.
Before holy God we will all fall short of His glory and holiness. Stand in front of the Torah, we will be found guilty in some area in some time of our lives.
My question is how we could be atoned for in this time of history when we dont have high priest, the temple, and animal sacrifices?
Gean, how were we atoned for between the first and second temple period when there were no sacrifices? Were the Jews in captivity damned because there was no temple? Tanakh has plenty of examples of people forgiven without sacrifices. Oh, and many of those sacrifices did not use animals or blood at all.
“Apostle John says it is a liar if we say we did not sin or we do not sin.”
Yes he does, and then in the same paragraph goes on to say that Christians do not sin and will live just like Jesus! Here is the text you referenced:
1John 1:8-10 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
There you have it! Seems plain enough. This is Paul’s, Gean’s and Kavi’s argument in clear terms. But wait.Let’s move ahead a couple of sentences:
“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He ( Jesus) walked.
The first paragraph gives you the “revolving door” of sin/condemnation and repentance/salvation. The second says the Christian will walk JUST as Jesus walked, and will keep the commandments! And a few later:
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”
So then. Part of 1John says if we claim to be without sin we are liars, so you have a permanent defense attorney between man and God, Jesus, to get you pardoned. But then just a few sentences later it says that if you do sin you DO NOT EVEN KNOW JESUS, and that if you are a Christian your walk will be JUST like that of Jesus!. Finally, it goes even further to say that if you are a Christian you are not even ABLE to sin because you are “born of God” and His seed remains in you!
Let’s boil it down to only three sentences for simplicity:
1- If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”
2-The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
If you believe you don’t sin, you’re a liar, but if you DO sin you’re also a liar, and not even a Christian!
Is this the “revolving door” again? Or is there a way to make perfect sense of the entire book of 1John? And Hebrews, for that matter.
Yes there is, and I will explain after Shabbos!
eleazar, have you seen Jimmy swaggarts apology on you tube? he is teary eyed and begging his god for forgiveness. Here is my confusion:
why would he show feelings of guilt when his god already cleared him of past, present and future crimes?
WHen swaggart went around converting non-believers , he may have told them about lust, lying , hate while at same time , in his heart, knowing that all his lust had already been forgiven/cleared/atoned.
So why teary eyed with guilty face ? isn’t the sacrifice meant to bring happiness to christian ? Don’t they celebrate that someone else was “sacrificed” because of their crime?
The explanation of 1John is that when he says “if we say are without sin we are liars, and make God a liar” he is speaking of our past or even present struggle of a person who is not fully converted. He says “I write these words to you so that you WILL NOT SIN.”
The other text, which says “He cannot sin because God’s seed remains in him” speaks exactly to the same thing Hebrews does, which is the indwelling spirit of God changing you from a sinner to a person who does not, and cannot, because God himself cannot sin, and therefore the person in whom His seed lives also does not sin. This speaks to a converted Christian, not just one who professes.
This is half, at least, of what the gospel IS! In fact, John says plainly, “No one who abides in Him sins…The SON OF GOD APPEARED FOR THIS PURPOSE, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”
THIS IS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT!
NOW, please note this is speaking DIRECTLY to the fallen human nature! UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE DEVIL CAN LITERALLY MAKE YOU SIN, it has to be talking about the Garden of Eden and Adam/Eve! John said this work of the devil is “from the beginning”. It is saying Jesus’ entire point of coming was to destroy the works of the devil as seen in effects of the fall in the garden and on from there! People would stop sinning because they would go back to a pre-fallen condition where God’s spirit abides within and changes your spiritual (and dare I say, physical since it was part of the fall according to Christianity) DNA from that of a sinner to that of a person who CANNOT SIN.
IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD BE THE MOST ASTOUNDING EVENT IN HISTORY! DID IT HAPPEN?
Paul Summers, Gean and Kavi. Did Jesus destroy the works of the devil or not? You all admit to sinning. Are you then of the devil? Yes or no? And there is NOTHING about the 2nd coming in John’s words! They are ALL PRESENT TENSE and intended for his current audience.
Hi,
Yes Jesus did destroy the works of the devil. Through His Death and resurrection. The full revelation of this is seen through the resurrection of the saint into a glorified body at the resurrection.
Not sure what you mean about the 2nd coming in this discussion?
Because the resurrection you speak of, the one where you claim you finally stop sinning and everything the messiah is supposed to do actually happens, takes pace at the 2nd coming.
Nothing in John or Hebrews says ANYTHING about the resurrection being when Christians finally stop sinning. John says you stop sinning because you abide in God and God’s seed abides in you. NOTHING about glorified bodies or human resurrections. It is ALL present tense and were teachings directed to , and relevant to, the people at that time. Both books clearly say a Christians does not sin because God’s seed/spirit lives in him. Nothing about a glorified body.
If you’re going to comment, please say something substantial and refute my points and interpretation with your scripture. If you want to pit Paul against Hebrews, John and Jesus, then go for it. But then you have to find a harmony between them all if you believe the NT is inerrant and infallible. Just saying “you’re wrong, it happens this way” does nothing to clarify or harmonize the textual teaching. BTW- Your argument is with Jesus, John and the writer of Hebrews, not with me.
But frankly, you obviously are either not reading my posts or are ignoring what the text actually says, else you would have a more substantial response.
Eleazar, you are correct. Paul has not addressed the contradiction at all.
Hi Eleazar
Sorry for the delay.
Firstly I think it only right to correct you on the points that you have made.
No where did I say or the NT teach that sinlessness comes for Church saints at the 2nd coming of the Messiah. That’s you incorrect reading of anything said by me in regard to scripture. If you can find such teaching I would much appreciate the blogs to support such views.
The 2nd coming of Messiah and resurrection of Church saints are 2 completely different actions which take place at 2 completely different moments in time. This is why I asked you why you mentioned the event. It seemed confusing then, but know I see you have a misplaced preconceived idea on the texts. Something which is proven by your comments.
Secondly I’ve already pointed out that the seed that remains is the gospel message converting one to a spiritual life, which as you have stated, its in the present state. I’ve also pointed out that believers still have the sin nature and the capacity to sin while being believers.
2 Timothy 3 16 teaches that by the Power of Him, The Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are for teaching, rebuking those who believe in God. You find it easy to find “fault”!?! In the texts. There is no fault, you just lack a foundation of Him to work on. Faith in Him, a Spiritual rebirth.
I’m not sure if my points are substantial enough for you?
i have a question for you paul.
there is a christian apologist called james white who thinks that not only was jesus sacrificed but did the act of sacrificing himself in some unknown way. roman deeds are stained with sin and your god needs “sinless deeds” to appease himself, then it is only logical that your god was NAILING himself in some unknown way. roman ACTS cannot transfer sins. roman nailing cannot appease your god. so do you agree that jesus NAILEd himself in some unknown way?
Hello
The NT very clearly describes very clearly how, when, by whom, and why He was crucified.
Any other apparent reasons are to be ignored in its entirety.
but james white would argue that human acts cannot punish jesus for past, present and future sins in ALL years. unless you believe the father inflated pagan power and divinized it .
Hi
To be honest you’re argument is based on a thought of some one, not scripture, then pre assuming that argument to be valid.
Now you are focusing on his ideas to justify your stance. This will go no where!!
So you believe the extremely complex holy sacrificial system reserved for an anointed priest “foreshadowed” a simple and commonly used execution by a pagan procurator?
Hi
Its the death and the shedding of blood that’s the issue and How God had chosen such.
Its by His stripes we are healed. Not by the bronze laver.
Is a 53.5.
Jer 31v33.
“The 2nd coming of Messiah and resurrection of Church saints are 2 completely different actions which take place at 2 completely different moments in time. ”
That is one of several views. But from here out I will refrain from saying “2nd coming” on this topic and instead say “resurrection”. It changes nothing, of course. Either way you disagree with the plain meaning of the text. The indwelling spirit of God spoken of in these texts is not “the gospel message”. It is the indwelling of the holy spirit.
“2 Timothy 3 16 teaches that by the Power of Him, The Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are for teaching, rebuking those who believe in God.”
I’ll address this after I get home from work. But in short, its a reach.
Hi,
Yes its the Holy Spirit that indwells all believers from the beginning. The Gospel message is the mode, by the Spirit the means.
The Holy Spirit, being God cannot sin.
1 Corinthians 12. v 13
Is 43.v15
Hello YPF
Just for the record I’m learning here all the time. Trust me what I’ve learned over the last few years is priceless.
Thankyou
Psalm 41 has been exhausted by both parties, mine and I’m sure yours hasn’t changed?
If you have anything else to add that wasn’t spoken of previously I would be more than happy to hear your views.
In anticipation
X
Paul Summers Yes or no – is Psalm 41 speaking about Jesus?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello YFP
For, probably the 4-5th time, I’m sure I’ve said so, the answer is No.
The psalm is quoted by Jesus because there’s a line in the psalm that talks about a ” friend” betraying a friend.
There’s nothing in the psalm that speaks about the whole psalm being the Messiah, v 2 is a good indication also.
I hope this finally clears this matter up.
Thankyou.
Paul Summers So how you would you describe someone who quotes one verse out of this Psalm and claims that it is “proof” to the alleged Messiah-ship of Jesus because he “fulfilled” the prophet’s word?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
PS
How can one just say “it changes nothing” I’ve just clearing shown your knowledge of scripture to be doubted on a great and central issue to, a, the debate in question, and b, Theology teaching as per scripture.
And you say that you can show no harmony and inconsistent texts in the NT. You are joking, right??
Hello Dina, its been a while.
First point is that I wasn’t kicked off this blog for preaching, I was removed for not accepting non believers views on scripture. Basically I was told not to have my own view. Views, which incidentally, I can could show from the Scriptures.
Secondly I didn’t “squirm” myself back onto the site. I connected to the site via an email that I received. I inputted a response to a blog, and at my surprise the response was posted.
I didn’t ask IF I could return, nor did I promise to bend and become a YES man for your gratification.
So the word squirm that you use is inaccurate and a disproportionate to the truth. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
Hello Alan
OK, on reflection, and on your response, I will endeavor to try and answer your questions.
1. Define a believer.
A believer is any person from the period of Acts CH 2, until the rapture ( we are talking only church period for know) who has believed that Christ Jesus died on the cross to penalty for ones sins. That through His, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection they have been forgiven and redeemed to the God of Israel, through His Son.
Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Paul, thanks for reconsidering. I assumed you have seen me commenting here for several months now and therefore you already knew where I’m coming from. If you haven’t just let me know and I’ll catch you up.
When you say that only believers in Jesus have the power to choose good over evil, you are only referring to believers who lived during a short period of time at the beginning of Christianity?
You must mean that a believer is someone who believes that the death, burial and resurrection save them from being eternally cursed and bring them to eternal life and this includes people who lived during the lifetime of Jesus until today. Does this mean that people who lived before Jesus were unable to do good? Does it mean that a non-believer is unable to do good? But this contradicts what we see in real life every day. And it also contradicts Tanakh which shows that God expected people to act morally – both Jews and non-Jews – before and after the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai.
Brother Alan, Please forgive the church for not presenting the teachings of the NT accurately. To those who believed in Yeshua himself, Yeshua directed their faith to the word of God (John 8:31 the core message of the Gospel is that the word of Yeshua is the word of God, not that Yeshua is God )! The NT gives ample evidence that the people of pre-Yeshua time did good and obeyed the word of God and entered the eternal life: Abel, Noah, Abraham Isaac Jacov, Solomon, David…. …. … … … So many… queen Sheba, Ninevites,… The parents of John the Baptist, Shimeon of Luke 2:25 and many many more!!!
True believer means, according to the NT, is someone who hears and obey the word of God revealed through consciences, the Torah and Tanackh, and Yeshua.
Thank you brother GGJ. If someone believes in the Torah, keeps the commandments, tries to be a moral and ethical person for the sake of God, but doesn’t accept the NT, is this person a true believer according to NT?
Sorry, GGJ, my question wasn’t good. Obviously, such a person is not a true believer according to NT. What I should have asked you was: is such a person able to do good? And if they are able to do good, are they able to be good?
I think the Messianic Pharisee Paul honestly shared “he wanted to do good – actually he kept the Torah and all the commandments- but did evil that he wanted not to do” Romans 7:20-25
I am so sleepy now and will come back tomorrow
GGJ,
Are you saying that pre-Jesus, a person was able to do good and be good, but after Jesus, a person is unable to do good and be good without Jesus?
Brother Alan, It does not matter whether pre or after , i guess Mankind always have been struggling to overcome sin; We are Absolutely Able to do good and to be good to keep the commandments of God. However many of us often fail. Enoch, Noah, Job, and a few people might be exception.
I often think of the reason why people easily fall into sin. It is not because of original sin but because of 😱 fear of sin. We all know what God has said to Cain: “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”
Sin is portrayed like a beast!
Satan was working in the midst of serpent! Why Adam and eve forgot Genesis 1:27, 28? The authority and mandate to master and rule over those beasts?
We must master the sin and rule over it without fear of being overcome by it and being condemned by God.
If we keep the Torah out of fear of punishment, we will find ourselves often in our defeat; However, if we keep the Torah out of fear of God who showed the everlasting love and forgiveness for us on the cross, we will overcome and rule over the sin the beast!
That is why kids get up more early on the picnic day than on the regular school days even though they know they have to get up more early on the school days! 🙂
GGJ,
Everything you wrote sounds 100% correct except for one thing: “However, if we keep the Torah out of fear of God who showed the everlasting love and forgiveness for us on the cross, we will overcome and rule over the sin the beast!”
This is completely unnecessary. We could do it before the Cross and we can do it after the Cross with the same tools we had before the Cross. We all can do it – just us and Hashem with no other god or force or intermediary.
Brother, if you were living in Jerusalem in the time of Yeshua, when the temple sacrifice was still effective, would you have used the same tool (you mean repentance?) Or tried to follow the Torah for the atonement?
Before C.E.70, when the temple was destroyed, God did nothing? Prepared no alternative for His covenant people? Or just wiped out the temple without preparing the hearts of His people?
Why God tore the temple curtain when Yeshua died on the cross?
GGJ,
I hope I would have been among the Jews who did not take the easy way out and believe in a false prophet and false messiah.
Where are you getting this torn curtain story from? Tanakh? Mishnah? Talmud?
Brother, personally i believe the ancient record of your Jewish ancestor (if you were a Jew) is true. At least four people recorded it called Gospels.
False prophet means to me that someone declare something in the name of Hashem and it does not come true. What words of Yeshua did not come true?
The Torah says a false prophet is not just one who says something in the name of Hashem that doesn’t come to pass. It’s also one who says he’s a prophet and starts a new religion, makes people serve someone or something other than Hashem or changes the halachic system.
What words of Yeshua didn’t come true? He told the followers of his generation that they would live to see the final redemption of the Jewish people.
Brother Alan. In what terms Yeshua started a “NEW” religion? He just RENEWED the covenant that was being shattered by the failure of the people of God. Yeshua did not say “pour out the water jar for Jewish purification and i will make a new wine in the empty jar” No. He transformed the water into 🍷 wine.
When did Yeshua command to serve or -worship himself or other God?
Are you saying that some will live to see the coming of the kingdom of God?
Whatever he said in NT he led thousands of people to worship him, if he didn’t say it directly he put a huge stumbling block in front of unlearned people who stumbled in it.
He told people of his generation that they are the generation of redemption and they would live to see it.
I thank you for taking simultaneously time to teach me and correct me in this conversation. Could you please quot NT passage or verse you want to argue with?
GGJ,
Someone else on this blog will have to give you the source in the NT as I don’t know it off hand. I’m sorry.
GGJ,
I think these are the sources:
Matthew 24:34
Luke 21:32
Gean, the following excerpt from one of my responses to CP is relevant to this conversation.
Jesus Was a False Prophet
This is much more serious than false messiah. If you claim to be the messiah, nobody would care. If you die without completing the task, you’ll be proved false. But so what? False prophet is worse, because anyone who speaks in God’s name words that he did not speak is liable to receive the death penalty.
In Deuteronomy 18, Moses tells the people that a prophet who speaks falsely must be put to death. But, he tells them, you might well ask, how will we know? And this is how he teaches us to figure out: if the prophet gives a sign that doesn’t come to pass. In other words, we’re supposed to test the prophet by asking for a sign.
But what happens when the Pharisees ask for a sign, according to the gospels? Jesus gets angry at them! Still, he reluctantly and grudgingly promises them the sign of Jonah. But he does not appear to them on the third day after his death. He allegedly appears in resurrected form only to his most devoted followers, and they don’t say a word until he’s been gone for fifty days!
Jesus promised his followers that before they died he would come on the clouds to gather his elect. They died. He never came.
Jesus predicted that the Temple and all of its buildings would be so thoroughly eradicated, not one stone would be left standing on the other. The Western Wall remains. The remains of the other buildings still stand.
Some prophet, huh?
But it gets worse. In Deuteronomy 13, we are taught that if a prophet performs miracles but teaches a new type of worship, he is a false prophet. This is why Jews are not impressed by Jesus’s supposed miracles. He taught avodah zarah.
What is avodah zarah? It means foreign worship. The Torah defines avodah zarah in three ways:
1) a type of worship unknown to us and/or to our fathers (Deuteronomy 13:7, 29:25; 32:17).
2) worship of any entity other than God (Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 43:11).
3) any type of worship not taught to us at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 4).
Jesus taught, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and on one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).
This is a type of worship that was unknown to us and to our fathers and is also a type of worship that was not taught at Sinai. For those who believe that Jesus is also God, it is worship of an entity other than God. Therefore, it is avodah zarah, foreign worship.
This teaching, which explicitly states that you need a man to get to God, contradicts the Torah. It also contradicts the explicit teaching that God is close to all who call to him with sincerity (Psalm 145:18).
Jesus taught about himself “I am the first and I am the last,” a description reserved only for God (Isaiah 44:6).
John, Chapter 1, teaches that Jesus is the word of God made flesh, also a foreign concept.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (NIV: 1-5, 14).
This is such obvious avodah zarah, it turns my stomach.
Jesus gave signs that did not come to pass and taught avodah zarah. Thus, he failed both prophet tests.
Thank you and yashar ko’ach, Dina!
I guess Yeshua divided the whole dispensation of humanity into 3 generations: generation Before the judement of Noah’ s flood, generation between Noah’ s family and the judgement of the Messiah’ s second coming and the generation after the judgement into eternal kingdom of God.
The fig tree represent Israel. “When it becomes soft and bears leaves” means Ezekiel 36:26 the softening of the hearts of his people toward Gospel, which was once hardened by God’ s providence. The Summer (קיץ= end קץ) is near. The modern phenomenon of the Messianic movement and the growth of orthodox Judaism indicates the end of this world is coming near.
Paul Summers I was the one who kicked you off the blog – I kicked you off because you demonstrated that you don’t have the ability to concede even the most obvious flaw in your position – can you or can you not answer the question is Psalm 41 speaking of Jesus? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul, this is a blatant, outright lie:
“First point is that I wasn’t kicked off this blog for preaching, I was removed for not accepting non believers views on scripture. Basically I was told not to have my own view.”
Show me where anyone told you that you have to accept our views and that you can’t have your own view or you will be kicked off this blog. You are shameless.
Having been kicked off, at least have the decency to ask for permission to come back, instead of trying it out and seeing that, voila! your comments got through.
Finally, does anyone else find the exclusive nature of both Christianity and Islam interesting? Christians call non-Christians “non-believers” or “unbelievers” and Muslims call non-Muslims “kafirs” or “infidels.” But Jews don’t have a pejorative word for non-Jews (at least not officially; of course there are some Jews who engage in nasty name calling and I condemn the act). Jews believe that gentiles can be righteous and have a relationship with God. Unlike both other world religions, Judaism does not believe it has a monopoly on God, morality, and righteousness. A much more humble view, don’t you agree?
Hi Dina
Not wanting to go and on reference my kicking off. But the fact of the matter was clearly as I stated. I can’t repent to a issue that
I don’t believe in. The wording was very clear at the time. If it can be found, and I’m found to be wrong I would gladly apologize for the previous statement.
Also the reason I use the term believer and non believer is a simply matter of term of reference. To use the term Christian is often seen as a gentile only believer. To use Jew is often seen as Orthodox Jew who follows Judaism. This is one of the reasons that the “Church” has unfortunately separated it self from its roots, which has caused so much ignorance, which in turn has caused so much bloodshed. Because the average person can’t see that Jews can be believers in Christ Jesus. I thought you of all people could see this, especially with the enormous time I’ve spent engaging you on this very topic.
1 Corinthians 12 v13.
Hi Gean,
Good day.Allow me to give my humble answer to your questions above.
“Brother Alan. In what terms Yeshua started a “NEW” religion? He just RENEWED the covenant that was being shattered by the failure of the people of God. Yeshua did not say “pour out the water jar for Jewish purification and i will make a new wine in the empty jar” No. He transformed the water into wine”
Did Jesus started a new religion?
In order to answer that question , you need to read the Jewish Bible without the “Jesus lenses”. Read it as how a Jew would have read it . Put yourself in the shoes of a Jew. Then compare the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures to the Gospels. Did Jesus conduct his ministry within the religious framework of his day i.e Jewish halacha ?
1. He spoke with authority that set him apart from scribes (Mark 1:22, 27: Matt 8:9, Luke 7.8)
2. Jesus reconfigured divine commandments based on his own authority (Matt 5:21, 27,33,38,43)
3. In one instance he claimed authority to transcend the Sabbath since the Son of Man was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28)
“Taken from “How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman” (page 59)”
Point (1) is debatable . There are stories of individuals within other religious traditions that goes against religious authorities in their day. Martin Luther among them.
Rabbi Skobac had gone through point (2) and some are consistent with the Torah teachings , with certain exceptions especially with regards to the teaching on divorce (which has been extensively discussed in this blog )
If Jesus was a religious rebel , then point (3) to me is way across the line, as what he was advocating is tantamount to disrespecting the main “tenet” of Judaism . Compare this to to Leviticus 31:12-14:
12The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13″But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 14’Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.…
Here’s another point ,from my own observation :
John 6:53-55
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
Compare this to Leviticus Chapter 17: 10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood”
Did he come to start a new religion ?I am most certain it is a yes.
When did Yeshua command to serve or -worship himself or other God?
It was and still is difficult for me to come to terms on the fact that Jesus command to serve or worship him.Many liberal scholars are of the view that Jesus did not see himself as one -that the NT authors put words in his mouth-and I believed that for a long time.
Rabbi Blumenthal pointed out in one of his videos that the real messiah doesn’t divert attention to himself .With that in mind let’s compare two sets of prayers ,one by Elijah (Elijah and the prophets of Baal) the prophet and the other by Jesus (the resurrection of Lazarus)
1 Kings 18:36-37
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
John 11:41-42
41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the [k]people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”
I rest my case.
You may find works of Christian scholars helpful for proofs that Jesus has always thought himself as God (like the book I quoted above or by written by Lee Strobel ) as well as videos by Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacaharias ,Nabeel Qureshi ,James White etc.
Thank you
Sharon,
This is fantastic! I am in awe. Thank you so very much!
Brother Sharon. I thank you for your comments with me and i admire your humbleness.
★I decided to put myself in the shoes of a Jew because that is what the New Testament commands!
1.Yeshua, “if you put a New cloth (NT theology or gentile Christian lens) on the Old garment (תנ”ך) it pulls the cloth and make a hole!” Matthew 9:16
Yeshua meant put the Old cloth (Jewish lens) on the new garment (Gospels)!
2. Paul, “All Scripture (which means תנך) is God- breathed and useful for teaching (Christian doctrine)” 2Timothy 3:16. Paul meant if any Christian teaching or doctrine is not consistent with the Old Testament, it is no useful rather harmful!
★When God said about Shabbat, He said “this is a sign אות between me and you”
אות
also means LETTER
The First letter א
The last letter ת
Yeshua is the WORD (Letter) of God made in flesh (John1:14) and also the Alpha ( the First Letter of Greek) and Omega (the last letter) = אות
★Did any follower of Yeshua for the past 2000 years eat the real flesh or drink the blood of him?
“Whoever eats the flesh and drinks my blood REMAINS in Me and I in THEM”
This means anyone who keeps the word of God = flesh and blood of Yeshua (John 1:14) be united with Yeshua. When the Jews believed in Yeshua himself, He diverted the attention; ” if you REMAIN in my Word, you become my disciple, Know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John8:31, 32) In the whole Gospel of John, the prologue of LOGOS theology(John 1:1~18) is permeated in the every verse of the John’s Gospel.
★can you find any NT verse that proves Yeshua always thought himself as God?
Thanks brother
brother gean , clearly paul thought of jesus as distinct being from god. paul did not believe jesus was yhwh. check out this current discussion
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2588&sid=b0fb565f9d6397b8eb5e4eb5fc834720#p71701
Gene
“False prophet means to me that someone declare something in the name of Hashem and it does not come true.”
This is a false prophecy:
False prophet means to me that someone declare something in the name of Hashem and it does not come true.
Another:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
What about the western wall?
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus showed himself only to his disciples, he gave them the “sign of Jonah” and never showed up to them…
Hi Gean,
You are a very courteous person. By the way ,its more appropriate to address me as “sister” Sharon.
“★When God said about Shabbat, He said “this is a sign אות between me and you”
אות
also means LETTER
The First letter א
The last letter ת
Yeshua is the WORD (Letter) of God made in flesh (John1:14) and also the Alpha ( the First Letter of Greek) and Omega (the last letter) = אות”
You stated earlier” I decided to put myself in the shoes of a Jew because that is what the New Testament commands!” , and again “Yeshua meant put the Old cloth (Jewish lens) on the new garment (Gospels)!” .
Forgive if I’m wrong , but it seems that you are benchmarking the Gospels /NT as the words of truth and view the Jewish Bible as a means to corroborate or confirm the NT message.
The Jewish lens or worldview is based on the Torah , the benchmark is the Torah .
“Did any follower of Yeshua for the past 2000 years eat the real flesh or drink the blood of him?”
Yes , if you include Catholicism as a legitimate Christian sect .I come from a Catholic background . Catholics believe that the bread and wine in Mass is transformed to the literal body and blood of Christ. This is called the Doctrine of Transubstantiation .Refer Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
“can you find any NT verse that proves Yeshua always thought himself as God?”
1. Jesus called out the 12 apostles, but he is not among them -Matthew 10:2,Luke 6:13 -16 -in the fashion of how God formed His people by setting up the 12 tribes of Israel.
2. “The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” -Mark 2:27-28,Matthew 12:8,Luke 6:5
3. Jesus’s repeated references to himself as the “Son of Man” –reference to Daniel 7
4. Jesus forgives and heals a paralyzed man –Mark 2:5-7,Matthew 5:20-21 –
Only G-d can forgive sins.
5. Demons declaring that Jesus is the “Son of the Most High God”-Mark 5:6,
Luke 4:34,41
6. Simon Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the “Messiah, the Son of the Living God”-Matthew 16:17-18,Luke 9-20
7. ‘No one knows the Son except the Father , and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew 11:27)
8. ‘Come to me , all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me , for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30)
This is not an exhaustive list . You may refer to video links below for further details.
Do take note that videos (1) and (2) are as a response to muslim polemics, which are similar and I hope can answer your question.
1.Summary of the Deity of Christ in Mark by James White
2. Where Did Jesus Say “I Am God, Worship Me”? (David Wood)
3. Did Jesus Really Claim to be God?#Apologetics
https://youtu.be/gWDdy0k8WNA
Thank you.
Sister Sharon! I’m sorry for calling you brother.
I still don’t see Yeshua’s acclamation of his being God in any N.T. verses. When i am troubled with those references you’ve listed, i put “word of God” in place of Yeshua himself.
Take care sister.
Hello Alan
My time is running out, so bare with me. Firstly the best way to tackle this is to get some basic foundations laid. The first one is the word CHURCH. To define this word we need to see what exactly the church is, and what is meant by the word. I’m starting with this because there are a lot of confused people out there, who with no real fault of there own, are getting confused with Gods overall plan, which is broken down, through history by different dispensations of His salvation plan. To add to that we also see different covenants. Covenants made at different times to different people.
I’m digressing already!!!
Q 1.The Church, what is the church?
A. 1 Colossians v18.
Q2. What is the Church comprised of?
A2. 2 Ephesians v11_16 with Eph CH 3 v6 making a very important point!!
Q 3.How does one gain entry into this body?
A4. 1 Corinthians CH 12 v13.
Acts CH 1. V5
Acts CH 11 v 15_16
Acts CH 2.
Q4 When did the church begin?
A1. Acts CH 2.
Other texts to note;
Acts CH 15 v 14
Romans CH 11 v 11_15 and 17_24/ 25_27
John CH 4 v22
Matthew CH 16 v 18
Eph CH 1 v19_20 and CH 4 v 7_12
So I hope this has given you something to look at?
The reason I’ve done this, is to hopefully show what is meant by the word church, and who belongs and who doesn’t.
Thanks.
PS If there’s any typos please let me know ASAP.
Paul,
The bottom line is that one belongs to the Church if one believes in salvation from spiritual death through Jesus. And this is the definition of a believer. If I am wrong, please correct me.
And only a believer can choose between good and evil. Non-believers are incapable of good since everything they do is done for ulterior motives (i.e. it comes from their ego which is the flesh which is ruled by satan). Again, if I’ve misunderstood you please correct me.
1. The body of Messiah is the church. The flesh of Yeshua is made of the Logos the word of God (Tanach). The word Church- Ecclesia – means the “called out ones” The Ecclesiastes is the caller’s message to the called out ones (Israelites). Stephen called the ancient Israelites “Wilderness Church”(Acts7:38); When Yeshua said “i will build my church upon this rock, He meant, i believe, he will build church upon his ★CALLING★ of Shimeon into Petra. God’ s CALLING of Jews is Irrevocable!!( Romans 11:29)
2. Gentile Christians must be very careful in interpretating of Ephesians 2:11-16. We gentiles were not even considered as the recipients of the grace of the Jewish Messiah (Don’t forget when Yeshua said to the gentile woman “i was not sent to other place except to the lost house of ISRAEL… It is not right to take the children`s bread and toss it to their dogs.” (Matthew 15:24,26) Why most Christians ADD the doctrine- “FAITH IN” Christ in Ephesians 2:13 &15? The text says not that we became one new man by “our faith in” Christ; No! It says we became one new man in CHRIST!! In other words, we became One New Man in his faith, his obedience, and because of what ★he★ has done for us, not because of how ★we★ believed in him!
How dare you try to graft the roots into the gentile branch? You need to be humble because you were grafted into the root- the anointed ones of Israel.
Church began Acts CH.2 ?
All members were Jews and Jewish diaspora!! The pentecost is how the Spirit of God empowered the existing church, not the birth of church!!
Acts 2:39 says ” The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will ★CALL★”
“The Holy Spirit, being God cannot sin.”
Well, thanks for teaching me that! You think that when John wrote the following, he was talking about whether the holy spirit can sin or not?
The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ”
Not a single version of the Christian scriptures capitalizes “he” in “he cannot sin because he is born of God”. This bizarre doctrine is yours alone.
1Cor 12:13 “For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”
“1 Corinthians 12 does not even address sin. It is about unity as a Christian organization, by the spirit and by the gifts the spirit endows “believers’ with for the purpose of “building up the church”.
Isaiah43:15- I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.
Um, okay.
C’mon, admit it. You are making this up as you go and grabbing random verses.
Hello Alan
Just to clarify my point on good and evil.
Believer’s (Christian) who have baptized in Him, The Holy Spirit, can and do sin. They now have the ability to serve one or the other, or of course both, at times. They of course should only serve one, but the flesh being weak causes the conflict. This can be seen in Paul for example, reminding the church at Corinth not to do the things unfitting for a believer, and he writes about his own failings.
Non Christians, non believers can only serve the flesh, because there is no indwelling Holy Spirit.
But that’s not to say a non believer cant still do good deeds and be a moral person, of course they can. This morality of good should be in all humans, alas its not.
But the Bible is very clear that salvation is based on Gods grace through Faith plus nothing. At this point of Gods salvation plan we, the human race are in the dispensation of Grace, not the Law. So only faith in Christ and His works of the Death atonement, can one receive redemption. This act is NOT dependable on how good or bad one is, but based purely on the merit of Faith in Christ by Gods grace.
Hello Gean Guk jeon
When Jesus said ” I will build my Church” He was speaking in the future tense. He never said Im adding to it. The church didn’t even exist during the Gospel period. To have the Church as a functional body, one needed His death, burial, resurrection, Glorification, Ascension and the out pouring of The Holy Spirit, Spirit Baptism, which in turn gave Spiritual gifts.
Non of these were present pre Death. There is no mention of the Church in the Hebrew Tanach.
The problem with your view is that it gives root to replacement theology, which in turn nurtures the idea that ethnic Israel doesn’t have no part in Gods prophetic plan.
PS
The rock that Jesus spoke about was the confession of Peter,
‘That you are the living Son Of The Living God”
Its on that confession that the Church is established. A denial of His Deity is a lack of foundation, ie no faith.
Brother Paul, you are right, Yeshua said that He WOULD build his church in future tense. But i don’t think it teaches us that there was no church existing at all. Look carefully the word “BUILD”- “oikodomeou”= Oikos (house)+ doma (housetop). It is not “Laying the foundation and start building up a brand new house,” NO. IT is “ADDING and Renovating UPON the already existing house!” Yeshua would build up= edify= the already existing church = Jews, the called out ones of God of Israel, WHO IS THE ROCK! That is why the NT often use the word “oikodomeou” to mean “EDIFY”
For example, Acts 9:31 says that The “Already existing” church of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was built UP= edified= strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:20 “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building (oikodomeou) on someone else’s foundation.” –> Paul would build and start a brand new church or build and edify the already existing church by preaching the gospel ? the Latter!
If you oppose the replacement theology, I am very glad because it is not what the BIBLE says.
The Rock Yeshua spoke about was the JUDAISM, the Tanackh, and the Jewish People, all of these were possible and meaningful because of God’s irresistable and irrevocable CALLING and exclusive Revealation of Himself. Isn’t that why the soverign revelation of God toward peter’s confession is MORE EMPHASIZED in Mt.16:17?
Paul,
If a Christian can sin then what does that passage in the NT mean that says a Christian cannot sin?
If a non-believer can only serve the flesh (i.e. satan) then how is it possible they can also do good and be moral (i.e. be good)?
If it was possible before Jesus to get eternal life, why is it impossible post-Jesus without Jesus?
Alan, I think that Christian will say that the motives of the non-believers are never 100% right. That justifies them to say that even if they are doing good, their motive is still not right with G-d. The only problem is, nobody (even Christians) has 100% right motive all the times… If you go in that level (the heart), Christians are sinning all the times, and anybody that sin all the time is not saved.
Hi RT! I’m glad you’re still around!
GGJ is saying that post-Jesus, it’s impossible to do and be good without Jesus. Paul Summers disagrees and says that it is possible to do and be good post-Jesus without Jesus but paradoxically it’s not possible to choose good over evil because one can only serve the flesh without Jesus. You’re explanation of Paul Summers is that he would say that “good” depends on what one’s motive is. So one can do good and be ethical but in actuality be evil because it’s the flesh that is driving one to do good and be moral without Jesus. So how does Jesus change one’s motives from evil to good according to Christians? Also, this whole idea contradicts what we see in reality because even an atheist can do good and be moral for its own sake and not purely for egotistical reasons.
RT,
Also, according to Paul Summers a Christian who sins all the time will still be saved. He said this explicitly that being saved has nothing to do with being good or bad but only with faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.
” So one can do good and be ethical but in actuality be evil because it’s the flesh that is driving one to do good and be moral without Jesus.”
but it is the christian who says that one is born condemned from the get-go. man is SLAVE of sin. man is born in sin. so how does he know that it isn’t his nature/flesh which is driving him to do good?
MH,
I’d like to see an answer to your question from some Christians. GGJ says that pre-Jesus, people were able to be good and ethical – this seems to contradict the doctrine that from Adam onwards man is completely corrupted spiritually and physically. Both GGJ and PS say (please correct me if I misunderstood either of you) that post-Jesus, people are evil even if they appear to be good until they have accepted Jesus at which point they have been granted the new gift of free-will to choose between good and evil. Your question is how do they know that only by accepting Jesus does one get the free-will to do things from good motives? What is their definition of good motives? And why can’t a non-Christian also have these “good motives?
If a Christian can sin then what does that passage in the NT mean that says a Christian cannot sin?
If a non-believer can only serve the flesh (i.e. satan) then how is it possible they can also do good and be moral (i.e. be good)?
If it was possible before Jesus to get eternal life, why is it impossible post-Jesus without Jesus?
Hello Alan
I’ve just pasted your comment to help keep some continuity in the threads.
The sin nature in a non Christian is on its own, as it were. There is no regenerative side. Seeing as Satan corrupted man originally, and then by Imputation, sin is in man, the unbelieved can only serve that side of himself. This doesn’t mean that person is evil or demonic, it just means that they are serving the fallen flesh.
When I was in the condition of un belief, I could still recognize the difference between right and wrong, good or bad. We all have this ability, some more than others. Some will throw litter on the floor without a care, some would be horrified of doing such.
The sin nature that you commented on is the sin of unbelief. Its not talking about the ability to sin, because all do and can still sin in some degree.
Pre Christ is no different to now as far as Gods grace by faith in God is concerned.
Pre Law, One believed in the God of Creation. The God of Adam, Noah, Job etc.
Post Law its the same God. Still by Grace, through faith.
The Law never saved no one. Its was faith in God.
Today, Post Christ its still God, but the complete fullness of Gods Revelation is through His Son.
God was revealing His plan over time through the Hebrew texts. Christ came to do what was already written.
1 Colossians v 26
Paul Summers If Psalm 41 is not talking about Jesus as you affirmed then if someone quotes this Psalm in regard to Jesus and claims it as “fulfilled prophecy” – what would you say to this?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul,
“The sin nature in a non Christian is on its own, as it were.” Can you please explain what you mean by this? Because if it’s on its own, then why do emotionally healthy people have a good basic working moral compass? Many non-believers risk their own lives all the time to save other people and some are even willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. How are acts of sacrifice like this serving the flesh? And they would do it even if nobody would ever know about it, not even the person they rescued.
You are saying that when that passage says that a Christian cannot sin, it actually means “a Christian cannot do the sin of being a non-believer”? So the passage is saying, “a person who believes in Jesus cannot do the sin of not believing in Jesus”? I don’t get it.
Paul, will you please answer Rabbi B.’s question?
And why Christian do good with bad motive still?
Fact:
1) some Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? That would be hard to prove and most Christians would say that the motive is not always right.
1) some non-Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? Are their motive worst than Christians? This would be hard to prove…
Can we say that Christians do more good than other religions? If I compare Jews and Christians, which one does more good deeds with proper motives?
1) some Christian do bad things. I guess there motive is bad
2) Some Christians do good. Do they always have good motive? That would be hard to prove and most Christians would say that the motive is not always right.
Why the New testament show people being just without Jesus? Why was the HS on him without Jesus sacrifice and ascension?
And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Thanks RT!
I would like some Christians to tell us if they believe a person can only be good if they accept Jesus’s sacrifice and how they know that only through this sacrifice they acquire the free-will to be good. And most importantly, what is the difference between an act that looks good but is evil and one that is truly good?
What does the Non-testament say? “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
RT,
When Jesus says “apart from me you can do nothing” what does he mean by “nothing”? Obviously we see that non-believers can do all kinds of good things, for instance they can build hospitals that treat people of every faith and creed from all over the world for free without proselytizing them (e.g. Israeli hospitals). What does he mean by “nothing”?
Alan, it really depends of which kind of Christian you ask:
Catholic: The Catholic Church teaches that unbelievers can live a life of relative virtue without believing in God. Besides God’s grace being necessary to live the moral law perfectly and merit heaven.
Calvinist, on the other hand believe in the “Total Depravity” of Man. Total depravity (also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.
Commentaries on John 15:5
Those who abide not in “Christ”, though they may flourish for awhile in outward profession, yet come to nothing. The fire is the fittest place for withered branches; they are good for nothing else.
Following the metaphor of our “Lord”, it would be just as possible to do any good without him, as for a branch to live, thrive, and bring forth fruit, while cut off from that tree from which it not only derives its juices, but its very existence also.
Most would agree that non-Christians can do good, but that will not satisfy Jesus as he requires perfection and sinlesness (Of course, unless you accept him as a god).
Thanks RT.
So “you can do nothing without me” seems to really mean “without me, you and all of your accomplishments (even all the good you’ve done) will ultimately be destroyed and thrown in the trash (the fire)”. The Christian has the same struggle with good and evil as non-Christians – the Holy Spirit doesn’t take away the struggle and it doesn’t even appear to make the struggle easier than the struggle that faithful Jews are engaged in in their service of Hashem.
“any easier than the struggle with good and evil that faithful Jews are engaged in”
I should have written “any easier than the struggle with good and evil in which faithful Jews and B’nei Noach are engaged in their service of Hashem”.
“The fire is the fittest place for withered branches”
Still bother me to see so many Christian no caring if Jesus send 99% of the world in a lake of fire, and still think he is lovely! Creepy!
Hi RT
Sorry to add to your conversation. Just to say You said “a god”, scriptually thats “God”.
Isaiah ch 44 v 6.
Is anyone besides for me hearing Paul’s deafening silence regarding Rabbi. B.’s question?
Dina,
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt since it’s a very hard question. On the one hand, the psalm cannot be speaking about Jesus for at least one reason, i.e. the subject of the psalm admits he sinned. On the other hand, Jesus says in the NT that verse 9 (Christian bible) is a prophecy about himself. So how can one verse taken out of context be a prophecy about Jesus while the rest of the psalm is speaking about a person who sinned?
Psalm 41 is David himself speaking. Verse 5, the subject is David: “As for me, I said: ‘O LORD, be gracious unto me; heal my soul; for I have sinned against Thee.”
Verse 10 is still David speaking, still the same subject: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”
The “I/me” in verse 5 sinned. The “I/me” in verse 10 (verse 9 in the Christian bible) is the same “I/me” as in verse 5. But Jesus says the “I/me” in verse 10 is referring to himself. If the “I/me” in verse 10 is Jesus (as Jesus says it is), then the “I/me” in verse 5 is also Jesus. If the “I/me” in verse 5 is not Jesus, then the “I/me” in verse 10 is also not Jesus, but Jesus has already said verse 10 is him!
Alan, if Paul is a courageous truth seeker he will face up to the question and at least admit that he can’t answer it. Rabbi B. has been trying to get him to answer for years. He keeps ignoring. After all this time I am no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Paul had plenty of time to come up with an answer. He keeps ignoring it because he can’t answer it.
Dina,
Oh, I thought this was a new question. Never mind what I said.
You can be excused for thinking that because Paul hasn’t commented in a long time. Rabbi B. is picking up from last time and possibly the time before that! I think he even asked him this question before he had blocked him from commenting. I honestly don’t know how Paul got back on after being blocked. (You see, CP can get on because he wasn’t blocked, he was just asked to leave.)
Paul, scripturally, there is no difference between god and God. Jesus is not God, but a god. Unless you show clear evidence that G-d could change his mind and do the exact opposite of what he said he would not do (Deuteronomy 7)…
Isa 44:6 — “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
See there is not a second god speaking to a first G-d. There is no trinity and this is totally against the tenet of the Hebrew scriptures. All attempt to prove otherwise will show that you are a polytheist!
Hosea 11:9 – “I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; FOR I AM GOD AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury”… and other verses in Tanakh where He says He’s not a man.
Hello Alan
This is my third attempt to write. My phone decided to lose Internet connection, right at the very end of my writing and this morning my tablet just decided to turn its self off, in the middle of my response.
So here goes it!!!!!!!!!!
The sin nature in a non believer non Christian, can only operate on its own merit. Its unregenerate. It can only serve its self. As sin entered into the human experience via Adams fall, via satan, it can only serve the fallen condition. Spiritually it leaves God out of its function. God cannot function or have a relationship with sin.
The Believer, Christian now has the capacity to serve God, with the now regenerative part of his soul. The old part still exists, and they co reign next to each other. However you can only serve God in the Spirit, the part now reborn, the part that came to rebirth through faith by Grace, by the belief in the completed works of the blood atonement.
Christians still physically die, they still get ill, lose hair, joints ache, say and do the wrong things etc etc. This shows that the believer still retains the fallen sin nature.
Non believers, non Christians are not evil. The non believer isnt evil because they aren’t believers, they just have no faith. They have moral a compass, they of course no the difference between right and wrong. Some non believers will probally show more heart and discernment that a Christian. But salvation isnt based on works, its never ever ever been the mode. Its always always been by Gods Grace through faith in Him. That faith has in time gone from one dispensation to another. Now its still The God Of Israel but through the God Man Jesus, who is the full revelation of the Father.
The sin that you spoke about isnt the sin nature or the capacity to sin, its talking about the ability for a believer to be not a believer in Christ. A born again believer can never ever ever ever not be unborn or become a non believer. Once he has been regenerate through faith and the old part renewed it cant be undone. Its a once only experience that can never ever be repeated.
You can never have a un revelation of truth.
Paul,
I notice that we are talking about two concepts: serving God and salvation.
I think I know what you mean by salvation – that the soul isn’t destroyed but lives eternally in the kingdom of God.
But I don’t know what you mean by serving God. You say that only a true Christian can serve God and that it is impossible for a non-Christian to serve God. Can you please explain what serving God means? Please don’t tell me it only means to believe in Jesus because then all you are saying is that “only a Christian can be a Christian”. Is this what you mean when you say that only a Christian can serve God?
Hi Alan
I’ve just read this one.
First we can only serve God/Christ.
Salvation is our eternal inherited gift.
Christian is a word that unfortunately has many negative undertones. ( Bad and negative history) Its a word which of course means being a believer in Christ.
Jesus said I Am The Way, The Truth And the Life, no one comes to The Father except through me.
John 14 v6.
One can only serve God today through Christ. To do that,Him the Holy Spirit must indwell the person.
Paul,
When you say that only a true Christian can serve God, what does it mean to serve God? What is this service of God that you speak of? Can you please tell me how to serve God?
Hello Alan
I think the best answer I can give you at the moment is to walk accordingly to the New birth. Walking upright by presenting Christ to a fallen world. Be imitators of Christ.
Something that I should practice more.
Paul,
I understand the best you can say is that a person has to fake it until they make it but there’s no guarantee they’ll make it? You and everyone you know is at best a doubtful Christian. This seems to me a very very sad and depressing way to live. You deserve better. People deserve better just for being created in the image of God.
As per the New Testament, Jesus is the one that really saves you. Some would say that human are actually unable to chose Jesus. If one person has to judge if he is saved by his deeds (even if he is save by faith alone), that makes him goes to a path of despairs. Many are so extreme on their belief only for that reason. It really start with you are saved by faith, but once you are in, you realize quickly that you need the fruits… And of course, how many fruits do you need to show that you are really genuine? And then comes the fear of hell. You mustn’t be one of the tare… you mustn’t doubt Jesus. Now Alan, you understand why so many Christians are unwilling to even listen to you! Any doubts would show that you may not be a true Christian and deserving of hell! Why do you think so few even go to check the counter-missionary arguments. There is nothing logical about Christianity, it is a religions based on fear and reward. Just like the bad husband beating his wife! You better not leave Jesus, cause he will throw you in hell… Of course, it is all covered with a nice icing of “love”! Jesus L.O.V.E.S you,… and you better love him back…
RT,
I can’t even imagine how overwhelming the fear of hell and spiritual death must be for them, as well as the pain of going through life not having a solid self-identity, always thinking they are perhaps deceiving themselves that they are a real Christian. I can’t even imagine living with this level of self-doubt and constant fear of being destroyed.
What does this regenerate part use to have relationship with god? When christian is passing judgement on other christian like “he is an apostate” “he isn’t christ like”
“he never was christian”
is christian using his regenerate part to pass judgement or the part which is stained by original sin?
kavit, how do you know it is not your polluted and sinful nature which is telling you it is “righteous bloody offering” ? Do you talk to ghost which tells you otherwise? You have a problem kavit, it is possible that your sin nature is sending you a POWERFUL delusion. it is probably fooling you about your faith too. When you doubt the 3 triplets ( how can 1 thing exist AS 3 different things kavit?) , then is doubt in faith another delusion coming from degenerate nature or regenerate nature? Maybe doubt in 3 gods is good thing? Maybe doubt here is from another source?
Mr. Heathcliff,
Just to make sure we correctly identify terminology:
[] First, the words “sin nature” do not exist in the B’rit Chadashah/New Testament…
[] Second, the words “regenerate nature” do not exist in the BC/NT…
As such, look to Moses and the Prophets to understand sin and cleansing from sin… there is no other way…none whatsoever…
For myself, I have no inkling what you mean (or christians mean) by the words “sin nature” or “regenerate nature” outside of the teaching of Tanakh…
So, why do you think people sin?
How do you read Tanakh?
________________________
Alan,
The Messianic believes “service” to G-d is through the offering of righteous sacrifices–
But what does G-d consider a “righteous” sacrifice?
Traditional Judaism says one way and the Messianic says another…
To explore some of this difference, allow me to briefly relay my thoughts on Yom Kippur…
_________________________
Yom Kippur according to traditional Judaism:
[] A Jew who has properly repented of sin, prayed, and does mitzvah “hopes” that he/she is sealed into the Book of Life for 1-year…
[] However, what happens to these hopeful “righteous” ones if they sin 1-second after purportedly being “sealed”?
[] Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.
Conclusion: How can someone serve G-d righteously when they themselves are not righteous according to His Law?
_________________________
Yom Kippur to a Messianic…
[] L-RD Yeshua descended from Heaven to surrender up His sinless life on behalf of mankind– all in order to make an eternal Yom Kippur that stands forever.
[] To receive G-d’s cleansing salvation of the soul, a man/woman has Faith that Yeshua’s Yom Kippur atoning sacrifice satisfies G-d’s judgment against his/her sins.
[] Rooted in Tanakh, the L-RD cannot impute sin to those He made righteous by Faith in Him and His redemption as accomplished through His Messiah. [Psalm 32:2 and Habbakuk 2:4]
Conclusion: When an adopted child of G-d brings his/her righteous offerings of service to Him, how can He not accept those offerings since their soul has been made perfectly righteous according to the Law by Faith?
_______________________
Q: What then is a “righteous offering” to a Messianic?
A: Not all service or deeds done by a Messianic are “righteous” [not even supposedly “good” ones, for G-d looks upon the inward man]…only those that originate from the cleansed soul will be rewarded in the world to come…
The point?
[] For all whose souls are “dead” [not cleansed from sin]– no deed can ever be righteous in His sight– no matter how genuine or fervent or “good”…
[] For all whose souls are “alive” [cleansed from sin]– at least some deeds can and will be found righteous in His sight…
Happy is the man unto whom the L-RD counteth not iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile. [Psalm 32:2]
“I delight to do Thy will, O my G-d; Yea, Thy law is in my inmost parts.” [Psalm 40]
_________________________
Kavi,
What I hear you saying is that you think Hashem – the same one that shows up in the Hebrew scriptures – hates and rejects people’s turning from sin (teshuva) without the taking the life of a sinless living being, i.e. according to the Tanakh, teshuva doesn’t work, simply abandoning one’s evil thoughts and deeds and asking Hashem for forgiveness doesn’t save a person or nation from Hashem’s burning destructive hate. In order to escape Hashem’s hatred and destruction, Hashem requires a human sacrifice and for us to have faith that this human sacrifice will make Hashem stop threatening us with eternal destruction. Without the belief in this human sacrifice we are hated and doomed. You are also saying that according to Hashem in Tanakh, one cannot be righteous until one’s soul has been cleansed of sin through the killing of a living creature. Without taking a life as a sacrifice, one is not righteous and is slated for destruction by Hashem.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Kavi wrote:
“Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.”
Ezekiel says: “And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live” (18:21-22).
Something to think about, eh?
Alan,
In the continental U.S., we recently observed Memorial Day to remember the people who died while serving in the country’s armed forces…
Let me ask you– If someone you love goes into war and gives up his/her life to save the lives of the platoon, is that a “human sacrifice”?
_____________________________
“In the continental U.S., we recently observed Memorial Day to remember the people who died while serving in the country’s armed forces…
Let me ask you– If someone you love goes into war and gives up his/her life to save the lives of the platoon, is that a “human sacrifice”?”
This soldier sacrificed his life because he felt that the lives of his comrades were more important than his own life. How is this an analogy to what I wrote about how Hashem treats penitents in Tanakh?
Alan, I disagree. When a soldier risks his life to save others, he hopes he will come out of it alive. He doesn’t think his life is worth less. If he can get the job done without getting killed, no one will be happier about it than he.
Human sacrifice in religion is an entirely different matter for more reasons than I have time to elaborate on right now.
“Alan, I disagree. When a soldier risks his life to save others, he hopes he will come out of it alive. He doesn’t think his life is worth less. If he can get the job done without getting killed, no one will be happier about it than he.”
Dina, I agree with you. I just thought Kavi was talking about the specific type of sacrifice of the soldier falling on a grenade to save his comrades, for example.
Dina,
I said, “Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.”
…and you bring up Ezekiel??
Maybe you don’t understand what Ezekiel meant…
______________
So, I will repeat, “Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.”
______________
“So, I will repeat, “Moses never wrote that repentance, prayer, or mitzvah takes away sin…never.””
Kavi,
Deuteronomy ch. 30 – no killing of living beings required to reconcile with Hashem –
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
9 And the LORD thy God will make thee over-abundant in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good; for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers; 10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. {S} 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Kavi Of-course Moses wrote about it – Deuteronomy 30:1-10 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
And do you disagree with Ezekiel, Kavi?
Would you consider the possibility that YOU don’t understand what Ezekiel meant? Or do you buy the convenient lie of your so-called New Testament that the Jews don’t understand their own Scriptures?
Alan,
In Deuteronomy 30 we see written, “and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day.” and “…if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
The commands that Moses wrote did not include sacrifices?
_____________________
The commands did include sacrifices, but sacrifices do not apply in exile and in this passage the people are in exile, they do teshuva in exile and Hashem accepts their teshuva and has mercy and love and joy from them and saves them. The sacrifices come after the teshuva was accepted and after Hashem had mercy on them. This also shows there will be sacrifices after Moshiach comes, something you also don’t accept.
The commands that Moses wrote forbade human sacrifice.
Alan,
Your wrote…”What I hear you saying is that you think Hashem – the same one that shows up in the Hebrew scriptures – hates and rejects people’s turning from sin (teshuva) without the taking the life of a sinless living being”
No– What I am trying to say is that true teshuva is repenting from a false belief system [i.e., the one encapsulated in traditional Judaism’s concept of Yom Kippur]…to one that Moses and the Prophets attest to [i.e., a reliable, eternal Yom Kippur sacrifice].
The concept of sacrifice is important…which is why the Memorial Day analogy may help clarify the “why”– Because G-d loved mankind, He sent His Son into the war to give up His sinless life to rescue people from sin [John 3].
Doesn’t Tanakh teach G-d loves mankind and really hates sin?
_______________
BTW> I must go to work now…but the conceptual differences I wrote about regarding Yom Kippur are fundamental.
_______________
“No– What I am trying to say is that true teshuva is repenting from a false belief system [i.e., the one encapsulated in traditional Judaism’s concept of Yom Kippur]…to one that Moses and the Prophets attest to [i.e., a reliable, eternal Yom Kippur sacrifice].”
You’re saying that according to Tanakh, TRUE teshuva is repenting from false beliefs? That’s it?
Kavi Christianity is the belief system repudiated by the Torah and the prophets – 1000 times over read the article – “1000 Verses” 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavit, why are you likening your god to a soldier? your god had to do a RITUALISTIC human sacrifice to cool himself down. Without this opening of flesh and nailing of it, this god is very pissed. he created humans and then boxes himself with two choices.
Kill
Or get killed
either burn ppl in hell or allow adam to have children to spread sin and then come down and plan his own ritual killing because he is unable to forgive.
And here is the strange bit, if you don’t believe he came back to life, he will punish you in hell worse than he punished himself
Kavit, in the commands of Moses, where did Moses dream about ritually killing yhwh?
because god loved mankind? if he loved you so much why he left you will roman torture instrument ? Why he left you with human body which you have to eat and drink in your imagination? you have been left with a rotted copy /bloody go between just to have a chat with your god. I don’t tell children to cut neck of chicken before I chat with them, am I more friendly than your god kavit? I don’t tell human’s they are dirty, filthy, scum, “born in sin”
am I more friendly than your “god of love” ?
hey kavit, I thought people remember the way a person lived in Memorial Day, not the brutal way they died. Why are you carrying Roman instrument of torture and death?
Yes, god Jesus is love, and you better believe it, if not, is going to toast you well!
Alan,
You write,
“The commands did include sacrifices, but sacrifices do not apply in exile and in this passage the people are in exile, they do teshuva in exile and Hashem accepts their teshuva and has mercy and love and joy from them and saves them. The sacrifices come after the teshuva was accepted and after Hashem had mercy on them.”
Just a couple notes:
[] Where does Moses directly say anywhere that “Return to the L-rd” means repentance, prayer, and mitzvot? Nowhere…it is the Rabbis who commit a greatly flawed eisegesis in their misinterpretation.
[] And logically speaking, if repentance, prayer, and mitzvot replaced sacrifices– why did Moses waste so many, many words in the Torah about sacrificing living things at all?
Is the L-RD a man who changes His mind?
Does G-d speak without purpose?
Or, more truthfully, the Rabbi’s replaced G-d’s Word with their own human precepts. [per Isaiah 29:13]
So, no, Moses wrote of Shabbos, feasts, sacrifices, and Yom Kippur with purpose…to direct them toward the Kinsman Redeemer who would come to fulfill eternal redemption…
__________________
BTW> Ezekiel says bluntly that once the exiles return, they will be pass under the rod to be judged– and for those He finds rebellious, their end is most unpleasant. [Ezekiel 20]
As such, how then can one say that “teshuva” brings back the people from exile when,
[1] G-d says He is the One Who will bring the people back?
[2] G-d still finds Jews in rebellion to Him?
_____________________
“[] Where does Moses directly say anywhere that “Return to the L-rd” means repentance, prayer, and mitzvot? Nowhere…it is the Rabbis who commit a greatly flawed eisegesis in their misinterpretation.”
Read all of Deuteronomy 30 – Moses says directly in this chapter that “return/teshuva” means listening to His voice and listening to His commandments.
“[] And logically speaking, if repentance, prayer, and mitzvot replaced sacrifices– why did Moses waste so many, many words in the Torah about sacrificing living things at all?”
The sacrifices are counted among the 613 mitzvot so they can’t literally be replaced by any other mitzvot. When there is no Temple, the sacrifices are temporarily suspended. There are other mitzvot besides sacrifices that are also temporarily suspended until the 3rd Temple is built. Prayer is not equivalent to sacrifices, neither are teshuva and other mitzvot. They can’t literally replace sacrifices. Prayer is just the closest thing to sacrifices that we have until the 3rd Temple is built. And even when sacrifices will resume, we will still have the commandments to pray and do teshuva.
“BTW> Ezekiel says bluntly that once the exiles return, they will be pass under the rod to be judged– and for those He finds rebellious, their end is most unpleasant. [Ezekiel 20]”
Not 100% of the Jewish people have to repent in order for Hashem to bring the final redemption. This passage says that there will be some rebels who will be separated from those who are redeemed.
“As such, how then can one say that “teshuva” brings back the people from exile when,”
How can one say that teshuva “brings” the redemption? Hashem says so all over Tanakh! “Brings” in the sense of “catalyzes the redemption”, it makes us worthy of the redemption.
“[1] G-d says He is the One Who will bring the people back?”
Hashem tells us all over Tanakh, that He wants us to initiate the teshuva process and then He will finish it. He wants us to circumcise our hearts to the best of our ability and then He will help us do it and He will ultimately finish it on His own. This is all over Tanakh very explicitly.
[2] G-d still finds Jews in rebellion to Him?
As I said above, not 100% of the people have to be worthy of redemption in order for Hashem to bring the final redemption.
Kavi Moses says to return to the Lord according to all that he commanded us – he didn’t command us about sacrifices in exile – and no one said that anything replaces sacrifices in the sense that they become redundant – read “Contra Brown” 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello Alan
I’ll write this as a add on.
Some people claim that they were once Christians. Now by some chance, they say after reading the Bible again, they see there mistake and take up some other faith, and denounce Christianity.
Absolutely no way were those people ever born again believers in Christ Yeshua. They might have attended church, and was brought up in a christian home. However scriptually and postionley they were never baptised, spiritually in the body of the Messiah.
A. Jonh 1 ch 2 v19
B. I was personally brougt up in a church environment, but it wasn’t until I was in the world, sinning, at the age of 36 did I then see the truth about Christ.
Of course my experience proves nothing to you, we can only use the word of God as truth.
Paul,
If I’m understanding you right, that passage that says that a Christian does not and cannot sin only means “a Christian is not and cannot not be a Christian” or “he who believes in Jesus does not and cannot not believe in Jesus”. That’s what that passage means.
I am sure you have met people that would swear to God that they once believed in Jesus as much as you do. Are you saying that a person doesn’t have free-will to believe in Jesus, that even if a person wants to believe in Jesus it’s possible that God will not permit this person to do so or God might trick this person into thinking he believes but God is really refusing to let him believe?
Hi Alan
Not sure How you might think that??
I’m confused now.
Its not yes and no at the same time.
Of course every person has free will, to believe or not to believe. People are not saved by free will but by Faith. They exercise free will, as all can. But one can exercise that free will and refuse what they hear. A Calvinist would go one step further and say no faith required but Gods will only.
2 Peter CH 3 v8.
God doesn’t play tricks.
There are a lot of False Gospel messages out there, and receiving a counterfeit message is extremely common, especially within prosperity teaching, the Toronto blessing etc etc.
These are wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers who have come into the flock. Of course God is not within these “churches” only Satan.The god of this world.
2 Corinthians CH 4 v4
Mathew CH 7 v15.
I still don’t get it. You say that a true Christian can never stop being a true Christian. But we see people who were at one time as true a Christian as you are and yet are no longer. Since you are not a prophet and do not know what is going on in other people’s hearts, how can you be so sure that such people were never really true Christians when they swear they were and there are witnesses who will swear that they lived and behaved as true Christians? This would mean that there is no such thing as a person who has a status as an established true Christian because everyone is suspect of possibly being a fake.
Hi Alan, as per the new testament, you can only be a true Christian if you remain a Christian. This would be the predominant view. In my case, even if I prayed to Jesus and worshipped Jesus as God, the Holy Spirit never was on me, because the HS would never leave a true believer. So, I was not genuine. If Paul would listen to our comments and realize something is wrong with his faith, even if he gave all his money to Jesus and spent years doing missionary work, he would have still deceived himself.
The other view is that once you professed Jesus, you are saved forever. In my case, some people think I am still a confused Christian, but will soon or later realize my mistake. In worst case scenario, I would be rebuked by Jesus when I die for my lack of belief in Jesus.
Hi Alan
Its the wording, true christian, that’s possibly not helping. There is no perfect, holy Christian here on earth, nor has there been. Even the writers of the NT were still capable of sins and were generally still in the condition of sin. But a big but, positionally in Christ there were purchased by His blood and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I understand that you can’t go a round judging and proclaiming ‘you are not a true christian “. However there is a basis, principle, and true scriptural truth to see and guide one. Most people are not bothered in the subject.
Jesus did teach that tares( unbelievers) and wheat ( born again believers) will grow up side by side.
Mathew CH 13 v 23_30
CH 7 v 21.
Paul,
I know you are not saying that there are perfect Christians here on earth. I’m only asking how can you really know yourself that you are a Christian since it is possible that even in the last moment of one’s life, one who was ostensibly a Christian their whole life might reject Jesus? Perhaps some of the Christians you know and love are fakes and even today they are not Christians?
Basically I’m asking one question – can you say of yourself or of any other Christian you know they are definitely a Christian? I don’t think you can say this.
Hello Alan
If and when sone body who confesses that they aren’t actually saved, the timing of the confession is irrelevant. There either are, or not saved.
Of course many would, do, count themselves saved, a Christian, follower of Christ.They probally do go to the grave confessing such. But unless they have spiritually been saved at one very distinct moment in time, then they have only been fooled, and have sadly fooled themselves, resulting in eternal punishment. Mankind cannot be saved by just a little gospel, or any say, any additional false “facts”. Only the very Gospel that is scriptural can save.
1. Works by a individual do not save.
2. No special prayer is required.
3. Confessing Jesus to be, a good Man, to be God, to be a prophet, To be a healer, miracle worker, to be the source of a better life etc etc do not save…… These are all post Acts ch 2.
4. Going to church, singing hymns, praying, Being raised in a Christian home, do not save.
5. Confessing sins do not save.
6 Taking communion does not save.
7. Paying for indulgences do not save.
There is probally more……..?????
I can honestly say that I do personally know individuals, good people who go and are actively engaged in Church life who are not saved.
People go to Church for many reasons, a great number are serving themselves. It can be socially attractive, a sense of belonging, loneliness, habitual, self pride amongst the community, greed, sexual groomimg, the list is endless. I listen to there testimony about why they go to church, a great number never even mention Christ’s death and redemption. Some will say, ive been a Christian since birth etc.
You are correct about fakes. Hopefully discernment will answer, guide any questions.
1 Peter ch 4 v1-8
2 Timothy ch 4 v1
Ultimately Jesus Christ will judge.
Paul,
But there are still those who have confessed the death and resurrection and who later leave it. There is no way to tell if someone is really saved according to your opinion (i.e. a true Christian cannot stop being a Christian).
Could you please tell me what service of God consists of? What does it mean to serve God?
I am the best example. Through faith and by Jesus blood only, not by work. I believed for 6 years and I am quite sure that I had the same kind of beliefs as you do Paul. I was Calvinist for a while, but went more middle ground on the issue afterward. I used to preach at my congregation who is middle ground and believe in faith alone which produces good work. What happened, I doubted the trinity and finally realized that it could not be… It’s not because I wanted to go back to my previous sins, or that I wanted to deny G-d. It was actually the opposite. When you read that G-d is ONE, you realize that you cannot accept Jesus if the trinity is not true. There was no evidences and I had to leave Jesus behind…
Hello Alan
I understand the best you can say is that a person has to fake it until they make it but there’s no guarantee they’ll make it? You and everyone you know is at best a doubtful Christian. This seems to me a very very sad and depressing way to live. You deserve better. People deserve better just for being created in the image
You say until they make it. I assume you mean heaven? If one was faking it then of course they would be judged accordingly, as a unbeliever.
It is sad, but a scriptural reality. The sadness is sin, and the rejection of the truth.
People are as you say, created in the image of God. That image was marred by sin. God did do something to restore man, back to His image. He sent His Son.
Paul,
What I meant by “fake it” is that according to your opinion you cannot say while you are alive that you are a true Christian so the best you can do is to think and act like a true Christian even if you really aren’t.
To restore the Image of God in Man -does a person need to serve God to do this? If so, what does this service of God involve?
Hello Alan
I never said that I can’t say I’m a true believer.
Many people will/do live as believers and confess their faith, but that’s not guaranteeing their final resting place.
I appreciate that ultimately looking at people from the outside and looking into them isn’t a 100% assurance of who they are. But there is a gift of spiritual discernment that can guide one in the right direction on the matter.
After that, finally God sees the heart, and God can see who is a true believer and who is not.
The believers names will be written in the Lambs Book Of Life. This book has already been written. From time past, eternity. There are no surprise’s waiting for a Sovereign God.
Not that I want to play with semantics here. You are basically saying that your right understanding of who G-d is will save you, or not. If Jews don’t accept Jesus as messiah, they have scriptural arguments for that. By refusing to accept your messiah, due to scriptural conflict, they reject the “true” god. So basically, because they want to follow G-d, they refuse to acknowledge your god, and are condemn in hell forever and ever because of that? That does not make much sense. For example, many Jews preferred to kiss the sword, but that very action of giving their life to HaShem, was worst than accepting the cross, and by doing that, even if they though they acted right before G-d, your god sent them to hell… Do I make myself clear?
“Still bother me to see so many Christian no caring if Jesus send 99% of the world in a lake of fire, and still think he is lovely! Creepy!”
RT, respectfully I don’t see the logic with calling Christians out on their notions of divine punishment as being cruel, creepy, or unbending when Hashem himself, in the Jewish Bible literally floods the entire world and all of its inhabitants save for 1 family and two of every animal. Literally 99.99% of everything alive died in the flood by drowning!
Its also true that the whole problem of humans and sinning was not solved by G-d’s flooding of the world, so why do it? Creepy right?
G-d in the Jewish bible commanded genocide to be carried out against people, and lest we forget, Adam and Eve’s personal sin guarantees that even the most righteous people ( the Talmud mentions 4 in Shabbat 55b,) die at least once, solely because of the exchange between the 1st people and the Snake.)
Not to mention the Talmud’s description of a heretic burning in #2
IE we all die, even though we are not Adam, and we did not eat fruit off of a forbidden tree! Creepy right?
It is true that the Zohar contains the story of Adam meeting with us after death at the cave of Machpelah, whereupon he informs people that they die due to their own sin, but this parable doesn’t change what the Talmud says, and it doesn’t change the creep factor of the flood story.
Gehinom was also considered very real to Jews in Jesus’ time, and sure it may be punishment for a limited duration of up to 12 months, but it still isn’t any less creepy.
I find it a little unnerving when I hear people talk about how cruel Christian notions are while they forget things that the Torah and Jewish literature itself clearly say about divine punishment and why it exists.
I’ve heard several Jewish people I know say “Jews dont believe in hell, or sin, or etc.” just because they are trying to draw distinctions with Christianity, when in fact, Christians got a lot of their notions from literature contemporary with themselves and other Jews.
I’ve also seen people get upset with Rabbi Mizrahi because of the sources that he brings that talk about horrible punishments, but the point is, he has sources.
Christian literature itself is not unanimous on notions of hell and punishment.
For example, in the eastern orthodox Church, “hell” is described as being in G-d’s presence, not in another place, but the souls burn because they don’t want to be with G-d. not because G-d does not want to be with them.
That version of hell is sort of paralleled by the Talmud speaking about the coming of the Shekinah regenerating the righteous, but burning the wicked.
True, but the distinction is clear. Many Christian are looking forward to see those branches been thrown in hell as Matthew Henry commented. Natural disaster like the flood looks cruel, and regardless is hard to fathom. I am not excusing how G-d looks like in the Hebrew Bible. Genocides in the Hebrew Bible seem wrong too… I don’t know Jews saying “I cannot wait to see all those Christians/Muslims go in hell, even less writing that in their Commentaries of the Hebrew Bible.
RT,
You’re right. Tanakh and rabbinic literature are not occupied with throwing bodies and souls in everlasting fires or with eternal extinction of souls (eternal extinction is discussed but it’s only a last resort and reserved for supremely bad people).
Here’s food for thought:
If the good guys (people who are basically good but don’t believe in Jesus) go to hell, then where do the bad guys (like Hitler) go?
Hitler and his innocent victims go to the same place?
Yep. At least Judaism does not use Hell as a tool to convince people of G-d. In my opinion, it is a selfish reason to accept Jesus, but it is the only mean used by the Church to convince people to join their group. 1) you are a sinner. 2) all sinners go to hell. 3) If you don’t accept Jesus, you will go there! 4) Repeat step one until unbeliever joins to group 5) New believer repeats steps one with someone else…
Hi Dina
You are only viewing this from mans perspective and not through Gods. The point of salvation even from the Jewish Tanach is by Gods Grace through faith. It has never been any thing else.
There aren’t any “Innocent victims” as you claim, because God has revealed Himself, no matter when in History, to man. Either by creation, nature, consciousness, The Texts, science, Chtist etc. God has always in some form being there to be seen.
Man, created in the Image of God, has free will, by faith to believe. If that is rejected then the “innocent” become culpable.
So Paul, Hitler and his victims (men, women, children, and babies) deserve the same fate?
Paul,
“The point of salvation even from the Jewish Tanach is by Gods Grace through faith.”
This is just not true. Since Adam and Eve to Abraham to today, it is faith combined with not hurting people and doing justice that causes us to find favor with God. Never faith alone. We can prove this to you from Tanakh.
Can you conclude Jesus by looking at a tree? You are confused Paul. You may come to the conclusion of a creator, but the who it was… And in and out of itself, if we conclude there is a creator based on the evidence, we can also conclude that Jesus had a mother and was not G-d…
Alan, the literature isnt preoccupied with it, true, but the same notions are present in the sources.
If we say to Christians that their notions are absurd when its in Jewish sources too, it seems like a pot calling the kettle black.
Sure heretics burning in feces or perpetual anguish is reserved for the “worst sinners,” but there are ethical concerns on the same level.
You said flood victims only lost their bodily life. Ok, so this life isnt good enough to have a full life?
What about debates in Talmud about whether a noachide gets ressurection?
Sure the sources say gentiles have a share in Olam Haba (as a soul,) but there is nothing about them raising from the dead in bodies, (because they didnt keep as many mitzvot.) Thats why its debated.
So, according to these debates David (who killed and committed adultery in action) will be ressurected bodily, but maybe a noachide who hasn’t done those things wont be ressurected bodily, but only exist as a soul because he wasnt observant?
This is To say nothing of punishments that noachides are subject to if they transgress 1 of their laws.
Saying only the body is killed is a copout of sorts to the moral implications of the stories in general.
Some Christians may love the idea of revenge on sinners, but I promise you that nobody in my family was that way, and I promise that many Christians have different views of hell.
When a Christian says “nobody is innocent” and we get upset, does it not bother anyone that Jewish sources state the same exact thing when explaining exactly why humans die?
The Talmud itself says if you didnt sin you would not die.
In fact, all the passages in the NT that mention burning and eternal anguish in the NT are warnings issued to believers in Jesus 1st always telling them not to br arrogant.
“Dont eat and drink unworthily, or you eat and drink damnation on yourselves ” (Paul in reference to a bad beluever pataking in the Eucharist.)
According to the Nach and Judaism, we all die because of Adam.
The 4 righteous men the Talmud mentions only died due to Adam’s sin and not their own. Is that Just? The point here is that this is a theological problem in both communities that we both share
CR,
I don’t believe in eternal torture not even for the worst of the worst. I don’t take “burning in feces” literally, not at all! There’s nothing compelling us to take it literally. I wrote before that the Torah cherishes physical life. Hashem cherishes physical life because we see it in the halacha. We don’t know which Jews or Gentiles will be resurrected. It seems to me that a Gentile who lived a moral bodily life as well as an ethical life is more fit to be resurrected than a Jew who didn’t. Judaism says that we are all born with a pure and innocent soul – no guilt from Adam. Our nature is to die but not because we are born guilty. Even if we didn’t sin, we would still die. But it’s impossible not to sin. I don’t know what the talmud means that several people never sinned. I don’t take it literally. As for Noahides getting capital punishment for transgressing one of the universal laws, I don’t have an answer. I just know this is something that has never been put into practice as far as I know. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they must get capital punishment. I don’t know any Torah authorities who would say that if we had a Sanhedrin today this would be the halacha.
CR,
David did not commit adultery because Batsheva was not married at the time, she was a divorcee as was every Jewish soldier’s wife at the time. The practice of the Jewish people from ancient times was for soldiers to divorce their wives before going off to war. And if Uriah was interested in his wife he would have listened to King David’s command to him to rejoin Batsheva as husband and wife but he made an excuse and refused to rejoin her.
Hi,
Yes please do, I would like to see the view which you speak of.
Paul Summers,
Can you please explain to me what it means to serve God? Serving God is an expression and a commandment repeated over and over again throughout scripture.
Hello Alan
God? Serving God is an expression and a commandment repeated over and over again throughout scripture.
1 Peter CH 4.
Paul,
“God? Serving God is an expression and a commandment repeated over and over again throughout scripture.
1 Peter CH 4.”
I read it twice. It says serving God means: 1). to keep our animal lusts in check, 2). to pray properly 3). to do acts of kindness for each other, 4). to do 1-3 for the sake of God even when we suffer and are persecuted for our beliefs.
Paul, you claim that only a Christian can do these things. Are you really unaware that there are non-Christians in the world that do these things all the time?
If Paul would listen to our comments and realize something is wrong with his faith, even if he gave all his money to Jesus and spent years doing missionary work, he would have still deceived himself.
Hello RT
Not sure if your comment was directed at me??? If it was then I think you need to re read my viewpoints on Salvation. If it was, then you are grossly mistaken.
If it wasnt me, then please accept my apologies.
What I am saying is, if you believe that Jesus was atonement for your sins, and that you accepted that by faith and faith alone. And if you had the fruits of a Christians, like given all your money to the poor and missionary work. Even if you would never believe that you could ever reach heaven with your own merit. Then one day, you would realize that Jesus was not the messiah, than that would prove that you never believed in the first place… Am I wrong or right?
RT,
You are describing yourself. You are telling the truth when you say that you were a sincere and genuine Christian. I believe 100% that you were sincere when you were baptized in the holy spirit, etc… You are a sincere person now. I believe you were a sincere person then. Paul Summers cannot permit himself to believe you. He HAS to believe that you were a wicked deceitful person INCAPABLE OF BEING GENUINE AND SINCERE.
Of course Alan, the New testament say that I am an anti-Christ and that I am trying to deceive Paul Summers. He won’t consider that I could be genuine and that the only reason why I left Christianity was for the fact that it contradicted the Hebrew Bible. In his opinion, I am trying to deceive him… I could not be genuine and really believe that the new testament was a lie, or I am wicked and want to go back to my sins or I am an anti-Christ.
1 John 2: They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.
26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
Where in Tanakh do Christians get the ideas that Man is:
1. Damned and destined for hell and spiritual extinction from birth
2. Unfit to be accepted by God unless he is sinless
3. Cannot be accepted by God without an atoning blood sacrifice
Most of the people who comment on this blog know that both the Tanakh and those who know the Tanakh the best (the Jewish people) say as clear as day the exact opposite of these 3 ideas. So how can a person read ALL of Tanakh and still believe that these ideas are found in Tanakh?
Alan, those are all taken out of context, mostly by Paul in a way or another.
Where in Tanakh do Christians get the ideas that Man is:
1. Damned and destined for hell and spiritual extinction from birth
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5) (taken out of context)
2. Unfit to be accepted by God unless he is sinless
The soul who sins shall die. Ezekiel 18:20 (taken out of context)
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. Psalm 14 (taken out of context)
3. Cannot be accepted by God without an atoning blood sacrifice
Ezekiel 18:20 Leviticus 17 (taken out of context)… Understood in conjunction with “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”, found in Leviticus 1239:6, sorry Hebrews 9, but let’s not say it too loud and let’s pretend it’s from the He brews Bible, Ok? 😉
But what about those who have read all of Tanakh? How can they really believe that the NT is fulfilled Torah? How can they believe that Hashem who was consistent in the way he treated Man for thousands of years in Tanakh, all of a sudden around the year 30 CE starts treating Man exactly the opposite – and He doesn’t just start treating Man the opposite way but He tells Man things about Himself and about Man that are the exact opposite of what He told them before?
Alan I think that the answer to your question is that they see the Tanach as a mystery book – giving more weight to what they imagine they see between the lines than they do to what the lines actually say – just read Charles Soper’s comments (search for “Charles Soper” or for “Facing Scripture” to find the relevant articles and comments
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Alan, you have to go back with the principle that the new believer are thought that they have been saved by Jesus and that they cannot deny him, or else he will finish in hell. He is also though that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” and this especially true”er” for the New Testament. If the New Testament say something, this is 100% truth even if it seems to contradict the Hebrew Bible. New Believers are not asked to read the book of Leviticus on the first week. They first read the book of the New Testament, often starting with John and the book of Romans. This is the principle of the Christian belief. Also, you have to understand that Jews are portrayed as harden by G-d, so most Christians don’t even think that the Jews could be right in the first place. So you have the enemies of the gospel, and you have your worldview already in place when you even turn your Bible to the “old” testament. This is of course, the OLD testament, which was fulfilled by Jesus, so if you don’t understand everything, or if something looks contrary to the “New” testament, you have to pray to Jesus to remove that doubt. Voila!
Thank you both!
CR,
All good questions. I’m not going to get into the question of attempted genocides in Tanakh right now but I just want to make one major distinction between Torah view of punishment and the Christian view. When physical bodies are dispatched in Tanakh it is just the physical bodies not necessarily the souls. In the Flood and the other episodes of death, the Tanakh does not say that their souls were also destroyed.
When I wrote “it is just the physical bodies not necessarily the souls” I didn’t mean to make light of bodies in the slightest. As you know, Judaism cherishes life, both physical and spiritual. I should have just written “it doesn’t necessarily include the souls which outlive the body”.
I think Rabbi Mizrahi is off his rocker and doesn’t speak for a lot of us. Having said that, the main focus of Jews is supposed to be on their behavior in this world and not to obsess about the afterlife, hence the Hebrew Bible’s silence on this. (This is where the rabbi’s scaremongering tactics go wrong.)
It’s all very well to be selective about Talmudic quotes and ignore everything positive in terms of reward that the Talmud says about righteous pagans and non Jews.
Actually, it’s not all very well. It’s just not right.
The Talmud recorded the opinions of all the learned men of the day and included them all, even those we traditionally don’t hold by; thus we can still read the opinions of Beit Shammai even as we don’t follow Shammai. Therefore, to quote the Talmud without keeping this context in mind is blatantly unfair.
What is important is what most religious Jews believe today compared to what most religious Christians believe today. What anyone believed 2000 years ago is relevant but only to a very small degree.
Dina,
I agree with everything you wrote. I’m just unsure of what you mean by “righteous pagans”.
And I don’t know about Rabbi Mizrahi so I can’t agree or disagree with you on this.
Dina, what Jews believed when the Christian text was written is very relevant. Also, the Talmud states that halacha of beit Shammai will be the halacha in Olam Haba, so I dont see that as irrelevant when you are talking about the Christian view on the fate of “sinners” souls after death. Sources in both traditions say some very unnerving things.
My point is not Rabbi Mizrahi himself, but that he has the sources to back up his off the rocker statements, even today.
Its easy to say that Jews today dont believe in X Y or Z, but if Jews in the past did, is it a Christian’s fault for believing what he was taught?
When I was a Christian, I understood Jesus’ exclusive statement of “I am the way, truth, and life, etc.” To mean a person must live his way, his truth, and his life.” Jesus isnt a club, he had a life path that he wanted people to follow. His people have followed his path closer than any gentile, and I want Christian readers to realize that.
Eastern Orthodox and Catholics believe that a baptized person can have “run the race in vain.”
In the same way a righteous person (such as the the theif on the cross) was not judged by wearing a Jesus badge, but on his repentance.
CR,
David did not commit adultery because Batsheva was not married at the time, she was a divorcee as was every Jewish soldier’s wife at the time.
I understand that this is what the rabbis say. It however doesn’t alter the fact that David had a man killed in order to sleep with his technically “ex wife.”
As for what you take to be literal or not, the intent is clear. You dont use the words “burning in feces” if you mean to convey sunshine ot roses.”
If you are entitled to read that horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory, why is it worse if Christians do the same in their books? Thats my point.
Accirding to the plain meaning of the words in the Torah G-d intended man to take from the tree and live forever. So, whether you believe that humans are innocent or guilty, we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit.
CR,
“I understand that this is what the rabbis say. It however doesn’t alter the fact that David had a man killed in order to sleep with his technically “ex wife.””
You are extremely smart and you’ve read Tanakh. You can’t really believe that all David did was what you just said he did. If this is all he did, it would have been left out of Tanakh, he wouldn’t be the first Messiah and the father of the final redeemer. Not even the most wicked kings of Israel like Menashe and Ahab did anything close to what you said David did. And you also got the order of the events wrong. What you said he did doesn’t fit with the rebuke the prophets gave him, nor with the punishment Hashem gave him for it, nor with his own confession of what he did, nor with what the rest of Tanakh says about his life and the mistakes he made. Many stories in Tanakh are not meant to be taken at face value – many – and you already know this. Why did Hashem want it to be read this way if it could be misunderstood? One reason is to evoke in the reader horror and disdain for wrongdoing which makes us more sensitive to good and evil; and to show that the wrongdoing was close to being as bad as what it looks like relative to the high spiritual level of such righteous people (much more is epected of great people and for them it was almost as bad as what it sounds like); and to make us realize that in order to properly understand Tanakh we need the Oral Torah, we need to go and learn from Torah scholars.
“As for what you take to be literal or not, the intent is clear. You dont use the words “burning in feces” if you mean to convey sunshine ot roses.””
You’re right that they don’t mean to convey sunshine and roses. But I do not take it literally and they don’t mean the torture is forever.
“If you are entitled to read that horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory, why is it worse if Christians do the same in their books? Thats my point.”
Horrible sounding stuff in Nach as allegory? What stuff in Nach are you referring to? I never said David’s sin was allegory. I’m just saying it wasn’t the base degenerate crime you said it was. And I’m saying it based on reading everything said about David in Nach and everything David wrote in Nach and what the Oral traditions say. If you interested in knowing what really happened or the different opinions of what happened, I am sure there are very good essays and audio lectures on it by good torah scholars online.
“Accirding to the plain meaning of the words in the Torah G-d intended man to take from the tree and live forever. So, whether you believe that humans are innocent or guilty, we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit.”
You are an extremely smart dude. You probably realize there is a good chance that a few Jews over the past couple thousand years could give you deeper explanations for why people die than “we die because Adam ate a piece of fruit”. At this point in your life I thought that you would know there’s much more to the Torah and Judaism than what you just said.
Con, the problem with non-Jews and the Talmud is one of lack of context.
Here are some of the contexts of the the Talmud:
1. The Talmud records the opinion of all the learned men of the day, even those that were far out in left field.
2. The rabbis used a literary device called “guzma” (exaggeration) to make their points.
3. The rabbis often (more often than not!) wrote allegorically.
The rabbis deliberately wrote in an obscure manner so that if the Talmud should fall into the wrong hands the readers would not understand it, because they wanted the Talmud to be understood only by Jews. Fair or not, their technique obviously works.
Therefore, if I may be so bold, I recommend that arguments on this blog between Jew and gentile be grounded in the Hebrew Bible and to leave the Talmud out of it.
By the way, you can say Kaddish for a non-Jew. What does that tell you about Jewish attitudes to afterlife for non-Jews?
Alan, the text plainly states what David did. Even the lectures you posted stated that he slept with another man’s wife, and then sent him into battle to die, trying along the way to be incognito about it.
David wanted Uriah to lie with his wife so that he would not know what happened between David and Bathsheba. Uriah already suspected something was up.
The classes you posted suggested that bathsheba was at fault too, (even though it is admitted in the class that for bathsheba to refuse David would have likely had direnconsequences.)
The commentaries make the whole episode more complicated than it needs to be. If you change the plain sense, you are not giving the plain sense.
You said if David did such things he wouldnt have merited what he did. How do you know that G-d couldnt use David if he had been guilty?
Consider also, the baby was killed. Tgat means David sinned terribly.
If you need two five part courses to explain what the text “really means,” are you explaining it at all?
Dina, as per your comments on context and Talmud being obscure, thats the entire point. Its obscure to the point, out to left field to the point that there are opinions which jive with Christian opinions, even when you work super hard to avoid any hint of Christian like ideology.
Alan, I am aware that there are deeper readings regarding Adam’s Sin, but the point is that often these readings require you to almost ignore the plain words on the pages and their implications.
CR,
What verse is the word t’gat in? I don’t recognize that word.
Because this doesn’t relate directly to the post or to the purpose of this blog which is to help people who are confused by Christian missionary propaganda, I would appreciate if you could email your questions to Rabbi B or to me. I am sorry and I hope you understand.
CR,
If it was a short conversation I would have it on the blog even though it doesn’t directly relate to the purpose of the blog. But this topic will be an extended conversation. Again, I’m sorry I can’t have this particular conversation on the blog.
Lol tgat is a typo for the word that.
“Lol tgat is a typo for the word that.”
Wow, my sinus infection must have spread to my brain. That is very very funny!!!
Alan, can you point me in tge direction of a Shiur in English that explains the episode properly so I can respond adequately?
CR,
Give me a day or two to find one or two shiurim (classes) for you.
Hello RT
on the evidence, we can also conclude that Jesus had a mother and was not G-d…
From scripture and history we can conclude the opposite. Jesus had no earthly Father.
Paul Summers wrote: “From scripture and history we can conclude the opposite. Jesus had no earthly Father.”
Then why does the NT include Joseph’s genealogy?
Hi
Sorry again, I don’t always get the chance of replying straight away. Its a bit all, or nothing, with me.
The very reason The NT shows Jesus genealogy through his step Father, Joseph, is to show that IF Joseph WAS his natural biological Father, then He, Jesus had no right to claim the Eternal Throne of David.
According to Jeremiah CH 22 v 24~30.
How can you know that is the truth? Was there witness? I can know that we need at least two witness to judge a matter. As Joseph, wanted to divorce her, we can conclude that he did not have any evidence of the truth. Dreams cannot be used as proof, I hope you agree with me! So we have only one witness and it is Mary. If you agree that G-d was Jesus father (which you have no proof, historical fact, nor scriptural fact as the New testament is not inspired and not acknowledge by the Jewish people), then Jesus is not a descendant from David and cannot be the messiah. If you agree that Josef was his father, then G-d could not have concived Jesus, and the new testament say lies. You are stuck both ways Paul… You only have to choose which lie you want to follow to arrive at the conclusion that the new testament was not inspired.
Hi RT
I need to go right now, but I will get back ASAP.
OK this is just a quick thought?????
If you need two or three witnesses, who witnessed the Creation, and the creation of Adam and eve?
This law of two or three witnesses applies only in cases brought before a court of law.
Paul, does your fear of Rabbi B.’s question not trouble you?
There are no claim for Adam and Eve. There is a disputable claim on Jesus, and the Jewish people never bought it. In case of a dispute, you need proofs to support your case. Jesus should not be considered the messiah, until he shows without reasonable doubts that he is. So far, if Jesus is born of G-d and not man, he cannot be from the line of David. If he is born of Joseph, he cannot be divine and most claims of the new testament are false. In either way, it does not seem like a positive outcome for Christianity. If a man claim he has G-d as his father, he better have good evidences and proofs of the truthfulness of it. If he claims he is himself god, he need some, million dollar evidence that proves that, especially that it looks like it contradict the whole Jewish Bible.
Hi Dina
Thanks for clearing that up. To be honest that was my first thought but I wasn’t 100% sure.
I’ve answered The Rabbi’s question with a emphatic “No” on several occasions now, the first being a few years ago. Not sure if I can answer it in a another way.
I gave and explained my position on the text, as did Rabbi.
Might be mistaken here, but I’m sure it was this topic that had me removed from the blog as I was refusing to see the truth. ?!?!?!
Paul,
Is the subject (the “I/me”) of the verse “my close friend who I trusted and who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me” the same subject (the “I/me”) as in the verse “Lord be gracious to me; heal my soul; for I have sinned against You”?
Jesus says he is the prophesied subject of the the first verse. Does it make sense that Jesus is the subject of one verse but not the other?
Paul Summers If Jesus is not the subject of Psalm 41 than how does he quote this very Psalm and claim to have fulfilled one verse out of it?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
John 13:18 –
“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’
Paul Summers,
In this verse, David (the author and subject of psalm 41) laments having had a close friend who betrayed him. Besides Jesus’ having this in common with David (and millions of humans from David’s time until Jesus’ time have also had friends turn on them), please tell me what else in this verse or in any other verse in this psalm points to specifically to Jesus? To claim that a prophecy is about a specific person, the prophecy has to be obvious that it is referring to a specific person. This psalm is David talking about himself. If you claim it is also a prophecy about a person who will live in the future, then either the whole psalm has to fit that person, or the prophetic verse has to be specific enough that we can tell it was referring to that one person out of all of the other people who ever lived. So I’m asking you what else about this verse or the rest of the psalm points specifically to Jesus in contrast to the millions of other people who have also been betrayed by a close friend?
Paul Summers,
Also, you claimed that only a Christian can serve God (control lust, pray carefully, do kindness, do these things for the sake of God despite suffering). Please tell us how you explain the millions of non-Christians since the time Jesus died that have served God.
Paul, you did not answer this question, which Rabbi B. poses to you for the umpteenth time. You said you answered it with an emphatic no, but this is not a yes or no question.
Answer the question, please.
Hi
First of All the NT has been verified as scripture by thousands of Jews in times past, not just gentiles.
Secondly the very texts were actually written by Jews. So Jews, obviously believed in them.
Thirdly, There were 2 witnesses, Mary and Joseph.
Fourthly Mary was pregnant, there’s the proof. Joseph was right to be worried, that’s why he was warned not to go ahead with the divorce.
Need to go.
“First of All the NT has been verified as scripture by thousands of Jews in times past, not just gentiles.”
Because a Jew read it does not mean and believe in it does not make it scriptures. Who has authority to verify and approve it as scriptures, and who did approve it as scriptures? Regardless if the people who approved the book of the new testament were Jewish or not, they did not have the authority to confirm them.
If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. 10 You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you.
Jesus was a matter of controversy, and the Levites, the Priests and the judges all agreed he was not the messiah, not G-d and not to be listened to.
The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.
“Secondly the very texts were actually written by Jews. So Jews, obviously believed in them.”
Really, it could be written by Jews or not. We have not idea who wrote many of the new testament letters. Luke might be the only Gospel that we know for sure who wrote it, and he was a gentile. Look at Paul’s letters: “and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather to an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century. Most scholars now affirm this view. As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul’s day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.”
And again, this is not the debate, but even if all the new testament was written by Jews, it does not change the fact that he was judged by the authority of the time and confirmed a false prophet.
“Thirdly, There were 2 witnesses, Mary and Joseph.”
What do you think a young girl who is pregnant and might face death penalty might do? For Joseph, he only had a dream, and did not witness any miraculous act of conception…
“Fourthly Mary was pregnant, there’s the proof. Joseph was right to be worried, that’s why he was warned not to go ahead with the divorce.”
That would not stand at a court trial…
There is this crazy case in the news right now. A guy committed atrocious acts because god, or satan told him to do so. What do you think of his testimony in the court of justice? Do you think any of the jury believes that he heard a voice? Sure, this is quite possible. Do you think anybody in the jury believes god or satan talk to the guy? No, not a chance! Would you believe any 12 year old girl who would come to a similar story today? No, not a chance that you would believe her. How can you say it is a proof then?
Hello YFP. Alan
Looking at the NT text.
You say Jesus is quoting the Psalm in its entirety. Start to finish. Verse by verse.
I honestly don’t see this being the case. Its not a case of me misreading the text. I can only state what Jesus quoted. Jesus didn’t say the “entire Psalm of David speaks of Me, This Psalm is Me”
He simply doesn’t say such. Unfortunately you seem to think it does, because, of course you hold a opposed view of Jesus.
Because the Psalm mentions sin in David’s life, I think the best angle to approach this subject is to find a passage that reveals Jesus as being a sinner. If sin can be found then we can conclude your position to be correct.
Paul Summers Is cherry-picking one verse out of a Psalm an honest way of reading Scriptures? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul,
I didn’t say that at all.
I’m asking how can anyone take one verse and say it is a prophecy about himself – that he is fulfilling the prophecy -when the verse could be referring to millions of other people and actually seems not to be referring to him if taken in context of the surrounding verses?
CR,
https://torahdownloads.com/c-119-shmuel-beis.html (5 audio classes)
http://etzion.org.il/en/topics/sefer-shmuel?combine=&page=5 (article part 1 at bottom of page)
http://etzion.org.il/en/topics/sefer-shmuel?combine=&page=6 (parts 2-5 near top of page)
If you want to discuss this subject further I would appreciate it if it could be done offline, either by contacting Rabbi B or myself (Rabbi B can give you my email address).
Hi Alan
The text in context is about friendship being broken by betrayal.
The psalm speaks of friendship so close that the breaking of bread is used to show how close they were, and the intensity of the friendship being broken.
In the context of the Passover meal, Jesus is breaking bread with His friends and one of the group will betray Him. David wrote the psalm because he was grieved with a process of betrayal.
In the context, so was Jesus.
The person, David was NOT King Messiah, he was king of Israel. A man born a sinner, a adulterous man who had to repent of his own faults.
Messiah Jesus had no sin to be forgiven of.
The only parallels between them is that they both experienced betrayal from a friend. Jesus isn’t saying let Davids life of a king be fulfilled by Me, So let the Scriptures be fulfilled, He is saying, Betrayal of a friend be fulfilled.
Jesus never said Psalm 41, start to finish is me.
Lets Find a text that reveals Jesus as a sinner, then you have a case.
In anticipation??
Paul,
I am not saying Jesus is saying the whole psalm is about him. I am granting you here that Jesus didn’t sin.
Did you ever invite a friend over for dinner?
I have. Millions of people have.
Paul,
This has happened to me twice in my life – two different very close friends who used to eat with me frequently turned on me. They didn’t know each other and both instances happened many years apart.
This has happened to gajillions of people from the time the psalm was written until today. The verse doesn’t evenly remotely hint to a passover seder.
Hi Alan
I think you have gone off piste here. You need to stay focused. You correct about our friends etc, but the Bible is talking about Firstly King Davids betrayal, then Jesus betrayal. Its not about me or you.
Betrayal of course is universal, yes, but here it is directed at two individuals, not the world.
Paul,
I’m trying to stay focused.
What was Jesus’ point or purpose in revealing to us that he was fulfilling that one verse?
Alan wrote:
“RT,
You are describing yourself. You are telling the truth when you say that you were a sincere and genuine Christian. I believe 100% that you were sincere when you were baptized in the holy spirit, etc… You are a sincere person now. I believe you were a sincere person then. Paul Summers cannot permit himself to believe you. He HAS to believe that you were a wicked deceitful person INCAPABLE OF BEING GENUINE AND SINCERE.”
If I may, Alan, this was also leveled at me by Bibs, Paul and by Kavi. All ( as well as all my former Christian brethren) believe I was never a “real” Christian to begin with or I would not have left. While at the SAME TIME tell me my leaving was because I HAD TO BE “hurt” emotionally somehow by someone in the church. BTW, that is the MAIN ( almost the only) reason given by churches as to why people leave Christianity. Could it POSSIBLY be that I had a sincere love for God and the truth, and that Christianity was in the final analysis incompatible with Tanakh, which came first?
They say no.
The same argument is put to those Christians who change churches. Mainline churches literally picket Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and like here, respond to arguments they are losing with “You don’t have the holy spirit”, or “You’re being led by the devil”. The same accusations are made between Protestants and Catholics. Between Methodists and Calvinists. Between Messianics and Presbyterians.
Take Bible 318, Kavi and Paul Summers and put them on an all-Christian forum and they would be going at each other as hard as they are going after us! And they would all be saying why each other lack the holy spirit and scriptural discernment. They band together here because we are “the enemies of Christ”, as per the text RT posted about the antichrist. Any other forum and they would be telling EACH OTHER why they are not saved!
What surprises me, is that no Christians can arrive with any arguments that could show the new testament is inspired. I actually wonder how I could have fall for such a thing. Now prophecies, a bunch of Bible verses taken out of context and fear of Hell. I do not see anything special that could hint the “Church” as filled with the spirit, Churches and congregation are often little click of people who think the same way and criticize others who don’t think the exact same way and label them as “unsaved”. If you look at the history of the Church, I would say that it is easy to label as “bad fruit” but the excuse that they use is “they were not saved”. Even their beloved Luther and Calvin were a bunch of Jew haters and only since a few years the “love” the Jew. Actually they love them so much, that they copy them in order to lure them into their Church!
RT wrote: “Actually they love them so much, that they copy them in order to lure them into their Church!”
Or to satisfy their Christian member’s curiosity of Judaism in a controlled setting. That way the church can dictate or manipulate the information and interpretation of meanings and scriptures. I have no doubt in my mind that this is the case.
Eleazar: That way the church can dictate or manipulate the information and interpretation of meanings and scriptures.
Q&A:
For that very reason, Israel is still Exiled?????????
If you disagree- Hang up the Gloves
God Says:
Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth– then my judgments go forth like the sun.
In as much as the ( Prophets, Teachers, Leaders, Guides) led Israel astray.
Prophets
Ezekiel 14:14
even if these three men–Noah, Daniel, and Job–were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.
1 Kings 18:22
2Then Elijah said to the people, “I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men????
Guides/Leaders(Isaiah 3:12)
My people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path????
Point Being, Man manipulates scripture.
No difference between Israels’ past Guides = Todays Church Guides.
King David said it best!
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Jesus is My Lord.
Bibs proved his own point that “Point Being, Man manipulates scripture” with this comment.
Bible819,
You said “David said it best”.
Do you think David said that one verse best or do you also think that psalm 51 says it best as a whole? If you read psalm 51 as a whole I don’t think it is what you want to hear. Do you want to know what David is really saying or do you only care about that one verse taken out of context? David is talking about his free-will to do teshuva without blood sacrifices and Hashem’s grace and compassion to accept our teshuva without blood sacrifices. David actually says that it isn’t the sacrifice that nakes us right with Hashem but teshuva. Sacrifices help in the right time and place but they are neither essential nor necessary to gain Hashem’s forgiveness and acceptance. You’ll note at the end of the psalm that sacrifices will only be favored by Hashem again after the forgiveness and acceptance have already been attained.
Dina,
Yes. Israel would not consider Gods admonishment from the Prophets.
God said it best,
And from the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely. 14″They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ But there is no peace!
I’m glad we agree about that.
It’s you guys who manipulate scripture, not us. You haven’t learned Balaam’s lesson. God has not given permission to the gentiles to admonish the Jews.
Alan,
I agree that God desires mercy and not sacrifice.
Context in Agreement
A broken and contrite heart.(Isaiah 57:15)
+
“But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.<<<<<< Word,(God is the Same God)
I believe that Jesus and the Father are 1.
_________________________________
And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that (every) imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
+
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me.
=
As I said, Mankind.
No difference
Bibs,
The reply I just made to Kavi can also serve as my reply to you. Please feel free to respond to it.
Hi RT
In comment regarding dreams, you seem to take the view that a dream is just imaginary mind wonderings. However in the context and in light of God speaking through dreams, the mode wasn’t a new phenomena that NT authors had just constructed.
There are obvious characters from the Hebrew Bible that had dreams.
Peter commentated on Paul’s scriptural, and spiritual life, and made the comment that Paul’s writing as been equal to the Hebrew texts.
In light of our topic 2 Peter CH 3 vs 14~17b
Deut CH 31 vs 27a ~29c
when jesus was born , people thought that joseph was the father of jesus? If yes, then was joseph was convinced dreams weren’t powerful evidence that child is born of ghost?
“Because the Psalm mentions sin in David’s life, I think the best angle to approach this subject is to find a passage that reveals Jesus as being a sinner. ”
David: “I was betrayed by a close friend. Bummer”
Jesus: “So was I. I must be the messiah”
Christians: “See? Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the messiah will be betrayed by a close friend. As goes David, so goes messiah.”
But then-
David: “I’ve sinned. God forgive me”
Jesus: “I’m Perfect”
Christians: “That is not a messianic prophecy. It is just David speaking of his own struggles”
Bottom line, any similarities that can be retroactively applied to David is applied as a messianic prophecy. Anything that cant is not a prophecy.
In other words, to Christian apologists, if David wrote about keeping Passover, it is a messianic prophecy applicable to Jesus. If David wrote about entering a chariot race, then it is NOT a prophecy applicable to messiah…
UNTIL…
a Christian says its a metaphor for entering the contest of messiah against Satan. Jesus being tempted by Satan. Then it becomes a messianic prophecy.
HOWEVER…
If David loses said chariot race, it is then NOT a messianic prophecy.
UNLESS…
If he wins it, then it is a metaphoric messianic prophecy about Jesus overcoming the temptations of Satan.
THAT IS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED
Eleazar,
Excellent game instructions!
“the first thing to note is that this psalm appears to be a penitential prayer , and perhaps to be used by a royal figure who is ill and has his enemies plotting against him while he is in a vulnerable state. Indeed , there is a reference to the supplicants sick bed (). More importantly , the suppliant INDICATES that he is ill because he has sinned.”
why is he in a vulnerable state? Because he is ill. Why is he ill? Because he sinned.
how john could clip one verse and disregard context ?
MHC,
Right you are.
Hello Mr Heathcliffe
You forget that John isn’t cut and pasting what he decides, he He repeating the words of Jesus. Its a written account of a event that happened.
John isn’t adding 2 plus 2 making 5. Jesus is simply referring to a betrayal that was pre recorded from a historical text.
You use the words, appears, penitential, and perhaps.
You seem here to have doubt’s on your own views?? 100% not, but could be something else, but not sure??
Paul Summers If John was telling the truth (which would be strange) than Jesus was cutting and pasting 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul Summers,
Is one of the written signs of the Messiah that he will be betrayed by a close friend?
How do you explain when you see with your own eyes non-Christians who serve the God of Israel, when you claim that a non-Christian cannot do so? Please explain how it appears they can do it.
maybe a royal figure who FOUND himself in similar situation as the psalmist and then in that situation calling out to GOd? As you can see I put the words in quotations because it was a clear and short commentary exposing Johan misuse of psalms.
IT is scholarly consensus now that the gospel writers do cut and paste verses from the Hebrew bible and put it in Jesus’ mouth. And do you not find it strange that they never source eyewitnesses but Hebrew bible?
Hi
OK, changing the content but keeping with context, ie when does a text mean all but not a little, as in the discussion of Psalm 41.
Let’s look at Deut CH 31 vs 27~ 29c
Is Moses talking about Israel, The Jews, of that generation only, the next couple of following generations, or Israel then and history to come. ( Present day)
What and when are the latter days?
Also
Deut CH 18 v15a~ 22b
So who wants to cherry pick this one
Paul,
I will answer if you answer my questions first – the last question I asked you: What was Jesus’ purpose in revealing to us that he is fulfilling that verse in psalms? And how do you explain the existence of non-Christians serving God because you say only a Christian can serve God.
I will answer you if you answer these questions first (because I asked you first).
Hi Alan
1. Simple, A betrayal by a friend. Nothing more.
1a. This passage wasn’t meant to prove, there and then, “This it Guys, the only proof you need”. Its just one, just one, of authenticating signs, fulfilments, that show, reveal His credentials, from the Hebrew texts that He was fulfilling everything written about Messiah. Going into more depth He was actually revealing the Man of Sorrow s. Context shows that the sign wasn’t for the world on mass THEN, but just for the group, there and then.
2. From the NT stance, one can only serve God if Him, The Holy Spirit has regenerated the dead spirit of a non believer. A dead spirit cannot serve God.
One has to be born anew, born again, or born from above, according to John CH 3 v3.
David is exposed to being attacked and betrayed because of his vulnerable state. He has no choice. your god was “willingly going to his death” and needed betrayal for the plan to work. The clip john clipped from psalms is taken completely out of context
Paul,
“Its just one, just one, of authenticating signs, fulfilments, that show, reveal His credentials, from the Hebrew texts that He was fulfilling everything written about Messiah.”
He was showing that he was fulfilling everything about the messiah. So one of the signs of the messiah was that a friend would betray him?
“From the NT stance, one can only serve God if Him, The Holy Spirit has regenerated the dead spirit of a non believer. A dead spirit cannot serve God.
One has to be born anew, born again, or born from above, according to John CH 3 v3.”
You told me that the definition of serving God is in Timothy – control lusts, pray seriously, do kindness, suffer for the sake of God. Are you saying that when a person like me does these things, it only look like I’m serving God but what I’m really doing is serving the flesh because I am a dead spirit?
Paul Summers Not “one fulfilled prophecy” one out of many lies – what would you say if we quoted one verse out of a chapter to disprove your idolatrous claims? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“Let’s look at Deut CH 31 vs 27~ 29c
Is Moses talking about Israel, The Jews, of that generation only, the next couple of following generations, or Israel then and history to come. ( Present day)
What and when are the latter days?”
Moses might have known exactly which generations he was referring to but I don’t think the people could have known except through prophecy. It’s not clear to me what is meant by “in the end of days”. Perhaps it means in the few generations preceding the Messiah? I’m not sure.
“Also
Deut CH 18 v15a~ 22b
So who wants to cherry pick this one”
These are the basic laws of prophecy – how the people can tell the difference between a kosher prophet and a false prophet. Also see Deut. 13:1-6 for more of the basic laws of prophecy.
Paul Summers This is a laugh – you don’t know that the “you” of Scripture is Eternal Israel – that Israel is one entity throughout the generations? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello YPF
The question that was asked was given in a rhetorical frame of reference.
Something, if you look, wasn’t unfamiliar to the way God asked a question. If you need guidance I can show you some Hebrew texts to substantiate my point.
However I’m more that confident you know this, which begs the question why you responded the way you did.
Hello Alan
Looking at YPF answer, you will see he is correct. When Moses was referring to Israel as a nation, he meant the Jews then, and the Jews to come.
God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc. This is a scriptural point of view of Israel. Its very clear.
What also is very clear that from the Hebrew texts God has kept for Himself, For His Name sake, a small remnant of True Jews that does not backslide. This also can be seen from scripture.
Go back 2000 yrs in time you of course will read about a Man of Nazareth, claiming to be the Messiah, Son Of David. You will also read that the Leaders of Israel finally rejected this Mans claim, on the Grounds of demon possession. Math. CH 12.
However in comparison to the nation rejecting Jesus a moderate size of Jews Did believe in Him. The believing remnant.
So you see context is everything. If you compare the deut text with say Zech CH 12 you will see two thirds being cut off from the living, and one third coming through by faith. But deut says “All”. So you see a apparent error in the continuity. Not at all.
God has preserved a remnant. Presently those Jews are in the Body of Christ.
Looking at Psalm 41 now, you are saying that the one verse is conveniently used by Christian to uphold a view, and when its convenient ignore the other verses.
But as discussed previously not all the texts have to be read in one clump.
Most times you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of scripture to see the greater detail.
Sometimes it not just black and white. There are systematic, theological rules to follow which need to be adhered to, because the alternative is confusion.
Paul Summers,
You are an antisemite to the tee. “God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc.” You read Tanakh like all of the Church fathers, Luther, etc. You are not here to learn. You are here to have a platform to preach, to appear as a martyr and to annoy.
Alan Paul doesn’t see himself as an antisemite – he just applies all the negative in Scripture about Israel to us and all the positive to himself
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul Summers Which community has the eternal sign of God’s Sabbath? (Exodus 31:13)
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc.”
Whit that point of view, why are you here, or reading this blog or commenting on it? If we are degenerate and backsliding, then you must be right. And if you are right, then you do not need this blog, and you are not here to have a grown up conversation, but only to evangelize.
Paul Summers Not “one fulfilled prophecy” one out of many lies – what would you say if we quoted one verse out of a chapter to disprove your idolatrous claims? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Of course you do, you need to try and show me. If you said you didn’t then Moses would be a false prophet.
Please go ahead a fulfill Moses words.
Paul Summers
I quoted 1000 verses – I didn’t need to quote them out of context – https://judaismresources.net/2010/08/31/1000-verses/
Hi,
Antisemitism as viewed from yourself will always be the argument that one uses, when one is challenged with Scriptural truth. Its basically a race card. Which is soooooo booooooring. Yawn.
The point I was raising. Which you still fail to see is that if Israel as viewed from Jehovah Himself says “Israel consistently deny me etc”, why does it seem so incredulous that at most you deny the Bible’s actually view on Jesus The messiah. You are actively and willfully
doing what Moses said you would do. Well you are, that’s my point.
I’m here, to counter your view on the NT
But since I serve a Jewish God, read a Jewish Bible, study the Scriptures from a Jewish Dr in Theology etc, hardly I’m sure makes me a antisemitic.
Funny that only today I managed to start a conversation with a Portuguese guy. After a few moments, we were talking history, he mentioned that he didn’t recognise Israel as owner’s of the promise land. He was in fact very antisemitic with his views on The Jew’s world domination, banking and all the other conspiracy bull which has been spewed out over the centuries. Of course I had to tell him is error of such views.
And here you are accusing me of antisemitism. Go figure??
Paul,
I am grateful that you stuck up for the Jewish people today. But even though you don’t consider yourself an antisemite like that guy, you do hold some antisemitic Christian views as shown in your post.
Hello YPF
he just applies all the negative in Scripture about Israel to us and all the positive to himself
That I totally disagree with. Israel will one day be returned to God with all the covenanted promises as per scripture. Israel as a nation will stay as a nation, Jewish in all her Glory.
And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.
Yes, it is possible to SERVE G-d without Jesus. POINT PROVEN!
RT,
Paul Summers has to come up with a theology of why it was possible for people to serve Hashem without an intermediary before Jesus came into the world but after Jesus came into the world it suddenly became impossible without Jesus. I would love to hear this theology.
Not only some people, All Israel…. That’s an entire nations for two generations.
Hello
Can you please repeat yourself, I don’t understand your comments.
Paul,
How can anyone say a specific verse is a prophecy about himself WHICH HE FULFILLED when the verse is so general it can apply to millions of people AND the verses before and after the verse don’t fit the person’s life?
Hi Alan
Yes this guy was furious to say the least. He actually stated that ethnic Jews don’t even exist today.!!! Sad
Anyway, the points I make about Israel and non believing Jews, are not antisemitic. The points that I raise, and the way they come across, are only given to make you and others see in a certain way, to make my point. That point being sin, regardless of race, but redemption through A Jewish God.
It may seem odd to you, that’s fine, but no antisemitism is intended.
Paul Summers If you are not antisemitic – tell me – in what way are the Jews God’s witnesses? What is their testimony? (Isaiah 43:10) 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello
That’s a great verse, It teaches that The God of Isreal is telling the Jews that they are His standard bearers, as it were. That they, should be reflecting Gods glory etc.
Unfortunately though because of there sin, this failed on a national platform.( OT Prophets, Mathew ch 12). However as God promised, the covenants still stand, but this can only be seen through by the believing remnant. The remnant that believes by faith in God.
Not with their mouths but with their hearts.
Of course God will always protect the Jew from a overall destruction because, as the text says” you will be my witnesses”.
Paul says “Salvation is by/from the Jews. But you cannot be a witness if you have no faith, from a NT position only Jewish Messianic Jesus followers are a witness.
I think this might answer the other question about sanctification??
Paul Summers So for the past 2000 years the Jewish people have not been God’s witnesses? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
” still stand, but this can only be seen through by the believing remnant. ”
Are you trying to cover a replacement theology? Jews who believe in Jesus are not Israel. Their core belief has changed, You see, in your view, the covenant still stand only if and when a Jew accept Jesus. If he does not accept Jesus, he is worthy of hell fire. It really makes no difference that you don’t believe that the Church replace Israel, because that Israel that you believe in is NOT Israel in the first place, but a bunch of apostate Jews. So yes, you don’t believe that Israel’s covenant is still standing the way it always did and as G-d promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Paul,
Do you believe the Jewish people are no worse (no more degenerate) than any other nation?
Do you believe Luther was not an antisemite?
Hi Alan
Not at all, we are fallen sinners. However the only difference from a scriptural point of view is that Israel receive double for Her sins. Jerimiah ch 16 v18.
Luther definitely held antisemitic views.
Paul,
I’m sorry but your reply wasn’t 100% clear to me. Could you please answer yes or no: Are the Jewish people worse than the other nations? (Because you said the Scriptures promise that the Jews will ALWAYS be degenerate, backsliding and adulterous).
Paul , why do the Jews have to pay double for their iniquity, and still G-d be angry and throw them in hell? “Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her, That her warfare is ended, That her iniquity is pardoned; For she has received from the Lord’s hand Double for all her sins.”. After G-d punished them the double of what they have done by the hand of all the nations, G-d speak comfort to Israel, not wrath. The Christians are part of the nations who were used by G-d to show judgment. Yes, they pay, and yes they paid more than what G-d wanted. That’s what Isaiah 53 said: “yet we considered him (Israel) punished by God”. That’s what you believe, that G-d still punished Israel for their rejection of Jesus, isn’t’ it? Jesus did not bring comfort to Israel. I would said, that you have to discard 2000 years of history if you want to believe that Christianity brought comfort to anybody. Yet, G-d speak of Comfort to his people, and you want to convince me that G-d still wants wrath?
Hello YPF
According to;
Leviticus CH 17 v11
Jeremiah CH 31 vs 31~32
Luke CH 22 v20.
Eschatological speaking, Only those Jews in Christ Jesus, can be called witnesses in the True Scriptural sense.
Paul Summers OK – so you believe in replacement theology – perhaps you pay lip-service to the words “Israel is still a chosen nation” but you eviscerated those words of all meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello RT
God Did promise all the covenant’s to Israel, yes that’s correct. But like all scripture teaches, man, in this context, Israel have to believe, by Faith, for the promise to be applied.
Of course the Abrahamic covenant is not a conditional covenant, its unconditional, God will see it through to the end, no matter how Israel acts. But Israel will have to repent on Her views about The Messiah, for that covenant to come into force. There has to be an act of faith and obedience. Which of course will come, one day. As God promised.
Paul, that act of faith and obedience should not contradict the Tanach. G-d is not a man, and he promised not to become one (Deut 7). Basically, there was a new guy who claimed to be god and said that we should believe in him. Why should the Jews believe in him, if it contradict the word of G-d?
Hello
Context and specifically the verses in question in both accounts are being fulfilled.
There are no other texts that show a similar in counter. Agreed, Psalm 41, at the time of writing was not intended to show a prophecy then. Let’s say 50 years after the Psalm Was written, nobody was looking at a event of betrayal in one who was claiming to be the Son of David. However once the said event event had taken place again at the Passover, the specific text was mentioned and brought to light, the similar event was betrayal, that’s all.
You are correct, the act of betrayal could and I’m sure does happen thousands of times everyday to lots of people.
However only here is it recorded at a important time in history, for a very specific purpose.
The NT doesnt make a claim that Jesus is fulfilling the entire Psalm.
This argument is based solely on distraction rather than content.
Paul,
You’re saying that the context of the verse in psalm 41 was also fulfilled at the Last Supper? The context doesn’t even hint to a seder let alone Passover. The context is about a sick man who is trying to do teshuva and is begging Hashem not to let his enemies triumph over him. So what was Jesus trying to teach us by pointing out that he is fulfilling the prophecy of this verse in psalm 41? What was his point?
Hi Alan
You seem to read a lot into my texts which aren’t there and dismiss which is there??
The act which has been mentioned at least, well I’ve lost count! Was the act of betrayal when breaking bread. Breaking bread wasn’t just a Passover observed ritual, I’m sure you are aware of this??
Now you bring the content of a Passover meal to the table, no pun intended!!
Who mentioned that the context had to be a Passover meal from the Psalm to connect it to Jesus. The texts say nothing about the type of meal for it to be a fulfillment. You seem to be bringing in your own arguments and versions of events to discredit the point of view.
Paul,
I apologize if I saw things in your writing that you didn’t mean.
Please just tell me what was Jesus’ purpose in revealing to us that he was the fulfillment of that verse.
Hello RT
Honestly I’m not ignoring you, I’m trying to keep up!!!
Will definitely get back to you, I do read your comments.
Hello Alan
’m sorry but your reply wasn’t 100% clear to me. Could you please answer yes or no: Are the Jewish people worse than the other nations? (Because you said the Scriptures promise that the Jews will ALWAYS be degenerate, backsliding and adulterous).
I can only give you an answer based on what the scriptures say. The Bible doesn’t say that they are worse than other nations. God strictly told them to obtained from the nations adulterous ways. So other nations must be seen as fallen equally. So the answer is no.
The point I was making was that, because God entered into a special relationship with Israel, like no other, then Israel will receive double for her sins.
The point the scriptures make are that Israel on the whole will continually fight against Gods statutes, but God will always have a believing remnant within the nation.
Not all Jews will stay in a state of unbelief because scripture very clearly teaches that Israel will turn back to God, and God will receive them. Israel the remnant that is.
Paul,
I’m asking for your forgiveness for calling you an antisemite.
You know, however, that the NT says that the Jews are worse than non-Jews. You know this right? Do you not accept what Paul wrote that the “Jews are the enemies of humanity” (paraphrase).
You wrote: “Not all Jews will stay in a state of unbelief because scripture very clearly teaches that Israel will turn back to God, and God will receive them. Israel the remnant that is.”
This is against Tanakh. Tanakh says that not just the faithful remnant will return to Hashem. It doesn’t even make sense that the faithful remnant will return to Hashem because they are ALREADY faithful. The ones who will return to Hashem are those who are not faithful. Tanakh says that many Jews and non-Jews who ARE NOT FAITHFUL will return and be accepted by Hashem. Today’s faithful remnant of Jews are those who keep shabbat, kosher and the other basic laws of the Torah according to the direction that the Jewish people received from Moses.
Paul’s Ministry 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 –
14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved. As a result, they continue to heap up their sins to full capacity; the utmost wrath has come upon them
Hello Alan
Forgiveness not required. No worries on my behalf.
Paul isn’t against Jews or any nation. He does though speak about the certain Jews who are opposing the Gospel message. But His view is targeting specific individuals not all Jews. Paul’s views are bold in his speech, yes, but he is passionate about the truth not being tarnished and the message being corrupted by a few who were bringing in destructive teachings, or by complete non believers, the Leaders of Israel.
Paul shows his continued love for his kin through several texts.
Paul insisted on preaching to the Jew first, he still observed some Jewish traditions, and publicly rebuked Peter in Antioch. CH 2 v11, for being a hypocrite against Jews.
Just as Paul was a Trailblazer for Judaism He became just as passionate after His New Birth.
In regard to the remnant. What I meant was that the ones who don’t believe, who then do, are the remnant. There will be a number who will not believe, ever, the non remnant.
Yes, at this moment in time Thousands reject Jesus as Messiah, but one day in that number thousands will return to Him, by faith, but not all.
Paul,
Which population and generation of Jews was he referring to? And why only “the Jews” and not also the Romans?
Paul,
Which specific Jews did Paul mean? And why only “the Jews” and not the Romans?
And please tell me how you know which Jews Paul was referring to because the plain meaning is the Jewish people in general.
Paul, I know you ignore all my comments, but regardless… Could you imaging the possibility that you could even be wrong? There are three possibility, logically speaking.
1) You are right and we are all wrong
2) We are right and you are wrong
3) We are both wrong.
If you come to this blog, you have to acknowledge that there is a chance that you could be wrong. I could be wrong. Can you be wrong about Jesus? Are you willing to consider that you could be wrong about Jesus?
Hello RT
Answering just one of your questions here, I am trying not to miss you
Of course we all make mistakes, me more than most.
My grammar, spelling can be questioned, sometimes my attitude, my response’s, even wrong, Biblical quotes, sometimes out of context.
Having said that, I will defend my Position as a believer and defiantly defend on what I see as truth in relation to the Bible, and it teaches. That being the basic foundation of the Gospel message.
I can only do this with Gods Grace, through the power of His Might, by the Indwelling Holy Spirit.
Alan,
[] In light of Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 20, why do you believe the rebellious ones won’t be in the majority?
[] Also, from what I understand, you described “return” as rabbinic teshuva in Deuteronomy 30. Are you excluding the “faithful” from Deuteronomy 30?
________________________
Kavi How do YOU understand “return” of Deuteronomy 30? The prophet is very clear 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
“[] In light of Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 20, why do you believe the rebellious ones won’t be in the majority?”
The Tanakh is not clear about this, so we just don’t know. All I can say is what I see today which makes me hopeful – from a recent survey taken in Israel – most Jews in Israel today ,about 2/3, are either orthodox or traditional. Outside of Israel pretty much only the orthodox are faithful. The orthodox are about 10% of American Jewry but they are the only ones who are really reproducing. Ultimately, only Hashem can judge who is “faithful enough” to be alive at the time of the final redemption. This is something we can’t know by looking at a person from the outside or even from just talking to them. They might not look very “faithful” but who knows what good things they have done in their lives? Only Hashem knows. And even if someone does not physically live through the redemption, spiritually they might be just fine.
“[] Also, from what I understand, you described “return” as rabbinic teshuva in Deuteronomy 30. Are you excluding the “faithful” from Deuteronomy 30?”
The verses say clearly what teshuva is –
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you will take it to heart among all the nations, where the Lord your God has driven thee, THIS MEANS THE PENITENT (BAAL TESHUVA) WILL REGRET AND FEEL GUILTY FOR HIS BEHAVIOR, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP OF TESHUVA
2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; SECOND STEP IS TO TURN AWAY FROM ONE’S PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR AND TO BEGIN TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS ACCORDING TO GOD’S INSTRUCTIONS TO MOSES.
I don’t understand your question: “Are you excluding the “faithful” from Deuteronomy 30″
Hello Alan
Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.
Paul emphasized his rebuking on those particular Jews because as Gods standard bearer’s, then should have known better.
Paul,
“Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.
Paul emphasized his rebuking on those particular Jews because as Gods standard bearer’s, then should have known better.”
But what are you basing this reading on? The plain words “the Jews” mean Jews in general. If he just meant specific Jews why wouldn’t he have said who these specific Jews were in order not to confuse his readers since he was writing also for future generations? And why is he not also picking on the Romans? Instead of saying “the Jews” he should have just said, “the enemies of Christ” or “the enemies of God” which would not single out the Jews.
Paul,
You write: “Paul is referring to the Jews who were in his immediate vicinity. The ones who were causing strife either with him face to face, or the ones who, geographically at a distance, were preaching against him.”
In his immediate vicinity or the ones far away who were causing him strife?
But Paul writes: “the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. ”
Paul Summers, are “the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets” the Jews in Paul’s immediate vicinity or in his day? You say he was only referring to specific Jews in his day. This text contradicts your claim.
“Having said that, I will defend my Position as a believer and defiantly defend on what I see as truth in relation to the Bible, and it teaches.”
Paul, how could you say that you cannot be wrong? Think about it, everybody think they are right, but if you are unwilling to listen to others, you will never get out of your own folly if you are wrong. If you really love truth, and G-d, then, it is worth testing what you believe. G-d is not pleased with you if you believe a lie and are unwilling to listen. How do you expect us to listen to you, but not the other way round?
Here, Kavi, G-d forgives iniquity when you are obedient.
“Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and obedient
But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.
But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered.
Ezekiel 18
This shows that when we do right, G-d forgives us and if we turn from doing right, G-d won’t remember the good we previously did.
Isn’t that Teshuva? Jesus blood is NOT needed!
Hello YFP
– so you believe in replacement theology – perhaps you pay lip-service to the words “Israel is still a chosen nation” but you eviscerated those words of all meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism
I’m not sure if your understanding of replacement theology is the same as mine???
From my standpoint replacement theology is when the church replace Israel. They say the church has always existed, or now the church has spiritually, ethnically replaced Israel, They cherry pick blessings for the church and curses for Israel.
I’ve never ever held these views or even propagated such ideas here.
I honesty cannot see why you hold and accuse me of these views?
I’ve made my position on Israel extremely clear on all occasions when possible.
I do NOT pay lip service to Israel and Her covenanting promises made by God. The covenanted People, ethnic Jews, Israel will, do own ALL the land and all Gods promises contained therein, according to scripture. The Church has no ownership of Israel, nor will it ever own such.
The church, The Body of The Messiah, The Bride, not The Wife, partake in Israel’s blessings and participate with Ethnic Israel the remnants, but no way, ever, ever, ever overtake or replace the Jews. Those promised covenants still belong to Israel The Jews.
Hope this clears up any misunderstandings?!
Paul Summers First of all – since when do you consider “cherry-picking” wrong? Second – what is Israel’s role in God’s plan? You allow them to be recipients of blessing but you deny them the blessing of being God’s armor bearers – so yes – you have replaced Jesus for Israel (you have put him in place of God as well) 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello YPF
Cherry picking is OK??? Odd! So you must consider replacement theology OK?? Even odder!
Gods overall plan in regard to Israel, is to establish Atonement for sin. He established Israel to bring forth and reveal His Grace, and redemption for mankind.
He established a nation to bring Himself to the point of Death to pay the ransom price required to bring fallen man back into His presence. God gave Israel the Law to reveal the sin nature, and to reveal Gods Holy standard.
Israel are the prince of God, but Yeshua IS The Prince Of God par excellence.
So I haven’t replaced Israel, just shown what The Hebrew Bible says about God using Yeshua The Prince Of God.
Paul Summers What is teh active role that ethnic Israel plays today in God’s plan?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello YPF
I think really God is the One playing the active role.
Gods plan for Humanity via Israel is on track and not going a miss.
God has a plan and purpose for Israel the remnant, and
a plan for the non remnant.
Prophetically today, Israel the nation are, by the majority in a state of unbelief, and are currently being gathered back to the Land to be punished for their present condition of unfaithfulness.
Paul Summers But Scripture tells us that Israel has an active role to play in God’s plan – Isaiah 41:15; 51:16; 52:11
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hello Alan
Yes you are right, I Missed that in my response. Sorry. Paul does refer also to the Jews, past, pre Christ. Paul was of course referring to the non remnant that also had become opposition to Gods word via the old prophets.
Basically Paul was stating that not much had changed within the hearts of his kin, because The Messiah had come and had been rejected.
Paul,
You are saying that Paul was talking about Jews pretty much from the beginning of Jewish history up to and ending with his day. Please tell me how you know that he was excluding from his statement the Jews who would live after his time? Because that’s what you just wrote – that he was only referring to pre-Christ Jews up to his own time.
What the NT is saying is that the Jews have always been from the beginning and will always remain killers of god and prophets and enemies of humankind, except for a tiny number who will become like Paul Summers. So you see that the Jews are much worse than any other nation for the simple reason that the Jews of all people should know better. We are “hostile to all people” unless we are like Paul Summers.
Paul,
Do you not see that this is what the NT teaches? You accept it as the truth right?
Hi Alan
Ref your comment, tiny number, paul summers etc
For one, our context is Jewish believers and Jewish non believers. Im a gentile!!
Secondly, you make a statement which isn’t taught by scripture. I’ve explained the position and showed you the texts to support the teaching. I’m afraid you see things that simply just aren’t there. I can only assume this is only brought on by previous bad teaching and presumption based on error.
The texts simple don’t support your views. It feels like you want the NT to teach antisemitism to support your theory’s??
Paul,
So when Paul wrote “the Jews” are killers of Jesus and the prophets, are displeasing to god, hostile to all men, and have the utmost wrath of god upon them, he didn’t mean “the Jews”, but just the rabbis (the leaders were the rabbis some of whom were priests)?
Paul,
There is no antisemitism in the NT?
Paul,
You wrote ( https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/05/differences-a-letter-from-eleazar/#comment-37122 ) :
“God of Israel said that Israel will always be degenerate, backsliding, adulterous, etc. This is a scriptural point of view of Israel. Its very clear.
What also is very clear that from the Hebrew texts God has kept for Himself, For His Name sake, a small remnant of True Jews that does not backslide. This also can be seen from scripture.”
When you wrote “Israel” above, did you just mean the leaders of Israel (i.e. the rabbis)? Or did you mean Israel in general (i.e. the non-True Jews who backslide)?
Hi Alan
Well of course he must be right because if you look at this blog, it might prove my point!!
“Well of course he must be right because if you look at this blog, it might prove my point!!”
Paul,
I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you please rephrase it?
Finally, does anyone else find the exclusive nature of both Christianity and Islam interesting?
No, I don’t and let me explain why. For generation upon generation, Israel as a nation taught that there was only one deity and that the Torah was G-d’s one path to the full unadulterated truth.
It is in the Bible’s nature to make exclusive claims to truth.
The Pagan world by contrast taught that “all paths lead to the same truth, and it doesn’t matter if someone believes in many deities, it doesn’t matter what the nature of those deities is.
” IE Israel made exclusive claims to the truth, so it stands to reason that the sister faiths would make similar claims.”
Some might say that Christianity says that only Church members get to heaven, but the New Testament says that “those who have not the law do by nature what the law requires and they will be judged by that standard.”
The Orthodox Christian position is that it is the Church’s view that Orthodoxy is the fullest path to salvation, but Christians are not supposed to judge others.
While Judaism teaches that everyone who is just has a share in the world to come, there is no such promise in Jewish sources about everyone being risen from the dead. Much debate exists about that question.
Monotheism as a religious idea is itself an exclusive claim, Israel as a nation basically told the whole world that they were wrong about there being several deities, or a subjective moral code.
Torah sources themselves clearly teach that a gentile who observes the seven laws only because they make sense does not receive a reward. Only if a noachide believes in and follows the laws because he believes they come from G-d, does he merit reward. So, in fact, no, I dont find exclusive claims on the part of Christianity and Islam to be odd, because Judaism makes exclusive claims of its own, has punishments for heretics of its own, etc.
CR,
It is one opinion that says a Gentile must keep the universal laws because Hashem commanded so in the Torah in order tp have a share in the world to come. Judaism is not sure if the world to come is the same thing or something different from eternal life. I’m of the belief that a Gentile or Jew who for the most part keeps the 7 laws even if not because Hashem commanded in the Torah, has eternal life. And I am saying this based on big people such as the Meiri.
Judaism IS different as Dina said.
The Meiri himself is in the minority on most things Alan, see my dilemma?
It seems to me that both Judaism and Christianity present the world with a book of riddles and a “true” interpretation that will make all the worrisome passages make sense.
The problem is, there is no promise that everyone will believe the interpretations.
When you have the text say something on its face, and then have to write volumes to unpack the intent, is the juice worth the squeeze?
CR,
I relate to your questions very very much. I have all the same questions. I don’t know if the Meiri is a minority on most things. But on this thing I do believe he is a minority. I am not a torah scholar. I can barely learn Talmud even with a teacher. A close friend of mine who became observant about a year before me is a real Torah scholar and he works full time. He’s also much brighter than I am. I feel that with the knowledge and life experience I have gained over the past 25 years I am able to bring something of value to the discussions on this blog. It would be very hard for me to respond to your questions in writing. I think it might be hard for most people to do it in writing. The best way is face to face. Is there any way you can find someone to ask your excellent questions to face to face? If you’re not looking for that I will try to dig deep and tell you on the blog how I personally deal with these questions. But I’m not sure this blog is the right place for it. I’ll let Rabbi B decide.
Hello Alan
Romans CH 9,10, 11, are mainly dealing with Christ’s rejection, Gods rejection by them, with Historical parallels, Paul’s is fervently teaching the truth, and Israels coming redemption. He, Paul makes it extremely clear, with no exceptions that the Remnant of Israel will come out of Israel and one day believe in Christ. Securing the covenant’s as per scripture.
Paul isn’t talking about the Church verses Israel, he is actually referring to Israel non believer and Israel believer.
Knowing this, one can understand who Paul is referring to, obviously NOT Jewish believers, but non Jewish believers.
What would the point of rebuke do to a believer seeing that they already believe??
Romans CH 11 v 28 talks about being enemies of the Gospel.
V32. Says them all, everyone. Jew and gentile.
Paul,
Are you saying that when Paul wrote the following he was referring to both Jewish and non-Jewish non-Christians? –
Paul’s Ministry 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 –
“14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved. As a result, they continue to heap up their sins to full capacity; the utmost wrath has come upon them.”
You are saying the above is also about Gentiles who are not believers?
CR,
Just as a beginning of an answer – Judaism is grounded in halacha in the physical world. I find the halacha to be just, righteous and wise and with a deep understanding of human nature. There are some gray areas of halacha and in these gray areas the halachic system is broad enough to accommodate very different opinions. I think some of these gray areas are meant to be gray and even if there was a Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin wouldn’t try to take a vote on it. When you live Judaism according to halacha and you see what living a halachic life does in reality for the individual, the family, the community, the nation and the world, the theological questions don’t go away, but they are not as scary and all-consuming because the person is grounded in concrete halacha that really works to improve life tremendously.
I have no doubt that Jews find meaning and insight, and comfort from practical observance, and I see how its concrete nature could make deep theological questions less problematic. In fact, its probably because I was raised Christian and mot Jewish that these issues seem more problematic to me personally.
The halachic life also brings true and deep bonding to the community and each community feels bonded to all of the other communities around the world – even if they have some serious philosophical and political differences.
That’s a great strength you bring to the table. It seems like a deficit but it’s actually an asset. I also wasn’t raised “Jewish”, i.e. with faith and halacha. If I were Hashem, I would have done many things differently. There are many ways the world runs that go against my sensitivities. But alas, I am not Hashem. It’s amazing to me that a person like myself is actually a believing and practicing Torah Jew. But I’ve been on the path for over 25 years now and haven’t gone away from it once, at least not the main parts of shabbat, kashrut, family purity, tzedaka, learning, tefillin, prayer at least once a day.
Hello Alan
Sorry, that should say Jewish non believers!!!!!!!!
Paul,
Ok. So Jewish non-believers post-Christ, and the Jewish people in general pre-Christ are prophet killers, god killers and hostile to all men? I just want to make sure you agree this is what Paul is saying in the NT.
Hi Alan
Ok. So Jewish non-believers post-Christ, and the Jewish people in general pre-Christ are prophet killers, god killers and hostile to all men? I just want to make sure you agree this is what Paul is saying in the NT.
Well we’ve got the right periods of time right, but the message isn’t directed towards ALL Jews. Its directed primarily at the Jewish leaders. The men in positions of power and influence within the Jewish law, temple service etc. It is these individuals that Jesus had the most friction with. If you read the Gospel accounts the common everyday Jewish person were looking up to the leaders for guidance. Its these leaders who swung the minds of the people against Jesus.
You will see the account in Mathew CH 23.
If you read Acts, Peter, Paul, John are having the same issues with the Jewish leaders not Jews in general.
Read Romans, and see how much love and dedication Paul has for His own brethren the Jew.
If you want to translate “Jews” as “Judean Leaders” it really does not work. If you want to do that, you have to pick and choose which passage should use “Judean Leader” and which one should use “Jews” on your own assumption.
Look at John 6:
Passover, the Jewish feast, was near.
4 Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.
———————-
Some of the Judeans[f] started to grumble about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” Tree of life
The Jews then complained about Him
————————-
Then the Jews began arguing with one another
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
This is all the same Greek word “Jews”. Now of course, they translated “Jews” on verse 4. Why do you think that they translate “Judean” on verse 41? Because there was no leaders in the conversation, and could it have been all the Jews complaining? No way, they had to look not anti-Semite! The Judean (the bad guys in this case) are the scape goat of the Tree of life translation. Finally, they translate Jew again, because if they argued, then some most have think that good jews were amongst them. Judean could not possibly be good, they are the bad guys.
That’s not how we translate the Bible!
CR,
I tried to dig deep.
I believe that Hashem created the world from nothing and without His will to constantly recreate the world from nothing the world would revert to nothing. I believe He runs the world and that nothing that happens in the world happens without His consent. I believe Hashem has planted within each human being an “image of G-d”.
What this “image of G-d” means is a whole other discussion, but one of its main characteristics is freewill – that it is in our hands to choose between good and evil according to the natural moral compass He implanted in us (which usually starts to comes to maturity in the early teenage years) and according to the moral education we receive from our human teachers (parents, teachers, society).
Hashem gives the human being the freewill to commit atrocities. And Hashem has the freewill to either prevent the atrocity from being carried out or to allow it to happen. What I am getting at is this: just as Hashem is the Author of the 5 Books of Moses and the Source of the prophecies in the Prophets and Writings, so is He the Author and Editor of how the physical world runs – all of the wars, all of the atrocities, all of the natural disasters, all of the diseases, all of the accidents, how animals and insects eat and sometimes torture other animals and insects – Hashem is the Author and Editor of everything.
Therefore, just as I can be disturbed by some of the events in Tanakh, I can also be disturbed by events in the physical world. Things in the world go against my sensibilities no less than some things in Tanakh do. I don’t have to reject Hashem just because of things I don’t like in Tanakh. I can reject Him for things in the world that I don’t like because as I said before, I believe Hashem is the Author and Editor of the world just as He is the Author and Editor of Tanakh.
I could choose this nihilistic path and reject Hashem for anything in the world and in Tanakh that I don’t like. But I am not choosing this path. I don’t understand how He runs His world. I don’t understand how He wrote and edited His Tanakh.
But I believe Judaism is different from all of the other choices I have seen in the world. What Hashem asks of me is not always light and easy. But I thank Him for giving me a path to a well-rounded life of values, morals, integrity, dignity, respect and teshuva IN THIS WORLD.
And my fellow Jews throughout history, especially the giants in Torah and morals, have also struggled with the same things and they have put their struggles and analyses in writing for us. And despite their difficult questions remaining unresolved, these moral giants continued to lead lives of breathtaking integrity, dignity and teshuva.
What happens in the World to Come, I don’t know. But the dignity, nobility and integrity that He has given me in this world through His Torah makes me want to choose Him.
CR,
“When you have the text say something on its face, and then have to write volumes to unpack the intent, is the juice worth the squeeze?”
The whole episode of David and Batsheva could be explained in one page as in this link:
https://www.ou.org/torah/nach/a-journey-through-nach/understanding-episode-dovid-batsheva/
The articles I showed you delve into it more deeply than this one page article and I thought they provided a more satisfying response than this one page article. And the articles I sent you were only 2 relatively short articles on David and Batsheva, 1 article on “the poor man’s lamb” and 1 article on David’s “punishment and repentance”. So it’s really not such a big squeeze. However, the audio classes are more involved and also devote a lot of time to explaining a lot of fundamentals of Judaism that are necessary to understanding the episode.
Most and maybe all stories in Tanakh can be explained on a simple level as well as on deeper and deeper levels. The reason I didn’t initially send you the 1 page article from ou.org is because I didn’t think it would be satisfying to you. I thought the articles on etzion.or.il would have been more of what you were looking for.
Alan
I just read most of the article you posted and it seems some are trying to say that Dovid did not commit a sin with Batsheva. But the fact that Uriyah “did” come back from war after Batsheva was pregnant with Dovids child didn’t that make it a sin? Had Dovid never sent for Uriyah and he was killed in war and never came back then it would not have been a sin I could understand.
Hi Larry, I’m very happy to see you back.
“I just read most of the article you posted and it seems some are trying to say that Dovid did not commit a sin with Batsheva.”
Everyone says he sinned, including the verses in Tanakh. There is only one sage who says he didn’t sin and that was a descendant of David and the most he could have meant was that David did not technically commit the sin of adultery. But everyone agrees he committed sins. Most do not feel he committed the sin of adultery technically. There are very good proofs for this in the verses themselves.
“But the fact that Uriyah “did” come back from war after Batsheva was pregnant with Dovids child didn’t that make it a sin?”
It was a sin but most likely not technically adultery because she was still not married to Uriyah when he came back.
“Had Dovid never sent for Uriyah and he was killed in war and never came back then it would not have been a sin I could understand.”
It definitely would not have been the technical sin of adultery but it still most likely would have been a sin.
I think you would like reading the articles I posted from etzion.org.il .
I find them much more satisfying than the 1 page article.
Alan
When a soldier came back did they have to remarry?
Was the divorce a conditional divorce or an unconditional divorce? I don’t think we know for sure anymore.
What was a conditional divorce? There could be a few different versions:
IF HE DOESN’T RETURN –
1. They were divorced retroactively (from the time he handed her the divorce document she has been a divorced lady).
2. They were not divorced retroactively (she doesn’t become a divorced lady until it is clear he is not returning).
IF HE DOES RETURN –
1. They were divorced retroactively but there is no need to remarry.
2. They were divorced retroactively and they must remarry.
3. They were not divorced retroactively and there is no need to remarry.
The Jewish people stopped doing this long before the mishnah was written so we don’t remember exactly how it was done anymore. Or it could have been done in more than one way but we don’t know which way Uriyah did it. And the truth is – we are not even sure that he did it at all.
I have to say that there’s not much logic in the interpretation of the “Soldier Gett” as a final document that abolishes ongoing marriage. In that case, soldier who comes back from the war and remarry same woman would violate Torah. So it’s clear that Batsheva committed adultery. As per David, he also committed adultery because he slept with a woman who was not yet his own wife, and was not immediately intending on marrying her.
Besides, the most logical explanation of the whole episode is that David was hoping that Uriyah will go and sleep with his wife and they will think that the baby is actually Uriyah’s, and everyone will move on.
That didn’t work, so David piled up sin upon sin by killing Uriyah.
In my opinion the moral of the story is that no matter how grave the sin is, there is a room for repentance, with some consequences as well (instead of living calm life David had to deal with Absalom’s betrayal, and death). The important fact is that David did not sin afterwards, hence fulfilling requirements from the Ezekiel 18:21-22.
With all this in mind, the “David apologists” are really doing disservice to Tanakh in my opinion.
Nikola,
You wrote “In that case, soldier who comes back from the war and remarry same woman would violate Torah.”
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this?
Hi Alan, certainly:
My understanding of Deuteronomy 24:4 which states “her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.”
Although the situation described in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not exactly same as Uriyah’s, it is clear that he could not take back Batsheva after she slept with David.
Furthermore, this can be expanded for anyone who goes to war, gives a Gett to his wife and his wife has relationship with another man in the meantime.
In other words, God’s law makes it essentially impossible to “take a break” during marriage. No matter what the reason is.
So, the Gett is only symbolic and in my mind serves a purpose in cases when you have soldiers “missing in action”, so that a wife is not obliged to wait for an unreasonable long period of time for her husband to come back, possibly risking losing fertility in a process.
Nikola,
Thanks for answering. I agree with you about the purpose of the war gett (divorce). I will have to do some research but I think that in order for the first husband to be forbidden to remarry his ex-wife, she would have had to be legally married to another man after she divorced her first husband. I don’t think David married Batsheva until after Uriyah died; I don’t think there was an marriage ceremony. I will need to look this halacha up and get back to you.
I mean when David was first intimate with Batsheva, she was not his legal wife. There was no marriage. I don’t know this for sure. It’s just an educated guess. I will get back to you in the next few days.
I found it – http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=2083
Please let me know what you think. Again, I agree with you about the purpose of the war gett and that it is not a license for the woman to marry another man nor to be promiscuous while her husband is at war. I’m just saying according to halacha, if David did not marry her while Uriyah was fighting (and I don’t think he did), then Uriyah would have been allowed to rejoin his wife provided, of course, that she was not legally married when she was with David.
Hi Alan,
maybe we are getting tangled into too much details. 🙂
It is my understanding that “war gett” was a social construct and societal invention. There is no basis in Torah of giving gett at will, it was designed for specific cases, and one of them is not going to war.
In that sense Deuteronomy 22:22 strictly prohibits sleeping with another man’s wife. And I truly believe that this pertains to wives of soldiers that are temporarily in war as well (even if this symbolic gett is in their hand). However, in situation where the “war get” becomes social norm, we can argue that David’s sin is somewhat diminished. But only up to a point.
I’m sure David is for all of us a beloved person, one of the favorite people from Tanakh. His greatest achievement was being able to repent and get away from wickedness after committing such a horrible sin (and he was blessed with position from which I’m sure he had many temptations every day).
I have to say that one of my biggest disappointments (as if I’m sinless) while reading Tanakh was the whole episode with Batsheva. But it only affirms what is said in Ezekiel 18:21-22, and gives us hope and guidance to repent and be better.
One last point – it is not accidental that Batsheva was taking a bath at the exact time when David was walking on the roof. This was all part of God’s test, and eventually, after starting troubles, David passed it with flying colors. So if we can not be as perfect as Job, at least we can aspire to be “imperfect” as David.
As Solomon said about righteous, in Proverbs 24:16: “For though he falls seven times, he will get up again; it’s the wicked who fail under stress.”
Nikola,
Here is the passage again from the Torah about the prohibition of remarrying one’s divorcee –
Deuteronomy 24 –
1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife, 3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The link I posted explains these verses according to the explanation we received from Moses, i.e. her first husband may not take her back only in the case where she was halachically married to another man in the interim and then this second husband gave her a divorce. And this is exactly what the verses say. So it is not at all far-fetched and I think it’s reasonable that David was not with a halachically married woman when Uriyah was fighting and that she was still permitted to Uriyah when he came back. And even though there was no technical sin of adultery, there were other very serious sins as we see from Nathan the prophet’s words to David and from David’s punishment.
I think everything else you wrote is right on the mark and according to what I have learned.
I really didn’t think I was going to get into this because I told CR that we shouldn’t. If we are told to stop I will stop.
Alan and Nikola The main message of the David and Batsheva story is repentance as Nikola so clearly pointed out. This that the rabbis mitigate the crime is not the main message of the story at all. The rabbis had their reasons and it is not so simple to explain in one paragraph. One detail that you (Alan) seem to have missed is that the rabbis believed that in Uriah’s case he was not going to take his wife back anyway – in his case the get was serious. David demonstrated that by sending Uriah home and getting him to refuse publicly. Another detail relates to the ongoing undercurrent of conflict with Joab – but all of these are only relevant to someone who sees these ideas in the text by themselves.
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Rabbi B,
I agree with you and Nikola that the whole purpose of this story was to teach about teshuva – psalm 51 is called the psalm of teshuva.
I was aware that according to some opinions Uriyah was not interested in Batsheva – I wrote so here ( https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/05/differences-a-letter-from-eleazar/#comment-36931 ) –
And if Uriah was interested in his wife he would have listened to King David’s command to him to rejoin Batsheva as husband and wife but he made an excuse and refused to rejoin her.
Hi Alan,
no need to forcefully stop, I think we reached point of essential agreement, as yourphariseefriend pointed out. Let’s leave aside the less important details.
In the sea of more heated and sometimes less meaningful debates, I found this to be refreshing take on an inspiring story from Tanakh with “happy ending”. 🙂
Not that there are non-inspiring stories in Tanakh!
Thank you Nikola. I also gained a lot from it.
Connie, I was talking about excluding people and you are talking about excluding views; do you see the difference? If you believe you are right about something, then by implication you believe that anyone who disagrees is wrong. But there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and with writing off their humanity.
Do you think all Christians right off the humanity of others? Do you not think they have commentaries that explains things in their books that sound awful just as Judaism has?
When I was a Christian, I never wrote off anyones humamity, because the whole premise of my former faith was saving all of humanity.
The premise that everyone dies because of sins does not require the Christian Bible to believe in.
All of himanity already dies, good or evil, and even the most righteous people die because G-d decides such.
G-d himself has flooded the whole earth man woman and child, only to have sin reemerge after a short while, after such a bloody episode.
Wicked people (or what the Bible deems as wicked people) are written off in Tanakh too, or cut off as it says.
How much killing off of whole nations, or populations is openly discussed in the Christian text?
I wasnt introduced to the idea that G-d can kill literally everyone good or evil based on his choice by the Christian’s source text.
The Tanakh showed me the Israelite 1st born killed, Egypt’s 1st born killed in retaliation (after hardening Pharoah’s heart, in part, made sure the people wouldnt leave Egypt yet.)
Tanakh showed the conquest of Canaan (what manifest destiny was based on btw.)
If anything, the Christian texts taken by themselves provide a very abstract notion of eternal suffering with fire for WICKED CHRISTIANS and also for non believers, but the Christian Bible openly says that people are only judged for what they know.
As I mentioned, many orthodox Christian sources actually talk about “hell fire” as being what happens when a person who doesnt want to be with G-d is with him.
The righteous experience eternal goodness of G-d’s presence, the wicked eternal anguish in G-d’s presence.
I am not making light of Christian horrors against Jews, just noting that when it comes to the vivid descriptions of the fate of wicked people, the NT is somewhat more abstract than Torah.
I should have been more clear and not used the expression “write off the humanity.”
Here we go again, then:
Connie, I was talking about excluding people and you are talking about excluding views; do you see the difference? If you believe you are right about something, then by implication you believe that anyone who disagrees is wrong. But there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and with sending them to hell for their views.
Christians are comfortable with sending billions of people to hell simply for not accepting a particular belief. Muslims as well. Jews refuse to do that, and herein lies the difference.
You are right, there are fundamental differences of interpretation. Herein is the point I’m making Dina. Judaism can 100% disagree with eternal hell for sinners (a fact Im glad Judaism disagrees with,) but you have Jewish sources now and in the past that accomidate the presence of that belief.
Hell is abstract in Christian theology, as it is in Jewish theology. The Church itself teaches many different things. The Church even has purgatory and the merit of the saints because even Christians dislike their own notion of hell and want to escape the notion. Christians couldnt be more uncomfortable with hell.
Here is a story for you.
One of my relatives was an atheist and he passed (without my sharing the gospel.) I cried my eyes out thinking (as a matter of protestant belief) that he was simply going to hell.
It wasnt until I later studied Christian eastern.orthodoxy and Catholicism, that I realized I hadnt even understood the breadth of different perspectives on salvation/hell present within my own Christian tradition.
Turns out that for Catholics and Orthodox a person’s deeds matter when it comes to their fate.
Its Not as simple as do you or dont accept Christianity.
IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE Christians are comfortable with hell, you dont understand them as well as you think.
You once told me that my readings of Christian scripture (which you thought were nice and could have saved lives in the past if they had been heeded) were irrelevant because such readings were mine alone.
As I told Alan, the problem is that nobody can control anyones interpretation, even when they claim authority to do so.
I have read Jewish sources that say scary horrid things will happen to sinners, and that there are no guarantees of reward for non Jews. Fire and brinstone rabbis exist within your tradition too. There are sources on the level with Christian hell, no less scary.
Jews in Jesus’ time in fact were unsure of the fate of other equally observant Jews from other sects. It was a messed up time.
So, while I agree with you that Christian notions of hell, and the exclusion of people are awful, or that salvation only for the chosen Christian is awful, I cant say that those ideas are unknown to Judaism, even though they are unpopular and minority views.
Also, Christians themselves are held captive by these notions, and they dont like them any more than you do.
They have to believe in it because they believe their religion is true, even though I assure you, Christians dont like the doctrine either.
Penn Gilette once said that he hated the Christian hell, and hated the exclusion of others, but he noted that Christians thhemselves preached at him BECAUSE THEY WANT NOBODY TO GO THERE.
Its not their fault they believe their claims are real.
I grew up in a mindset of fear of demons, Satan, and hell. It wasnt my fault I believed in such things, and I didnt want anyone to go to hell.
As a Christian I did believe (in spite of hell) in G-d’s justice. I believed G-d was a just judge.
Penn Gilette said, “If someone really believes hell is real, isnt it commendable in a round about way that they dont want you to go there?”
They are victims of their faith’s truth claims.
You are upset that Christians exclude others from their heaven, but do you honestly want to be included in that version of the world to come?
I understand being upset at Christian horrors like pogroms, genocide, etc. but the scary thing is their book doesnt encourage such things.
They had to look to episodes like Elijah and the false prophets to engage in “faith tests” or disputations in the real world.
Something to always keep in mind about Christian hell, is that in Christian sources and tradition, hell is 1st for the wicked Christian.
Its fortunate that Judaism doesnt take all of its folklore seriously. Unfortunately, one sect of Jews decided to take sone of that minority folklore more literally, and they spread it worldwide.
CR,
The truth is there are widely accepted rabbinic writings that speak about the exceedingly painful sufferings in purgatory. I think these ideas didnt originate in Judaism though. I think they predate the Jewish people if I’m remembering correctly. Thank God that most Jews throughout history have not been preoccupied with it and haven’t used this as an essential reason to serve God nor as a fundamental principal of faith.
CR,
What does Judaism say about the eternal fate of Jews who are not loyal to the most basic requirements of being a Jew? And what does it say about the eternal fate of non-Jews who are not loyal to the most basic requirements of being a human being?
The first thing we have to accept before we answer these questions is that ONLY HASHEM KNOWS. Human beings do not know and shouldn’t claim to know. Hashem takes into account everything about the person. It’s not cut and dry. Oh, you didn’t keep shabbos? No olam habah for you. Oh, you pray to Jesus? Oh, no olam habah for you. This is a gray area of halacha and one of the reasons it’s gray is because we’re dealing with real life which is extremely complicated and only Hashem has all of the information about a person to pass judgement. This is something a human being cannot judge. So even though the Torah says that the punishment for a Jew who desecrates shabbat on purpose is spiritual excision (with 2 witnesses giving him warning and letting him know the punishment, there is capital punishment if the sinner continues at that moment of warning – and only when there is a Sanhedrin and when all Jews keep shabbat), we can’t know today who is “cut off” and who is not. There are many extenuating reasons today and throughout much of Jewish history. The same thing applies to non-Jews. The plain black and white laws that you might see in a code of Jewish law cannot so readily be applied to all time periods, especially not when it comes to eternal reward and punishments which is something human beings cannot judge. Deuteronomy 32:4 – “The Rock, His work is wholesome; for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and straight is He.” In my mind, there is no way that Hashem will destroy a person eternally who is basically trying to be decent, even if he/she sometimes falls and makes mistakes. If they are trying to be decent, I don’t from Judaism that we must say that Hashem will destroy their souls because they didn’t accept the Torah upon themselves. Of course, a person might lose out on a lot if they don’t try as hard as they could be trying. I also believe that the Torah helps a person achieve the highest level of growth that is humanly possible – well-rounded growth. And this doesn’t mean that a person who doesn’t accept the Torah can’t grow spiritually. To say so is pure nonsense and not according to what we see in reality.
Connie, this is a very good explanation that is fair to both sides. However, my point still stands. Jews are much more spiritually generous to others than Christians and Muslims.
I agree!
Hi Alan
We seem to be going round and round in a perpetual circle of debate which either one of us is not reading what one has been shown, or one of us isn’t explaining a very basic subject very well??
I honesty don’t think I can explain this subject anymore. I’m more than sure in my heart that I’ve given all I can on the subject.
In my opinion, for what’s its worth, I think what ever is explained and proven from the texts, you will find some how to disagree.
You will either see the truth or reject it.
Thanks again Alan for the time spent, but I’m done here on this subject.
Shalom.
Paul Summers,
Thank you too.
I’m just glad that Paul Summers doesn’t consider me to be a god-killer, prophet-killer, displeasing to god, hostile to all men, with the utmost wrath of god upon me. Because even though I do not accept Jesus, I am not a rabbi. I guess Rabbi B is not so lucky.
Paul Summers,
I just remembered that I asked you the following question and I’m still waiting for an answer –
How is it possible that we see non-Christians (such as Jews) serving God according to your definition of serving God when you claim that this is impossible? How can you say it’s impossible when we see it happening?
Hello Alan
What you see, is just that, you see it. However The God of Israel see’s it differently. He see’s it as just works of men with no faith.
As stated on occasions previously you need to read scripture from whats written, not what you want it to say. An atheist can do good works, but that doesn’t mean that person is serving God.
I’m as good as an atheist?
The born-again Christian who inspired me to find this blog told me that he and I serve the same God, the God of Israel. Now you’re telling me I don’t serve the God of Israel?
Alan, 99% of Christian would say that you are unsave and deserving of hell. The NT says that many times. “Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.”
Can you possibly serve G-d and still deserve His wrath? I don’t think so, so Paul prefers to think that you serve another god. When we come to it, who has a better chance of serving G-d? The one that follows the Tanach, or those who follow Jesus?
RT,
You believe me that my born-again Christian friend used to love telling me that he and I both serve the God of Israel?
But Paul Summers who’s also a born-again Christian thinks I serve an alien god or that I’m equivalent to an atheist?
Hello Alan
Mathew Ch 10 v 33
John Ch 10 v 27
Are you saying that you can do better works than a atheist, or a atheist is below you?
Paul,
I’m saying I only serve the God of Israel and no other gods. My born-again friend told me that he serves the same God as I do.
Alan, Paul is right as per NT, you and I are doomed to hell. Your friend might say/think that you serve the same G-d as him, but did you ever ask him if he thinks you will finish in hell? That might not be the same answer. I am not saying he is dishonest, but if I have a friend, he might have felt bad to tell you that. If not, his view might not be orthodox, and most Christians would consider your friend unsaved by denying the Super-Power of the blood of the Lamb!
RT,
I couldn’t get him to tell me directly “you are going to hell” or “your soul will perish”. But he said it indirectly.
Alan, your friend or Paul? I agree that Paul believes that. You should ask your friend, even if he think you believe in the same G-d, he might not believe you will be with him in heaven…
RT,
My friend couldn’t bring himself to tell me directly.
There is a God; lol 🙂
Alan
Read the Bible, Start at Genesis and stop at Malachi. Once you’ve done that start with the NT. Its your only hope on all your questions.
X
Paul,
I asked you what service of God consists of and you told me that it’s in 1 Timothy 14 (I think). All of those works there are exactly what I am trying to do with my life. Timothy doesn’t say “serve Jesus” he says “serve God”. When I pray, I pray to the God of Israel. When I control my urges I do it with the God of Israel in mind. When I do kindness I do it with the God of Israel in mind. Show me where Timothy 14 says if you don’t serve Jesus you don’t serve the God of Israel.
Alan, Read a real Tanakh, start at Geneis and finish at 2 Chronicle. I would suggest for you to use the Stone Tanach… but the JBS can be fine as well. Once you done that and you realize Jesus was nowhere to be found, wonder where that new god-man comes from.
RT,
I’ll look into that Stone Tanakh. Thanks!
Got confused, I meant Paul 🙂
Paul Summers Let’s start with Genesis 1:1 – is everything in heaven and earth created by God? Or is Jesus an exception to the rule? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
YPF, (Paul Summers look closely to what I’m saying)
Can God come down and take his Spirit and put it on other people?Numbers 11:25
or
Does Gods Spirit hover over the Water? Genesis 1:2
Spirit + God.
And Yet, Christians Claim that Jesus is his WORD.
Spirit+God+Word=1 God
God’s Word Created the World.
Unless Gods Spirit is less than God himself, or possibly his Word fails.
And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
God uses Flesh(Prophets) to speak his Word.
Thus our claim, the Word of God was before the Earth was created.
“my close friend who I trusted and who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me”
since john clipped the bits ” he who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me”
i ask, why did john remove the bits about trusting ?
trust
trʌst/Submit
noun
1.
firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something.
now john wouldn’t want his jesus to trust in judas, otherwise it would mean jesus didn’t know he would get caught off guard by judas.
what is interesting is the language used
“Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you (disciples) also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30)”
jesus seems to be implying that judas is truly going to get rewarded . it is almost like a guarantee indicating that the author of matthew took oral tradition in which jesus did not know of being betrayed by judas.
compare to john
13.12-21
in the above verses from the synoptics there is no wording like
” i am not speaking of you all; i know WHOM i have CHOSEN ….”
you see how the language changes the later the account is written ?
MHC,
This is a brilliant insight!!!!!
Alan wrote “It’s amazing to me that a person like myself is actually a believing and practicing Torah Jew. But I’ve been on the path for over 25 years now and haven’t gone away from it once, at least not the main parts of shabbat, kashrut, family purity, tzedaka, learning, tefillin, prayer at least once a day.”
Having spoken to Alan personally, he is almost what one could call “a born-again Jew”. At the risk of sounding weird, if he were a Christian most of my Christian friends would refer to him as “very Christlike”.
Middle of the road is best. Regular person who can get along with all kinds of people is best. Thanks to my son I am learning to appreciate why Hashem created ice hockey in the world. My son is a big strong ice hockey player, not like his dad. They didn’t tell me I could get a son so different from me when I went to “baal teshuva” yeshiva. So I have to learn how to relate to and really care about what’s important to him. We all bring different assets to the table.
Hello YPF
Exodus CH 31 v 13
The perpetual covenant was given to Ethnic Israel, the Jews.
Paul Summers So do you believe that God is sanctifying Israel (ethnic Jews) today? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes.
Has God brought Israel back?
Bible819,
I don’t know, has God brought any human being back to this level yet?
Alan,
God’s King
He also chose David His servant And took him from the sheepfolds
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee,
He is triumphant, and victorious,
Lowly, and riding upon an ass,
Even upon a colt the foal of an ass.
She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
“Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Did Man miss it by looking at appearance rather than the Soul?
Eliyahu hasn’t come yet. Moshiach hasn’t come yet. Let’s do what Deuteronomy 30 says and turn back to Hashem and listen to His voice according to everything He commanded Moses and then Moshiach will come.
Alan:
You didn’t dispute anything I said.
God has come.
The Messiah has come.
Many have already Turned back by Yeshua’s blood.
His Righteousness, not mine.
The Messiah will Return to gather his Flock.
The Goats will receive Gods Wine.
Bible819,
I dispute every word you wrote in this last comment. I really do.
No, Alan, you didn’t.
I didn’t what?
Hello RT
And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.
Yes, it is possible to SERVE G-d without Jesus. POINT PROVEN!
I never stated that Israel didn’t or couldn’t serve God pre Christ.
I also never said that a Jew couldn’t serve God post Christ.
The points I have made previously are that through Bible history only a remnant of true faithful Jews have, by faith followed God. The book of Jeremiah clearly shows this, and of course the NT.
I have many Jewish friends who serve God today through Yeshua.
John the Baptist served God pre Christ death, so covenantaly and positionally he served God under the Mosaic Law.
Sister Dina. Thank you for the enlightening argument again. However i still don’t see that Deuteronomy 18 compliments the acts of Pharisees and Saducees in Mt.12:38
In Deut.18, where did God command His people to ask for a sign? Didn’ t he command simply to discern?
It seems to me that Moses sometimes got angry at the people’s asking for divine miracle.
If you read carefully Mt.12:40
The Jonah’ s sign Yeshua would show did not include “resurrection,” only “death.”
Mt. 26:57 & 27:62 etc, proves that Many religious leaders like Pharisees, Saducees, priests and elders witnessed and knew upon the death of Yshua;
Compare Gideon with Ahaz (Isaiah 7). In the Hebrew Bible, it is clear that those who are righteous ask signs and those who are not refrain from it. The G-d of the Bible never refused signs and never got angry when people asked for it.
RT,
The halacha is that we MUST test someone who claims to be a prophet. We must put him through the ropes, with respect and honor of course.
Prophet Test: Is Faithfulness to God
Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink.”
Moses didn’t SPEAK to the rock.
GOD got angry.
Moses Died as well Aaron before the promise Land.
Joshua* led them to the promise land.
Bible819,
Faithfulness to G-d is one part of the prophet test. Here’s the rest –
Deuteronomy 13 –
1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams–and he give thee a sign or a wonder, 3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee–saying: ‘Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them’; 4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 5 After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave. 6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
Deuteronomy 18 –
20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28 –
7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people: 8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. 9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.
Alan:
Luke 12
Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Bible819 –
Malakhi 3 –
22 Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.
Alan,
Elijah:
John 1:23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”
The terrible day of the LORD:
Mathew 36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Bible819,
Whenever that day comes, we will once again keep all of his commandments just as the verse you brought says. There are several other verses that also show that after the final redemption, we will all be doing the commandments.
Alan,
To Love God with all your Heart, and love your neighbor as yourself fulfill Every Command and Law.
I do just that With Jesus in me and I in him.
Bible819,
Some of that sounds great. You fulfill every command? Do you pray to Jesus? Do you keep shabbos according to halacha we received from Moses? I don’t even know if you’re Jewish. If you’re not Jewish that don’t worry about shabbos.
Yes. Testing and discerning with respect and honor. NOT with disputing and tempting.
RT. You are right and i was wrong. There are many men of God who asked for a sign and God never refused signs. He is God of signs and wonders in the history of Israel!
God showed the signs even during the Korean war when the Korean Christians asked for mercy from the God of Israel. It seems to me that the reason why Yeshua rebuked the Pharisee’s asking of sign is their intention and attitude.
Mark 8:11 “And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.”
If you read carefully Mt.12:40
The Jonah’ s sign Yeshua would show did not include “resurrection,” only “death.”
Matt 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
The mention of three days implies an end to his being in the earth, and was a direct comparison to Jonah’s three days. ” For as”, means “in the same way” , which in context means “for the same amount of time”. Were it just about “dying” and not resurrecting, then the amount of days would be completely irrelevant as would be any reference to Jonah. But then that is your goal, right? To make the words “sign” and “three days and three nights” irrelevant because it has been proven that this “sign” was never given to the people it was promised to.
Your interpretation is entirely your own and no other Christian apologist in almost 2000 years has dared make any such similar comment on this text. Every other Christian responds to this text by saying the following:
“In Jewish time reckoning, any part of a day counted as a whole day. Thus, one hour before sunset counts as an entire day and one hour after sunset counts as an entire day. Therefore part of Friday= day 1, all of Saturday= day 2, part pf Sunday= day 3, prophecy fulfilled.”
Now you and I, as well as every Jew and Noachide here, knows that this Christian explanation of time reckoning is a deceptive lie. Even of we grant the “any part of a day equals a whole”, Jesus said “three days AND three nights”, not “three days”. In other words, three day times and three night times, not three calendar days, as the Christian apologist deceptively tries to pull off. Beyond that, the Christian ignores the fact that Jesus never showed himself as “the sign” he promised. Because you know this, you then try to use a different explanation, that Jesus was not speaking of resurrection, but only of dying. This, of course, is no better than the standard Christian explanation, and in fact ignores the context of the statement by Jesus.
Brother Eleazar, “3 days and 3nights in the heart of the earth or in the belly of fish.” Doesn’t it simply mean DEATH only? Scripture is so simple and clear, right?
NOw, as you questioned, i also was doubtful of Yeshua’s being buried in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. He died and buried. But how come three days and nights? His death continues on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday that make up 3 day times. But Friday night (in a way of western counting), saturday night, then Sunday morning! We need one more night of death!
I want to encourage you to see that the Gospel of Matthew is the only gospel which records that the religious leaders like Pharisees and priests witnessed and knew the death of Yeshua! (Mt 27:62-63 “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again “) AND at the same time, ONLY THIS GOSPEL records the death of JUDAH on Thursday night before the dawn of Friday sun arose (Matthew 27:1-5)
My brother, i think the Gospel of Matthew tells us something. The death of Yeshua is viewed as the death of the covenant people – Judah. Yehuda. Jewish people. Just like Isaish 53 can be viewed as the suffering servant of nation Israel as Jewish people interpret and as the Jewish Messiah as Christians interpret. Both Yeshua and Israel was used as the lamb of God, slaughtered for the redemption of the world.
As Yeshua was destroyed on the cross, the Temple was destroyed on C.E.70.
As Yeshua resurrected on the third day, the temple will resurrect on the beginning of the third millenium.
I guess that’s why Yeshua mentioned His sign will be 3 nights, including his own disciple- Judah’s death on thursday night. His sign shows the destiny of the covenant people. I hope this will help.
Hello YPF
Of course Israels national salvation is the climax of Gods promises. Those verses from Isaiah are surely detailing Israels redemption by God, which of course is still future.
Aren’t those texts to do with salvation post exile via Messiah. You seem to have quoted them in the present tense?
Israel has still got go through the times of Jacobs trouble before those Isaiah passages come into fruition?
Paul Summers What are you talking about? – Isaiah 51:16 is talking to Israel while she fears her enemies 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul Summers, you were saying to Alan that he serves G-d via works of men, and therefore not at all.
Which works of men?
keeping the Sabbath day holy? That’s a textual command
Kosher? That’s also textual
Tefillin and TzitTzit ( derived from the text, which Jesus kept also, but which is not directly in the written text?)
Paul Summers Said: “What you see, is just that, you see it. However The God of Israel see’s it differently.”
Paul Summers, Something you should know is that you cannot read G-d’s mind.
I have a friend who is a street preacher, and this is one of our biggest pet peeves. You do not know the heart or mind of the G-d of Israel any better than a Jewish person knows it.
By telling this man that he does not serve G-d, you prove the apostle Paul’s point about the wrongs of self justification.
You believe you are justified and blameless because you are a follower of Jesus, and Alan isn’t because he does not follow Jesus.
You are placing yourself in the seat of G-d, the epitome of the wrongdoing that the Apostle Paul spoke about.
The idea that you could say such a thing to Alan shows that you must not understand Paul of Tarsus’ whole point about works of the law, and why they can be a source of sin.
Have you ever noticed that the message Paul gives to Jews about works of the law, he also warns Jewish and gentile Christians about in regards to works of the gospel? IE not to eat of the Eucharist unworthily for example?
IE Paul says “DO EVERYTHING WITHOUT GRUMBLING AND ARGUING” (Philppians 2:14)
He says the doer of the work is the one who is justified and not the hearer (Romans 2:13)
Observing the commandments of G-d as Jews do (including kosher, shabbat, etc.) is not wicked in any sense, nor is it an attempt at self justification before G-d as you believe. Following those commands are not works of men.
Look at Paul of Tarsus himself so you can see the prime example of what Paul of Tarsus actually meant by problems of works of the law.
Paul (according to his own testimony) sought to make trouble for and maybe even kill the students of Jesus by handing them over to Rome. IE Paul, (though he was also a Jew) was self righteous in the eyes of the Torah.
The man sought to do harm to his own fellow observant Jewish people because he thought his view of the Torah was the only valid one.
That is what it means to be under the curse of the law, and being justified by works according to Paul.
When a Sadducee would seek to harm a Pharisee, or a Samaritan, would seek to harm a Jew, that is works of the law.
what you had in that situation was groups of people who were all keeping the Torah’s commands in accordance with their own conscience, but trying to harm each other at the same time, and thereby they were undermining the entire goal of the Torah in the 1st place.
Christians today come to Jews and say “hey, why not abandon Kosher?”
“Hey, why try and keep Shabbat? Its too hard, and you should stop and accept Jesus!”
All you do when you accuse a Jew of cleaving to works is cement in their minds the idea that Jesus was wicked lawbreaker and wanted to drive Jews from the commandments.
IT IS TORAH THAT FORCES A JEW TO BE OBSERVANT OF TORAH COMMANDS IN ALL GENERATIONS AND WHERE TORAH IS CALLED THE COVENANT OF LOVE. (Deuteronomy 7:9)
CR,
This was really great. I thank you very much for it. And thanks for reminding me of that beautiful verse in Deuteronomy 7 and your putting it in the words Covenant of Love – keeping the commandments is a covenant of love. I never heard the verse put that way before but I think it is an excellent and true reading even if not verbatim.
Agreed, Alan. One of Concerned Reader’s best so far.
Well put, CR!
Hi CR
You are correct, I cannot read Gods Mind, I never said I could. But I can read scripture.
I never said Alan was evil either. I said he couldn’t scripturally serve God.
You stated that the Law was for all generations. Jeremiah CH 31 states otherwise.
Hello CR
I have a little more time.
The point that Paul is making is exactly what Alan and yourself are doing. He is saying that outwardly observation of the Law Does NOT bring about justification. He, Paul is saying the Law is nil and void now through the death of Christ. The Law in itself is Holy, Just, perfect as it is Gods Holy standard, but man can never achieve its rightful standards.
The Law was never given to obtain salvation.
The point about the bread and wine is simply about the condition of ones spiritual life, and one should observe their life as a believer before taking it. Its about issues of repentance and life style, bringing a closer relationship towards God, not just doing outwardly observations that mean nothing.
You say that keeping the covenants is love. Does that mean if you don’t keep the covenant’s there is no love?
Paul Summers,
Why are you much more concerned with salvation than with service? It seems to me that you think the life God gave us is all about salvation. What happened to service?
A non-Christian who lives his/her life trying to fulfill the following prophecy is just wasting their time?
Micah 6 –
8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.
I want to correct the above translation of Micah 6:8 –
I wrote: “and to love mercy”. But I don’t feel this is the best translation.
The more precise translation is “and to love kindness”. It’s close but I think the word kindness expresses an active DOING more than the word mercy does.
In Hebrew mercy is rahamim while kindness is hesed and this verse says “to love hesed”.
Alan, I think Paul is saying that without the salvation of Jesus, you may do all the service outwardly, but you are a like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In other words, Paul think that your outside appears to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. As I said, you cannot do it for the right motive. It is especially true because he believe in the original sin, and has a Calvinist approach of the new testament. You are not a sinner because you sin, you sin, because you are born a sinner. Or as John said, you do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
That’s what he thinks, you and I cannot see the truth about Jesus, because we belong to Satan and are bond to be liars and murderers. The only reason why we don’t go about killing everybody is because it brings us less joy (imprisonment and other personal gains) not to do it. The only thing we do is selfish and there is nothing we don’t do that is not selfish and hell deserving. Even charity that we do is disgusting in the inmost part for god Jesus as our motives are not to bring glory to the man-god.
Google Calvinism and tulip and you will find the worst Christian doctrine ever…
RT,
If this is what he thinks, and I suspect you’re right on the mark, than he is living in hell NOW in this world. This is true hell to live with these thoughts. To look at everyone on the planet as a messenger of the devil or to at least suspect them of this, dehumanizes all mankind, we’re worse than animals. And to be trapped in the believe that the torture and murder of another human being is the only thing that makes us human again, is truly hell on earth.
My Stone Tanakh does not say anywhere that God makes babies be born as messengers of the Satan, nor does it say that one must believe that the heinous murder of another person is what makes one Man. It doesn’t say that a person or god can be murdered for the purpose of making devil-people into Image-of-God-people. I just don’t see any of this in my Stone Tanakh. I haven’t read all of the JPS, maybe it’s in there?
And that’s why so many Christians have such a fear of the end-time. When G-d will remove his inhibition from the unbeliever and all will follow the anti-Christ and turn to their vile passions!
They must believe or fear that God has given them over into the hands of the Satan; that Satan is an independent god and can do to people whatever he wants. It sounds like they literally believe in 2 gods.
Was I right? 2 gods, 2 independent powers –
http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-4.htm
Hi Alan
Those verses from Micah’s book are of course about service. God is dealing with Israel’s sins and there wrong attitude towards many issues He has with them. In context, as before, its not about outwardly acts but getting one’s heart right with the right motives. The basic principles were being forgotten. This is the verse meaning.
But works by itself cannot justify anyone to God.
Paul,
Where in Micah does it say that heart is what justifies you with God? Where in Tanakh does it even say that this is what God wants us to concentrate on being “justified”?
You are reading into the words things that are not there.
Yes Alan, Christianity is a dualistic religion with two gods. Because you do not believe in Jesus, you are following the lesser god Satan. You are part of his army as per what Paul is saying and he is blinding you of the truth of the Gospel. Only Jesus/god can make you see that truth and you are unable to chose god, he has to choose you first before you accept him. You are not saved because you accept Jesus, you accept Jesus, because god saved you. You are part of the Devil’s army (and me too) and will finish in hell…
Compare it to the non-dualistic Judaism:
7.Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these. ז.יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא
Where is this other god in Tanakh?
Do Christians think this other god is stronger than Hashem or that they have about the same strength?
I would not call the Christian god Hashem. The Christian god is stronger and satan must obey when asked to. The Christian god wins and throw Satan and all his followers (you and me) in the lake of fire. All evil (Satan, you and me) will be there forever.
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
So there is a main god and a lesser god?
If the main god is always stronger then how is the lesser god a god? If he’s just a servant then how can the NT call him a god?
I don’t know! Also, the god Jesus is also a lesser god than the father. With so many gods, how can that still be called monotheism?
Is there any recreation at the lake, like fishing (maybe that’s where the burnt fish in the NT came from)? Are there at least nice mountains and meadows to look at around the lake?
Yes sure, you can see heaven up above and all Jesus’ follower having a party, while you having “fun” down there. They also can look at you and laugh all together for being such a Jesus denier. ( I am not kidding!)
Luke 16:19–31
Isaiah 66 (with Christians interpretations)
As long as I can watch something good on the heaventron tv I can deal with living on the lake.
Thanks for this passage, I was not familiar with it.
I don’t say the covenant of Moses is G-d’s covenant of love. The Bible in Deuteronomy and in the Psalms says this.
When Jesus 1st preached, the only book he had was the Torah of Moses.
Ask yourself why the law can’t justify someone in Paul’s view.
Its Because humans get self righteous. When they get self righteous, they don’t and cant fulfill the intent of the law, so all it does is judge.
Adam was being self righteous when he ate from the tree.
You telling Alan, (a man you do not know,) that he can’t serve G-d scripturally because he is an orthodox Jew is the height of hubris. It proves that Christians like you have the same exact problem as you claim Jews have because they observe Torah.
Believing in Jesus has not ended Christian self righteousness, or ended Christian sin.
The Bible is the book that tells Jews to practice the covenant of Moses forever.
If you think that the early students of Jesus abandoned practical observance, you need to read your own book more carefully.
Paul the apostle took a vow (and paid for others) so that people wouldn’t think he was against Moses, and you come here and say that it is impossible to observe the commandments.
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.
It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” IE YOU DO NOT NEED SOMEONE TO ASCEND TO HEAVEN SO YOU CAN KEEP THE TORAH!!!!
Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” IE NOBODY NEEDS TO WALK ON WATER SO YOU CAN OBSERVE IT!!
No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
Paul if eating the bread and wine unworthily was meant only as a spiritual warning, why does Paul of Tarsus CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY say that if you eat unworthily, you eat and drink damnation on yourself?
It seems to me that you must be a protestant. The Churches for centuries have prevented even neophytes from taking the Eucharist, because a person has to be living a lifestyle worthy of Jesus.
You probably haven’t even read any of my posts on this blog. I am not saying a person is justified if they happen to be Jewish, and neither are Jews claiming any such thing.
“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.” Malachi 4:4
Paul Summers
Hello RT
Woh! Some comments there, such passion you have, I’m no expert but those comments are verging on religious hatred!!
Anyway…
I was Wondering if you could help me out on a few points ref the Law of Moses and the Hebrew tanach?
1. Does the Law of Moses still stand today, if so, are you a Law keeper?
2. If the Law still stands today, as per scripture, are you or Jews aloud to fulfill some, but not adhere to others bits, the commands that are difficult to follow?
3. Can you find me a text in the NT when Jesus or his disciples went on a national campaign and invaded a country and killed all the inhabitants, including babies, children?
4. Can you show me in the Tanach if a campaign of the same ever happened?
5. Does Leviticus 17 explain that the souls atonement is by blood or by some other mode, say, repentance and good works?
Paul,
I noticed you didn’t disagree with anything RT wrote about what you believe.
1-2) Yes the entirety of the Law still stands. Some part cannot be kept, as there is no Temple and will not be able to be kept until the messiah comes. Nobody keeps all the law, some parts are for the levites, somes for the Jewish man, some for the Jewish woman and some for all. I don’t think you can find anywhere that non-Jews have to eat Kosher or keep the Shabbat for example. Moral laws are to be kept by everybody.
3-4) Irrelevant, as you hold the Tanach as inspired too and would only condemn yourself in the same time. I had some talks about that with atheists,on this blog and yes they have a point…
5) The purpose of Leviticus 17 is about what is permitted to eat and what is not. Leviticus 4 shows other means of atonements, so it cannot say that it is the only mean of atonement. You need the book of Hebrew to understand it that way.
Hi RT
Don’t worry about me being condemned, just answer the question. In fact two questions.
One about the tanach and the NT.
No rush?!
Paul,
The church is clean of the sword right? Are you trying to show that the NT is better than Tanakh because there is no sword in the NT?
Talking about Kosher, I am vegetarian and do not eat gelatin and other animal by-products. Most Christians would think that I am eating kosher. This is not the case, and sorry to burst all your bubbles here! Cross-contamination with non-Kosher products in the industry or at the restaurant would render most kosher product unclean. For example, your Starbucks coffee that you drink every morning. This looks good, no way to worry. Wrong! Imagine, that there was a nice ham sandwich and the employee washed the plate with a brush, then washed the coffee pot with the same brush. That renders your kosher coffee unkosher. The same is true if you eat beef, where do you think they process the pork next to it? On the same factory as the beef that you think is kosher. I am not even talking about the way they killed the animal, which would automatically render that beef not-kosher. Pizza is a good one too.. No reason to be worried if we eat a vegetarian pizza, isn’t it? What about the pepperoni pizza that is cooked next to it? Or the rennet in the cheese? Welll, if you want to keep Kosher, keep Kosher as the orthodox Jews do. If not, there is no point of keeping kosher, saying you keep kosher or pretending you keep kosher. (not pointing fingers to anybody here,,… I don’t know if any non-jew or Jews keep kosher in an unkosher way!).
I am not keeping kosher, and as a non-jew, I am not saying I am keeping it even if I do not eat pig, shrimp, etc…. This is not keeping kosher anyway…
3) Nowhere. I will not talk about the 2000 years of Christian persecution, I don’t think you agree with what happened by them anyway.
4) somewhere in Judges and 1 Samuel. I talked about it with the atheist in the blog previously. It looks cruel and have not looked into this that much.
A New Covenant that makes inward the intent of the original is not really new, but renewed.
If you come here telling Jews that they can’t serve G-d by keeping the commands which G-d ordered them to keep, you contradict yourself. Its simple.
“Imagine, that there was a nice ham sandwich and the employee washed the plate with a brush, then washed the coffee pot with the same brush. That renders your kosher coffee unkosher. The same is true if you eat beef, where do you think they process the pork next to it? On the same factory as the beef that you think is kosher.”
RT, questioning this axiom is literally what I believe is =the meaning of the all foods clean passage in Mark 7. If you are trying so hard to keep kosher, but you are “actually not,” due to transfer of impurity from an outside source, that is making kosher into unkosher. A fence that is negating effort to be kosher.
Daniel and his compatriots were served vegetables by gentiles, were they unkosher because of utensils that may have been used by their hosts on other animals?
If the plate is clean and not hot it doesn’t make kosher food unkosher as long as the kosher food is also not hot (onions might be a problem even if not hot). Kosher food cooked in a non-kosher pot becomes non-kosher. If some non-kosher food gets on kosher food you can just rinse it off; if either is hot then usually you need to cut off the part that made contact. Even if some ham got into the coffee pot by accident, as long as it is less than 1/60 of the volume of the coffee, the coffee is still kosher. If I’m wrong about any of this Rabbi B should correct me.
CR,
Thanks for another wonderful post!
Hello Alan, CR
Its a very simple question.
If the question was asked by yourselves, it would be demanded to be answered. If it wasn’t answered the point would be used as another attempt that Christian couldn’t \ wouldn’t attempt to answer a very simple question.
All you are doing is fudging the reply with distraction.
The question wasn’t aimed at church history, it was very clearly asked from what the Scriptures say.
Simply put, what does the Bible record, nothing else.
To be quite frank, you cannot give an answer from the NT, because it doesn’t say so, If it did, you would find a text to show me. The Tanach does teach such, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.
Alan, you are right, a pan that would be used for cooking would be render non-kosher, and yes my example was a wee extreme. Still, non-kosher restaurant don’t have milk/meat segregation, and people are not trained to clean properly and not contaminate your coffee pot. I just checked and, yes Starbucks coffee is kosher, and so if they are a tiny bit careful, then yes it should not be a problem to drink it.
Anyway, there is no way to know if really it was kosher or not if it is not certified. There is no “Biblical Kosher” vs “Rabbinic Kosher”. Rabbis have to go to the restaurant and food processing facilities to make sure all the ingredients are kosher and proper sanitation and segregation is done.
RT,
It’s tricky for all the reasons you gave which is why I’ll stick with a certified kosher restaurant. I am not a coffee drinker. But I know some orthodox Jews who drink only certain kinds of coffee at Starbucks. I never looked into it but I trust they have what to rely upon. And I am sure there are other orthodox Jews who wouldn’t even drink coffee at Starbucks. I just don’t know enough about the halachic issues to speak about it.
RT,
Here you go – https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/601/navigating-starbucks-for-the-kosher-consumer/
It doesn’t apply to me because I’m not a coffee drinker and my funds are limited.
Alan, I think you are right to stick with kosher restaurants. I worked on several occasions with Rabbi, as I work in the food industry (for Kosher certification and other kosher related issues). In my opinion, there is just too much uncertainty to drink coffee in a non-kosher restaurant. The same holds for non-kosher food. The worst would be non-kosher meat, it is 100% non-kosher, not slaughtered in the proper way and sanitation will never be enough to guarantee it kosher, even if there is no cooking. I don’t think many messianic care, or know, about Kosher rules. They like to say that they follow “Biblical Kosher’, and that’s a good example of failure if you don’t follow the halachic system…
Hello CR
I’m wondering when the last Torah observational Jew stoned to death someone for being guilty of Adultery?
Does Adultery not exist anymore?
The Law, all 613 commands, are combined as one unit. Its a single unit, with plural commands.
Hello RT
Contextually Leviticus 17 is talking about the abstaining from eating blood. The verse in question then builds on that restriction by stating why, because I, God have given it, blood, as the atonement for YOUR SOUL. He didn’t say the absence of blood atones.
The entire priesthood service was based on the Blood shedding. Other elements were included, yes, but all the services had blood In them, these being the foundation of atonement.
Paul,
Are you saying that the only thing that atones is blood? Nothing else atones?
Paul Summers,
I’m not sure what you’re asking about stoning adulterers. Why don’t Jews do it today? The commandment to do it hasn’t been nullified, it’s just been suspended because the conditions to do it don’t exist. Also, “stoning” does not mean to throw stones or rocks until the person dies. It’s built into the Law that we are not responsible for doing commandments that we can’t do due to circumstances beyond our control.
Paul You seem to be suggesting that if you fail in one command (to observe it,) then you fail in all.
The community during the time of Daniel had no temple, or sacrifices, just as today, and yet they were redeemed. how?
Do you believe there was a bonafide legal system established for Israel (with checks and balances and procedures,) or did people just decide that a person should be stoned?
Hello RT
You keep making very odd statements that bare no resemblance to NT teachings??
And that’s why so many Christians have such a fear of the end-time.
How does the believer fear end times, when they are Glorified in Heaven with God????
Can you please explain??
Sure, death. Imagine the antichrist persecuting all Christians until death. True the Bible say that Christians should not fear, but it’s easier said than done. No wonder why end-time is one of the most often talked about subject…
3. Can you find me a text in the NT when Jesus or his disciples went on a national campaign and invaded a country and killed all the inhabitants, including babies, children?
Can you tell me a procedure for how the nation wiuld decide how to handle such an undertaking?
Since Jesus was rejected by the judges in his days
(Even by the likes of Gamaliel who
called for restraint towards the disciples’ teaching,) he had no means of putting together a government, or a standing Army, even though he expressed the intent to slay the wicked in Luke’s gospel 19:27.
Jesus was no Judah Maccabee, nor was he a Bar Kochba. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist made any attempts at true governance. They preached a message that said things like “go offer the sacrifice as Moses commanded you,” but then left no details about how one should do the commandment properly. Its as though they thought their own people knew who to talk to or ask about details of observance.
If Jesus really did overturn the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, this would have required a group effort by a large mob of people. See the book titled Revolution in Judea.
Inagine one man trying to halt the wall street exchanges while open, and you get the idea of how impissible this would be for one person.
The area of money exchange and purchase of animals for sacrifices was huge. Think of a continual livestock auction but on a very large scale.
This whole story would have required planning and group orchestration, much like those commands in the Torah would require procedure and orchestration.
Hello CR
To answer your first point, is yes. You fail all the Law. Its a complete unit. Bearing in mind the Law was never given to obtain eschatology salvation anyway.
Secondly, you are correct there was no temple service in the times of Daniel. The blood of Bulls and goats etc never forgave sins in the first place to begin with. The blood only covered the sins, but it never took them away. To prove this The Day of atonement was a yearly repeated process, it was ongoing and never ending. The priest’s themselves had to be atoned prior to the service. So just as much as it was temporary when functional, when at times it was suspended it matted not, especially when Israel were in Babylon as a punishment anyway.
Today of course that service of Temporary atonement has been superseded by God Himself. Jeremiah makes it unmistakeably clear that God will do away with the Old covenant made on tablets of stone. If its not permanent, then of course it has no bearing in a eternal salvation sense.
Of course there was checks, due process to see if one was guilty of breaking a such command. Jesus proves such in John CH 8.
However according to you the Law still operates. People still commit adultery today, so why then, through due process and checks are People not being brought before a court and questioned…. Sorry I forgot the Law doesn’t function because of no temple.
.
But you can’t have a law that states the Law functions with a temple and its services, one works within the other, and then say the Law functions without the services and temple, because one doesn’t need the other to make it function.
When God gave Moses instructions to build the tented tabernacle, the only way the Mosaic Law could function was on the basis that there was a temple for the Law to operate.
There was no Law prior to the tabernacle, but Abraham still had a relationship with God but He did sacrifice animals without a temple.
So why doesn’t Israel sacrifice without a temple?
Hello Alan
If the conditions don’t exist, as you state, for the punishment to be seen through, then of course the Very Law itself cannot exist can it. Because you need a temple with ALL its Mosaic commands for it to operate.
You are using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.
If Adultery still stands, which it does, unless you are completely in denial, and if the Law still stands, which you say does, then one must be dealt with according to the other. When and who ever commanded Israel to keep Kosher law but forget Marital Law, either with or without a temple???
Texts please!
Paul,
You wrote: “The blood of Bulls and goats etc never forgave sins in the first place to begin with. The blood only covered the sins, but it never took them away. ”
Does this mean you hold that “atonement” means “covering the sins” and “forgiveness” means “taking away the sins”? And that nothing atones except for blood?
See Deuteronomy 30:1-10 and 1 Kings 8:22-53 – both of these passages show clearly that even when there is no Temple and even when the Jewish people are in exile, if we turn from our sins and keep the commandments that apply in exile, then God will forgive our sins and redeem us. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 30 shows that after we will be redeemed we will go back to keeping all of the commandments and this includes sacrifices.
Hi Alan
Look at Deut 30 v 1. Basically its a promise of return to God from a position of apostasy. That curse was given because of the previous conditions. CH 28 v64.
So the present conditions of Israel is based presently on what??
What does v 63b say?
That’s not a church promise, but a God of Israel promise. Just food for thought.
Paul,
Do you see from the texts that God will FORGIVE the Jews in exile (WHERE THEY CAN’T KEEP ALL OF THE COMMANDMENTS) when they do teshuva and keep his commandments in exile?
1 Kings 8 – from Solomon’s prayer upon the inauguration of the Temple:
46 If they sin against Thee–for there is no man that sinneth not (THEN JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MAN EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY HE WAS 100% MAN AND 100% god) –and Thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far off or near; 47 yet if they take it to heart in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn back [DO TESHUVA FROM THEIR SINS], and make supplication unto Thee in the land of them that carried them captive [THEY ARE IN EXILE], saying: WE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE DONE INIQUITOUSLY, WE HAVE DEALT WICKEDLY; 48 if they return unto Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies [IN EXILE THEY FORSAKE THEIR SINS AND RETURN TO LISTENING TO GOD’S COMMANDMENTS], who carried them captive, and pray unto Thee toward their land, which Thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; 49 then hear Thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and maintain their cause; 50 and FORGIVE Thy people who have sinned against Thee, and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS wherein they have transgressed against Thee; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them; 51 for they are Thy people, and Thine inheritance, which Thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron; 52 that Thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of Thy servant, and unto the supplication of Thy people Israel, to hearken unto them whensoever they cry unto Thee. 53 For Thou didst set them apart from among all the peoples of the earth, to be Thine inheritance, as Thou didst speak by the hand of Moses Thy servant, when Thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD.’
——————–
Paul,
You would have to say that King Solomon did not understand the Torah, that he did not understand Deuteronomy 30 which says the same thing he is saying here – that teshuva means to stop doing all kinds of sins – idolatry, murder, stealing, harming people physically and emotionally, sexual sins – as it says above ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS – WE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE DONE INIQUITOUSLY, WE HAVE DEALT WICKEDLY – teshuva means to take it to heart and to forsake all of the sins between man and God and between man and his fellow, and then TO RETURN TO LISTENING TO GOD’S COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE IN OUR POWER TO DO – if we do this, God FORGIVES US!
You are saying that Solomon and Deuteronomy 30 are actually saying, “In order for Me (God) to forgive you, YOU NEED TO BELIEVE that I am a trinity and that I will send Messiah who is both Myself and my son whose spilled blood will atone for your sins. In order for Me, to forgive you, you need to believe this.” Paul, this is what you are saying these texts mean!
Ezekiel 18 is crystal clear that the sins God wants us to do teshuva for are not just idolatry but also and primary all of the ways we can hurt our fellow human beings! Teshuva just from idolatry IS NOT THE TESHUVA THAT WILL MAKE US RIGHT AGAIN WITH GOD! Read Ezekiel 18, it is crystal clear!
According to Paul Summers, Ezekiel is a liar! According to him, the teshuva that Hashem requires for us to be right with him is for us TO BELIEVE IN THE SPILLED BLOOD OF JESUS. This is the teshuva of Tanakh according to Paul Summers!
Paul you add your own interpretation to the text. It does not talk about Jesus, or that you have to accept Jesus to return to the L-rd. You arrive with the conclusion first, and then try to find text that fits your theory. This is the basis of a bad experiment and the perfect way of finding a faulty conclusion.
Paul Summers
Based on what you are ssying, you have made G-d into a liar who changed his mind.
You say the law via the blood of bulls covered sin, but didn’t and couldnt forgive sin.
You further said that a lack of temple in Daniel’s time was irrelevant, because the sacrifices themselves were irrelevant in terms of salvation.
You do realize you have put the lie on G-d who commanded these things and told Israel that they were capable of doing them?
G-d says that man can master his evil inclination.
G-d says the Torah is not too difficult to keep.
G-d himself allowed the poor to substitute a grain offering if an animal was beyond their ability.
You are assuming that G-d cannot firgive sins without cosmic savior blood because of the book of Hebrews, not because you are reading the law taken as a unit.
Your entire premise rests on a book that had its canonicity questioned by many early Christians. Why should Jews trust this book’s ideas when you also say to read the law as a unit?
If you believe Torah has the elements of a legal system like due process, it stands to reason that a legislative body existed in order to try court cases? To be able to examine a given transgression and determine whether a capital crime or misdomeaner had actually occurred?
For example, lets say you go on an outing with a young lady and 3 of her friends. It goes well, at 1st, so you date for a few months. After a while, the relationship goes south.
Next thing you know, the girl accuses you of misconduct, and her 3 friends back up the story.
Is it a textbook case of fornication, or a capital crime, or is it a misdomeaner that requires in depth analysis and proportional punishment?
It stands to reason that if Israel is in exile, they dont have full autonamy to let their own law function as it would in their homeland.
Apparently, in your view, Torah must always be carried out with its strictest corporal punishments, and not via reason and evidence?
If you believe the law is one unit, then please read it as a lone unit before you start importing Christian theological assumptions.
If G-d was able to pardon Daniel’s generation by covering the sins of the generation without a temple, he is at least functionally capable of forgiving without shedding blood.
You say that Jeremiah’s New Covenant is unambiguously a different covenant. Jeremiah tells you that the covenant gets written on your heart. That is the sense in which this covenant is new.
What is new about the new covenant is that the will to violate the law ends. As you are aware, Christians under their gospel still violate G-d’s law quite a lot, and they go around the world saying “know the lord,” so the gospels themselves cant really be the new covenant of Jeremiah.
As I said, a reading of Jeremiah that fits the context as well is a renewed covenant that is truly “new” in the sense that in this covenant the law of G-d is not violated, and you wont need to teach your neighbor to know the lord as Moses had to do in his covenant.
If the law was never meant for atonment, grace, forgiveness, and love, why is it called the covenant of love in Deuteronomy 7?
In what meaningfull sense is this rigid religion caricature you have of an “old testament” Judaism actually pointing to the marshmallow rose scented path of the New Testament?
No Jew would read the Tanakh as being so rigid as you seem to think. Judaism has a legal system.
We’ve come full circle and are now back to Hebrews, where this all began. As I stated previously, Hebrews does not teach “superior human/godman blood vs inferior goats blood as a means of atonement”. When it says “take away sins” it is speaking of the sin of this world which is people SINNING. It takes it away by the indwelling of Jesus by the his spirit, and Hebrews even claims this “new covenant based on better promises” to be the DIRECT fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that the Torah will be written on the heart and God will cause everyone to do His commandments.
But if Hebrews IS talking about this “taking away of sins” not being possible through animal or meal offerings, then their entire argument for Jesus’ death is shot down. The Christian interpretation of the sacrificial system is that when the “sinner” laid his hand on the animal his sins were transferred to the animal and the animal is killed with the sinner’s sins upon it and not the sinner. The animal ( or handful of flour/oil batter) died in the sinner’s place, taking his punishment upon itself. This absolutely implies sins being “taken away”, and not just “blood ( or flour and oil) temporarily covering”. Likewise, Christianity teaches that the sin of world was “transferred” to Jesus and he died in our place. The sacrificial system is used as a direct foreshadowing of this event. So if transferring sin to another thing and that thing being destroyed in your place does not take away sins, then Jesus’ death is no more effectual than the death of a bull, goat or flour batter because the sins were either transferred away from the sinner or they weren’t.
If this is not the case, then I need an explanation as to why Christianity taught this for two millenia.
Elezar,
The better question would be:
For 2000 years Judaism has not spread anywhere
Why is that?
To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, That My salvation may be unto the end of the earth.’
Only Salvation being taught: That is the Hebrew Yeshua, BLood, and atonement for Many.
bible819 Judaism spread everywhere – it is Christianity that is irrelevant – let me explain The idea of One God – spread everywhere The idea that this God loves justice and mercy – spread everywhere Those two ideas are ideas that the Church helped spread – but those are not Christian ideas Here are some ideas that the Church opposes but they still spread everywhere That this world is a beautiful place and that it is an expression of God’s love for us That human actions can be pleasing in the eyes of God in the sense of making the world a better place That all humans are equal before the One God who created us all That God is fair and that He can be found in our sense of fairness That God doesn’t expect us to be perfect – just to be decent human beings Those are Jewish ideas that are ever relevant Here are the Christian ideas that lost their relevance as soon as the Church lost power That this world is a miserable place That human activity is worthless That some humans are more exalted than others (priests, aristocracy, royalty) That God is not fair and that the human sense of fairness is from the devil That God rejects any human being that is not perfect
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Hi CR
You have said a lot there, unfortunately none of it is based on Mosiac Law or Bible teachings. At best it is Rabbinical teaching loosely based on scripture.
You like others keep on making odd statements that keep on mis quoting either NT teachings or just putting your words into the statements presented.
Deut does of course state about Gods promise to Israel, that is correct, but those promised blessings are only brought forth if Israel abides in Gods love, ie to follow His ways. The promises are based on obedience not disobedience..
The blood of animals was only a down payment, as it were, to cover, atone, sins.
A covenant is a new covenant. The text doesn’t say a renewed covenant. The text is very simple and basic.
The text talking about not teaching ones neighbour is in reference to the Jews in the Messianic Kingdom. There won’t be a Mosaic then, as now, because all the Law was fulfilled by Yeshua. Of course believing Jews will have the salvation truth of the Law, not needing it to be taught.
Paul,
Will you be able to answer my last questions?
1. Is blood the only thing that atones?
2. The Tanakh shows that Hashem doesn’t just atone, but also forgives and returns to us in response to the Jewish people’s turning from sin and listening to his voice to do the commandments in exile. Why do you say this is impossible?
“If the conditions don’t exist, as you state, for the punishment to be seen through, then of course the Very Law itself cannot exist can it. Because you need a temple with ALL its Mosaic commands for it to operate.
You are using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.
If Adultery still stands, which it does, unless you are completely in denial, and if the Law still stands, which you say does, then one must be dealt with according to the other. When and who ever commanded Israel to keep Kosher law but forget Marital Law, either with or without a temple???
Texts please!”
Paul,
You said I am “using complete non Scriptural teachings, being squeezed in by yourself justifying your own view.” And you asked me for “Texts please!”
Yesterday I provided you the texts together with a short explanation. I am looking forward to your reply.
Hello Alan
I think you are alluding to atonement in regard to grain, flour offering, I could be wrong??
These offerings were still given on the foundation of blood. They were never given without, or instead of. Plus these were gift offerings “korban minchah”
The offer was always in contact with blood.
So while the gift or present was bloodless, it was always given with blood.
Lev 23 9~14
Num 15 1~16
Ezra 7 ~17
First the burnt offering was given, then the gift placed on top.
I don’t disagree that Israel will one day return while in exile, but it will not be through the Law, it will be until Israel plead for Messiahs return.
Psalm 80, particularly looking at v 17
Psalm 110
Isaiah 42.
Matthew 23 v 39
.
53.
Paul,
I wasn’t thinking about flour offerings.
I’m asking if you are saying if the only thing that atones is blood?
I think blood is an important part of the levitical system, but unclean blood (human) is an abomination from the L-rd and that, G-d made clear…
For 2000 years Judaism has not spread anywhere
Why is that?
There is a simple answer to this Bibs. Jews believe that a gentile can serve G-d as a gentile.
Secondly, for centuries the Church made it illegal for Jews to Proseletyze. Read and learn your history.
God Glory is most important.
Jews have not spread Gods Glory.
History:
Judaism has been irrelevant since Yeshua Left Israel.
Your excuse: blame the church for the last 2000 years.
Bible819,
Judaism has been relevant to the Jews and to those who have joined them for 1300 years before Jesus and 2000 years and counting after Jesus. Isaiah 42:41 – “Hashem desired for the sake of [Israel’s] righteousness that the Torah be made great and glorious.”
Correction – it’s Isaiah 42:21.
Alan,
Where?
Wherever there are Jews who learn and keep the Torah.
Hello Alan
Sticking to Gods principal of atonement, Leviticus 17 is the statute.
Of course outwardly practices have to be combined with repentance inline with personal Faith, by Gods grace.
If you dilute Gods word into something else, then the texts can mean anything you want it to say.
Pre Law, animal sacrifices were given. Cain tried to approach God without this principal.
Paul,
Please just answer simply – is blood the only thing that atones? YES OR NO?
Paul Summers If you are such a stickler for the law – then how do you believe in a sacrifice that is not sanctioned by Leviticus 17:11? (Lev. 17:11 speaks of blood on the altar – nowhere else) 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul, do you remember that I asked you if you could be wrong about Jesus? And you answered no. It only shows in your answers. If we ask you if blood is the only mean of forgiveness, you will answer yes, even if the Tanach shows otherwise. Why, because you already made your mind. When I ask you why human blood can be an acceptable sacrifice, you just ignore my comment. Why? Because there is no arguments in your favor and you still want to stick to your belief. You will also have to ignore Rabbi Blumenthal comment, because Jesus was not sacrificed on the altar. You have nothing to back yourself up, nada! You are stock on a corner with all the evidences of the world that your whole worldview makes no sense scripturally speaking. There is no nice way of saying that all you believe is a lie. Your premises (that Jesus was god/messiah) was wrong and the evidences show that. Your only hope is to change subject each time we corner you. You have 0 prophecies, your sacrifice is an abomination to G-d. You worship a foreign G-d, because G-d is not a man, his is ONE (not three) and his forbids us to worship any of his creature (hosts of heaven). On top of that, you are still stuck with sins even if the NT tries to convince you that you will be sinless in the spirit. What else do you need to stop deceiving yourself?
I challenge you to answer Rabbi Blumenthal’s question and not divert the subject. If you can, I will reconsider Christianity.
Hi bible819,
I’m not sure you’re making a strong point for Christianity.
1. Christianity is spreading faster than Judaism, hence Christianity is better than Judaism.
Well, why stop there, use same logic for the next step:
2. Islam is spreading faster than Christianity, hence Islam is better than Christianity.
Obviously that’s a flawed logic.
Besides, why would many more people join Israel now as compared to BCE times? Where is a scriptural support for this thinking?
I don’t know where people get the idea that millions and millions are going to be in the end times in Jerusalem. That is supposed to be a relatively small remnant of Jews and gentiles. Quality over quantity.
As a matter of fact most of the world will come to fight against them. If anything, the “popularity” of some religion might be an indicator that it’s exactly the opposite of what God considers good.
You didn’t read what was written.
To Respond to what you posted:
God used Israel as an Example to Show his Greatness.
Both Israel and Eygpt worshiped the Golden Calf.
No difference.
Ok.
Now. as to popularity:
Islam didn’t start in Israel.
Yeshua did, and many believe this Hebrew to be the 1 God Made messiah.
As Israel is waiting for a Savior. We believe, most of Israel missed it.
Christians spread salvation to the world, and have no inclination to destroy Israel.
Yeshua didn’t teach us to do so.
The old testament is spread BC of Christians.
Judaism doesn’t spread salvation but is waiting for the Messiah.
He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Remember you write about US.
Yeshua is my Lord, King and 1 with God
Bible 819 Its Isaiah’s words written on the side of the UN building – not Paul’s 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Islam did not start in Israel, but it also accepts “Old testament”. As for Christianity, it is not spreading the word from the Torah, it’s spreading the word of a “new covenant” that supersedes Torah, very much like Islam. At least that’s true for the most popular forms of Christianity.
Israel is supposed to be a light to the nations in one way: observe God’s commandments, for that be blessed and hence attract other people to do the same.
If Christianity did such a great job of spreading true word of God, how come whole world will attack Jerusalem in the end times?
Bibs its not an excuse to note the historical fact that the Church illegalized Jewish proselytism.
Judaism has no influence in the world.
Therefore, God has not spread by Judaism.
But Salvation is spread by the Word about Yeshua (the law included in the old testament)
That is a historical fact.
Then why dont you leave them alone?
You say Judaism has done nothing. You must be ignorant of all that Jews have done for the world it seems to me. Not least of which is providing a basis for your own religion. If Jews are irrelevant, Jesus is not relevant.
If Judaism is irrelevant to you, you should leave this blog and quit preaching here.
The law is not spread by Christianity, you guys view the law as imperfect and incapable of bringing life or blessing. The whole Christian notion negates the very reason for giving a law.
You preach lawlessness and claim to speak for G-d.
Also, lets assume your view is correct. Why do you still sin and act with such a lack of humility if you have G-d’s spirit?
Bible 819 Judaism had a major influence on the world – not only through the Church – but through Jews 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“Judaism has no influence in the world.”
Bible819,
Maybe not in your world, but it does in the real world that I live in. I’m sorry that we don’t live in the same world.
Also, Christians are so damn sure of their own superiority that they have indoctrinated literally millions of people to believe that the Jews have nothing of value to teach or say. Muslims have made the same error.
You cant teach people with crosses stuck in their ears.
To put it bluntly, what value is there in attempting teaching Judaism to people like you when Christians like you claim there is nothing at all to learn from Jews?
If Christianity is so great, just go along your merry way to heaven, and wipe the dust from your feet. Leave the Jews alone.
If your deity expects perfection, I hope he isnt so fickle as to write you off when you dont meet his standards either.
FYI If Christians are great and Jews are so irrelevant, where in heaven’s name is your man god? Is he sleeping waiting for Christians to learn some humility?
Christians spread salvation to the world, and have no inclination to destroy Israel.
Bibs, how convenient for you that you can just ignore centuries of Christiam bloodshed and violence against the Jewish people.
PAUL SUMMERS WROTE; “The offer was always in contact with blood.
So while the gift or present was bloodless, it was always given with blood.”
What website did you cut and paste this lie from? You only mentioned three meal offerings which accompanied blood offerings and then said meal offerings were ALWAYS given with blood! But there are several other meal offerings that have no association with meat offerings. Several of the meal offerings had no contact with blood whatsoever, and in fact were sometimes burned in a different place so they WOULD NOT contact blood! The Voluntary, Sotah’s, Kohen’s and Sinner’s meal offerings all had no contact with blood! The sinner’s offering of Kometz was touched to the Southwestern corner of the outer altar and burned on the outer altar. THE SINNER’S MEAL OFFERING WAS NOT MADE IN ASSOCIATION WITH BLOOD IN ANY WAY!
You should make an effort to listen to people who don’t lie, Paul.
Hi
The point I was making was that blood sacrifices were always primary. The bloodless sacrifices were of course bloodless, as I said, but they were NOT given without blood.
In other words in conjunction with. No person could approach the alter without a sacrifice first being given.
I think I might have incorrectly stated or used the word contact as in touching.
Paul Summers,
You wrote: “but they were NOT given without blood.”
This is a lie! They were given WITHOUT BLOOD!
Hi Alan
Of course if I am in error I will say so. Could you please show me.
Paul,
Leviticus ch. 5 –
11 But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12 And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
13 And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as the meal-offering.
Paul, can you show us where in the Tanach human blood can remove sins? You are comparing clean blood with unclean blood. Can you also show us where a beaten animal would be an acceptable sacrifice? Or, when can a sacrifice can be brought outside of the temple and still be good for remission of sins? Or maybe, can you show us where it was OK to martyrize an animal to death and still be OK for G-d as a sacrifice? Would G-d has pleasure if we would bring such a sacrifice to him? Why Jesus is different?
“Of course if I am in error I will say so. Could you please show me.”
Paul,
I showed you. What will you say?
Was John the Baptist’s death before the second temple was destroyed also an Asham or just Jesus?
If the messiah is supposed to be a priest with Davidic lineage, doesn’t John fit better than Jesus?
Slightly better, but John was descendant of David from his mother’s lineage, which would not count if he would ever have wanted to be king. You cannot be from two lines, or you are from Levi, or you are from Judah. Lineage is from the father side. Jesus was a Jews (mother side) but was not from the tribe of Judah.
Hello RT
Before I do answer you, could you please answer me on the point I raised earlier. It was the statement ref fear.
Slightly better, but John was descendant of David from his mother’s lineage, which would not count if he would ever have wanted to be king.
Exactly. It wouldn’t work for Jesus or John without a paternal link, but it is interesting that using Christianity’s own prophetic types and shadows approach would make the baptist a better fit than Jesus.
Cr, your thoughts on the following
In mark, jc says ” your sins are forgiven”
now I don’t think jc is claiming equality with god or saying he has power to forgive because he has gods attribute of forgiveness in him. He uses the passive as if the pnuema which went into him at baptism told him “he is forgiven”
In mark, jc is clearly controlled by the pnuema and when people have no faith jc is a powerless item. In mark, power can be taken out of JC WITHOUT his KNOWLEDGE
so when mark says, son of man has power to forgive, all it means is power to say “you are forgiven” not ” I forgive you”
So god controls and authorises jc, according to mark
if mark really thought that what jc did was blasphemy, he would have said “how could god blaspheme god” like he has jc say,” how can Satan cast out Satan”
Well, since Mark by all
Indications has an adoptionalist Christology, it wouldn’t surprise me if Jesus the man wasn’t claiming power to forgive sins any more than Elijah claimed that ability.
The fact though is that 99% of trinitarians and non trinitarians read the text as saying that Jesus was doing an action that only G-d can do.
Cr, you done a post on this before can you link to that post? It was about how jtb fit better prophecies than jesus.
Here you go Mr. Heathcliff
Here is something else I posted that is televant heathcliff.
People like Bible819 above want Jews to say things like
1. G-d can impart his spirit to a group of people.
2. G-d can take on human form
3. G-d doesnt desire human righteousness
4. G-d sent Jesus to die for the sins of others.
While these ideas may be possible in Torah, (for sake of argument,) the implications of such ideas as understood by Christianity are antithetical to the Torah outlook.
Christian tradition itself recognized what a slippery slope beliefs like these rested on. Ancient Christians unserstood the evils such beliefs could bring. They knew of the dangers via a tradition they called antichrist.
Ancient Christians knew that in ancient times, Caesar himself was called the son of a god, (because Caesar was the son of the deified previous emperor.)
Ancient Christians knew that in amcient Rome, pagans sacrificed to the emperor in part, to thank him for the Pax Romana, ie Roman peace. Ancient Romans thanked Caesar because his grace brought them all their daily sustenance. Quite literally, some Romans would only have food if the state threw a festival via Caesar.
Ancient Christians knew that Caesar was called Pontifex Maximus, and that he was entrusted with the spiritual wellfare of the Roman people.
Ancient Christians called Caesar the Anti Christ, and for good reason. NO HUMAN BEING, NO SON OF MAN SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED AS DIVINE.
ANCIENT CHRISTIANS KNEW THE DANGERSVOF CALLING A MAN DIVINE, BUT THEY MADE EXCUSES FOR WHY IT WAS OK FOR JESUS.
They chanted “man does not live by bread alone, but hy every word that proceeds from the mouth of G-d…EVERY WORD EXCEPT ISRAEL’S COMMANDMENTS.
When confronted by Shabbatai Tzvi (another Jew who was declared G-d incarnate by his students,) the Christians admonished his followers saying,
“This man’s alleged miracles prove nothing. Even demons do miracles.”
They said, “Even if Shabbatai Tzvi rose from death we would not follow, because false messiahs can do miracles, leading astray even the elect.”
Revelation chapter 13 highlights the kind of claims the Christian anti Christ figure makes.
1. He is a human who wants the world to see him as G-d and he forces them to serve him.
2. He does miracles which Christians (in this case only) say does not count for evidence.
3. The anti Christ is healed from a deadly wound which Christians call deception.
When Christians were confronted with Shabbatai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, Eva Frank, Rebbe Nachman, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and when some crazy students in these movements called these people Christ, or “G-d in a body,” The Church cried “you are decieved! NO MAN CAN BE G-D!”
While the Church would call anyone from Nero Caesar to Shabbatai Tzvi a charlatan for claiming to be a miracle working god man,
THEY ALWAYS MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR JESUS, EVEN WHEN THEY CLAIM IN EVERY OTHER CASE THIS IS IDOLATRY!
NEVER DO CHRISTIANS HEAR THEIR JEWISH BRETHREN WHEN THEY SCREAM:
THESE BELIEFS ARE NEVER CONSISTENT WITH TORAH. NOT FOR SHABBATAI TZVI, NOT FOR THE REBBE, AND NOT FOR JESUS EITHER!
IF G-d became flesh and imparted his spirit to a select group of followers, IT BREEDS A SITUATION WHERE DEUTERONOMY 4 AND 13 ARE VIOLATED IN ALL INSTANCES IT IS ALLEGED TO OCCUR.
The Christian Bible allows for Jesus what it (and Torah) disallows FOR EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON.
WHEN THE GENTILES TRIED TO WORSHIP PAUL AS A god IN FLESH,
HE TORE HIS GARMENT. A JEW TEARS HIS CLOTHES FOR MOURNING AND BLASPHEMY.
DECLARING A BEING OF FLESH DIVINE, A MEMBER OF THE HOST DIVINE, IS BLASPHEMY.
BOTH BOOKS SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR.
Hello Alan
To answer your question, I think we should go back and refer to the original statement that I made in regarding blood on the altar, and blood being the foundational aspect of atonement. I appreciate that the first statement sounded like a non blood offering literally touched the blood, which I then corrected. But I did reaffirm what I actually meant, that the non blood offering or gift was in direct conjuction with the altar and blood.
When you stated the Lev ch 5 statement, you have in my opinion still missed the point.
If you read the verses 11, 12, 13, entirely on their own and isolate the meaning in context, you will render the meaning disproportionately.
If you read v 12 the offering is still to be burnt as ACCORDING TO THE OFFERINGS MADE BY FIRE. The offering is a memorial directly linking it to the either the birds or a lamb blood. There couldnt be a bloodless offering unless there was already a Law of blood attaching the bloodless gift. In other words no blood, no offering, because it is a, rememberance, mention, mindful memorial.
You are correct that this offering is bloodless, that is obviously true. Ive never seen fine flour that bleeds.
But this offering is very isolated in context due to the finance circumstances of the giver, but God does state that the offering is on behalf of the norm, which given the texts one shouldnt run away with a slight difference of obligation to render the main teachings of Scripture. As Lev ch 17 clearly states. It is the Blood that atones, not flour, nothing else.
If for example there are 99 sayings of do one thing this way, and there is 1 saying that says do it differently in the same situation, because the circumstances are different, the 99 should always have the priority. The 1 should be taken in isolation when the said circumstances arise.
So technically you are correct, scripturally you are still missing the point.
If it was as you say, then Lev ch 17 is a false statement, which of course it isnt.
Paul Summers The offerings made by fire include flour offerings – and Leviticus 17:11 is only saying that of the animal it is the blood that atones – it is not addressing repentance But if yoru read in Lev 17:11 is right than it only atones on the altar – how would blood outside the altar atone? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
To say nothing of a fleshly human’s blood. Even if you stated that without blood there id no forgiveness, SCRIPTURE MAKES ZERO PROVISION for MAN’S BLOOD atoning.
You yourself said, if in 99% of cases X is true, then the odd exception doesnt make the rule.
IE Torah doesn’t say anywhere that the blood of a meat puppet atones for sins, let alone for EVERYONE FOR ALL TIME.
Hello YPF
Yes of course the blood atones on the Altar as per scripture in regard to the Law.
But of course the altar itself isn’t making the atonement, its the blood.
And of course the Altars ultimate place of position was within the temple, which of course initially wasn’t always situated within Jerusalem itself.
So we can conclude that physical geophysical features do not restrict the service.
Also as with Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham etc.
Firstly I think one needs to consider that of course Israel, even the disciples had no knowledge that Jesus death was THE sacrifice. As far as Israel were concerned, His death was for sin, not on behalf of sin. Israels death penalties were not crucifixion.
So has far as Israel was concerned His death was not sacrificial on the basis of the Law.
As the Law States the Altar is for sacrifice. All the animals to be brought to it. As scripture states the animals are to be perfect, without spot. The animals are not cursed.
The Bible also says that cursed is the man who hangs on a tree. Of course that person being punished for his sins. But the difference of Christ Death is not for His sins, but for the worlds. He became, on sins behalf, cursed for the sake of sin. Animals are received and approved by man for the atonement. Christ was rejected and disapproved by man, but received and was well pleasing to His Father in Heaven.
Jesus was put to death in open public shame. The cross being the ideal tool of death.
The real deal breaker is That God Himself died to pay the penalty, not a animal.
Isaiah CH 53 10
Philippians CH 2 8.
Sorry, my time is limited.
Paul Summers So is Jesus a fulfillment of Lev 17 11 or not? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Paul, you avoided answering any questions and started preaching instead….
Hello RT,
Well when you see someone drowning and you have a life line in your hand, what type of person would walk away??
PS, You still haven’t answered my request. You stated that believers fear judgement or something similar??
No, not judgment, most fear the end-time, persecution, the anti-Christ (which must be Trump, because it was not Obama!), the mark of the beast, etc.
Paul writes, “If you read the verses 11, 12, 13, entirely on their own and isolate the meaning in context, you will render the meaning disproportionately.”
I’m not responding to the accuracy or non-accuracy of this statement, but just pointing out that here Paul objects to cherry picking and out-of-context citations.
Cherry picking for thee but not for me? Am I the only one here who thinks this is hypocritical and a double standard?
Remember John 19:28 where one verse was cherry picked out of one small passage to apply to Jesus while the rest was ignored?
I see it too Dina. He’s making up his own homiletical midrashim to say the flour-sin offering is spiritually if not physically connected to blood.
And we’re the hard hearted ones!
Hi Dina
According to the Hebrew Bible yes.
Do you require a text to show you?
Yes, I need it Paul. Where does the Hebrew Bible require you to believe in the man-god not to be hearted. So, as per the Hebrew Bible, Jews who don’t believe in Jesus are all stubborn? Find me the verse that say that!
Paul,
You wrote: ““but they were NOT given without blood.”
I showed you this flour-only sin offering was COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF BLOOD – NO BLOOD AND NO ALLOWED.
You admitted: “You are correct that this offering is bloodless, that is obviously true. Ive never seen fine flour that bleeds.”
This flour-only sin offering helped to obtain atonement and forgiveness for the penitent WITHOUT BLOOD and WITHOUT CONTACT WITH BLOOD. You are trying to make a homiletical teaching to connect this bloodless offering to blood and to therefore say that blood is required. This may be a homiletical teaching but in reality, the penitent here gets atonement and forgiveness even if NO BLOOD WAS EVER SPILLED IN THE TEMPLE. THIS OFFERING STANDS ON ITS OWN WITHOUT BEING DEPENDENT ON ANY OTHER OFFERING. Do you not understand this?
You wrote: ““Of course if I am in error I will say so. Could you please show me.”
You still refuse to say you were in error. I am amazed.
Lev. 17:11 –
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.”
The context and main message of chapter 17 is to tell the Children of Israel to bring their offerings only to the Tabernacle/Temple and nowhere else. While the Torah is teaching about the laws of offerings it mentions another law that is tangentially related to offerings – that it is forbidden to eat blood. And in verse 11 the Torah lets us know why it is forbidden.
Verse 11 is not saying that blood is the only thing in the entire world that makes atonement. What it is saying is that the part of the animal that makes atonement is the blood. But there are other things that secure atonement/forgiveness as we have seen in Deut. 30, 1 Kings 8:22-51, Ezekiel 18, etc… Let’s say I were to serve an exotic piece of fruit to a friend who is a medical doctor, but the seeds which look edible are actually a powerful drug that alleviates asthma and should not be eaten. I would tell my doctor guest not to eat the seeds because we will use them later to make a drug that helps people with asthma breath better. Would my guest understand from my words that the only medicine in the world for asthma is the seeds from this fruit? Likewise with the Torah – someone who is familiar with Tanakh knows there are multiple ways to gain atonement/forgiveness from Hashem and that the one He WANTS THE MOST FROM US IS TESHUVA FROM OUR EVIL DEEDS MUCH MORE THAN OFFERINGS OF BLOOD OR FLOUR.
Here’s another way to gain atonement/forgiveness – Proverbs 16:6 – “Through kindness and truth iniquity is atoned; and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.” Doing kindness and being truthful are another way to gain atonement/forgiveness for our sins.
I will be happily surprised if Paul Summers responds to this.
So will I! 🙂
Hi Alan, Dina
I’m not saying or ever said that a contrite heart, repentance, praying, etc do not bring one closer to God. All these acts, done with the correct sincere motives, will of course bring one closer to God in a personal relationship with Him.
All bad actions, sins etc have to be confronted. Sins done in ignorance also. But one still needs to acknowledge the sin and repent of it.
It doesn’t matter how you spin this, the very basic fact remains that all repentance will still need blood to carry the statute through.
All the texts that you quoted are simply texts saying I will atone your sins if you acknowledge them, based on the Law, The Law that stipulates blood.
You are just ignoring the basic foundation of your Law.
1 Kings CH 8 v 62.
It clearly says “Then”
Then what???
Then once the prayer and repentance, request etc was given, The King and all Israel offered Him sacrifices. As per the Law.
You cannot have a sacrifice with no faithful heart set, it would be just a outwardly hypocritical act.
Isaiah CH 1. Covers this, with the pleading from God to return, then the feasts etc will be a delight and acceptable again.
So to summarise, repentance, to change ones mind from sin or a sin, must be truthfully felt, as one physically gives the offering.
You cannot have one without the other.
Paul,
Let’s live and let live. Let’s talk about them Yankees or Dodgers, but not religion.
Hi Alan
I was technically wrong, but scripturally correct.
Lev CH 17 Still stands. The entire Law, and All its ordinances were situated and established on this very text.
No sacrificial service of any description were held without the blood. If it was in any other way, the texts would say so.
The blood is a foundation. You cannot approach God in any other way.
Paul,
Please tell me the truth – do you read what I wrote? You know, about the exotic fruit etc.?
Did you read what I wrote about the flour-sin offering not only requiring no blood but forbidding blood to be involved?
Alan, you are wasting your time. Paul (like all non-testament believer) would rather put their fingers in their ears rather than saying something that could contradict their primary book!
RT,
I’m just gonna try one more time and see what he says.
Hi Alan
I do of course try and read all responses, in this case I do my best to read yours. I personally find your questions very interesting.
Of course we have different opinions. But that’s not to say I’m not reading you.
Just to ask ref your last text.
You stated that Blood was forbidden in Flour. Not sure were this is stated?
I’m reading no oil or no frankincense.
Before that it says “if he is not able”. I don’t see the former as a direct command, more of a guide due to financial restraints than a demand, the latter is a strict observation?
Just to clear up any misunderstandings,
v13 who is actually forgiving, God, or the priest?
Paul,
If you say you read my comments to you then I believe you.
I shoudnt have said that “blood is not even allowed” because this is not explicit in the text. I was thinking of the Oral Torah explanation received from Moses that blood mixed in would invalidate the offering but I would have to look this up to be sure. So forget about this statement. I should have left it at “not required”.
Before you even found Lev. 11:17 did you already believe from reading the NT that one can only approach G-d through animal blood or Jesus’ blood?
V13 – only God atones and forgives. The priest is like a doctor working on a patient. God wants us to do a physical action sometimes as part of the healing or atonement process but the healing and atonement are only from Him. You take a pill but it isn’t the pill that is healing you, it is God who send the healing by way of the physical action.
Hi Alan LOL!!!
I’m not into American sports!!
Vespa scooters are my bag! X
Having said that my Vespa scooter, a 1969 model has been lovingly restored to a glorious runner.
Painted on it are the words,
Messiah.co.mes. Its a Jewish website teaching Messiah from the OT only, using the Jewish aleph bet.
It’s a Christian website using Jewish catch-words to attract Jews. That’s different Paul and we see through that.
Paul Summers: what would G-d have to say or do to convince you that in fact, he never was, is, or will be, a person of flesh?
We know the texts that you believe make incarnation likely, but what would scripture need to say to convince you?
That’s easy.
Find me a text that states The God of Israel is a fraudulent liar and I will change my mind.
Happy searching! X
Hello Alan
Before the Gospel message was shared to me both teachings meant nothing in my personal salvation sense. They were both just historical events. Any connections were non existing.
Through Sunday school I suppose, I new roughly the outline of characters, times, places etc of the Bible.
But it wasn’t until I saw what Christ had done for me, and that I was a sinner, it all became Cristal clear, in a atom of time. It wasn’t seen by intelligence or by reasoning. It was done by conviction of the Holy Spirit by hearing the truth.
Something I truly wish you could also see.
“It wasn’t seen by intelligence or by reasoning.”
That’s for sure.
Finally something we can agree on!
Dina,
That’s right and that’s what he doesn’t realize. Before he even read Lev 11:17 he already accepted with his whole heart the “truth” that the only way to God is through Jesus’ spilled blood. So he cannot permit himself to look at Tanakh through pre-NT eyes, i.e. intelligently.
And using the reasoning process.
The reasoning process has been hijacked by and made subservient to the anti-Torah doctrines of the NT. He is not prepared to try to understand Judaism from within itself. I don’t want to talk to him about religion anymore. I am thankful though that he seems to really love the Jewish people even if they are not believers.
Alan, I am very cynical about Christians who profess to love Jews and then go on to tell us that we are corrupt, backsliding, degenerate, hard hearted (our own Scriptures say so!) and that we are going to hell because we rejected our own messiah.
The contempt for Jews is very deep and just below the surface. You cannot truly love those you hold in contempt.
Dina,
I said it tongue in cheek. Sorry I should have used an emogi. But he has defended the Jewish people against virulent antisemites, at least against one that he told us about last week.
This is not surprising. A proof that can only be seen by those who already believe in it is not a proof at all.
Be serious Paul. If G-d wanted someone to know that he isnt a being of flesh, what would he need to say?
Im sure you view the Catholic Jesus as idolatrous?
The Mormon Jesus?
Jehovah’s witness Jesus?
What would G-d need to say?
Hi CR
Yes all those mentioned above are either apostate, counterfeit, teachers of destructive Heresy’s.
The Word of God shows the truth.
Not the doctrines of man.
Paul Summers. If Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy presents a false Jesus, then the oldest traceable Christian traditions and scriptures are preserved in their oldest forms by heretical and apostate groups.
May I suggest that you keep an open mind to the possibility that G-d gave the commandnents to Israel to save people from a heretical opinion?
Why are Mormons heretics? Because they say that G-d is 3 physical bodies IE they advocate tritheism. They violate the Shema of Israel.
Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians (via their trinitarian disputes) violate Dueteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 29:29 because they try to understand the secret things of G-d, (such as his invisible nature.)
Christian theological arguments amongst all of the Christian sects have lead to persecution of one’s neighbor without a cause.
As G-d says, we say he has no form so that we dont become corrupt.
If Mainlne Christianity is apostate as you say, is it not safest to place trust in the commandments 1st before you committ to a messianic figure?
You probably view me as lost, or as an agent of the Devil, but I hope you know from my writings that I dont hate Jesus of Nazareth.
I feel that the Churches (all if them) have wrapped Jesus in so much theology that his teachings and ethics have been cast aside.
Christian preachers in all deniminations want you to embrace Jesus as deity, but if you notice, very few of them care if you live the way he did.
I dont know what your opinion is of Jews, but I know that they try to actually live like Jesus.
They wont call any man of flesh G-d. Not Jesus, and not the Rebbe. Its not because of a hard heart, its because Torah warns against believing in a physical form to G-d. Giving G-d a picture caused Rome, Mormonism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranusm, Calvinism, et al to harm their brethren because they each had a mutually exclusive picture they assigned to G-d.
You cannot seek the truth without using your God-given ability to reason. The key word being, God given.
Hello Alan, Dina, RT
If, as you say I had read the Tanach before I heard the “Truth” simple reasoning would, does, show that a gentile would have to go through the proselytizing process as per the Law. Seeing as yourselves are so adamant that the Law is still functional, but not with temple services or even a temple, even though you are still in exile because of a direct punishment from God, etc etc.
I was wondering how, according to the Law, a gentile would achieve such?
Not for me personally of course, just hypothetically speaking. I can see quite clearly that the middle wall of separation has been done away with.
Paul,
Non-Jews are not required to convert, even though they have that option. They are only required not to serve idols and to live according to universal moral standards as God expected people to live by before the Jewish people received the Torah at Sinai. See the story of Ninve in the book of Jonah for an illustration of this. They were non-Jews who behaved very badly – mainly towards each other – but when they did teshuva (abandoned their destructive behavior and returned to God’s moral standards) – God forgave them and He was able to forgive WITHOUT BLOOD. Were you aware of that Paul?
Hi Alan
Yes of course. But the conversation wasn’t based on the Noahaic Law, it was based on Mosaic Law.
The point was raised about reading the Tanach.
I answered your question regarding non-Jews relationship to the Torah.
DID YOU NOTICE THE PEOPLE OF NINVEH WERE FORGIVEN WITHOUT BLOOD?
“It wasn’t seen by intelligence or by reasoning.”
What was your conversion process? Did you read a little pamphlet with “Prophecies lined up to you, or you realized that G-d won’t forgive your iniquity without the Blood of Jesus? Did you ever read the Tanach before your conversion? Did you read the NT first, before opening the Tanach?
Hello RT
I’m still waiting for the reply ref fear, judgement. If you have replied and I’ve missed it please ignore this text.
RT, I would like to answer him too please.
Paul,
He is saying you are terrified you will be sent to the lake of burnt fish if you don’t accept Jesus’ spilled blood.
Paul, I did answer you. Chrisitans fear the end-time. This is one of the main subject between Christians and even if they don’t have condemnation, they do fear the anti-Christ, the mark of the beast and persecution.
Paul, RT answered this question several times.
Hi
Apologies I must have missed it.
However, your statements bare no actually truth of NT teachings.
You make statements that “apparently” are true.
1. The Gospel message isn’t about the end, judgement etc. Its never mentioned once. The Gospel is based on Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. You are so far the truth Its unmeasurable.
The Gospel is based on Faith not fear.
2. The Church do not fear the anti Christ because the Church are raptured into heaven at some point before the anti Christ appears. The Church period ends at the rapture.
The persecution is for the unbelievers left behind. The texts are very clear on this.
3. I have no idea what the lake of burnt fish is, probably another mocking statement about a lake of fire???
Paul,
I am not mocking you. I am mocking the so-called Lake of Fire where you think everyone who doesn’t believe what you believe will be going on a long vacation.
Paul, your Pre-tribulation rapture is debatable and many Christians disagree with it. Of course the NT does not teach that Christians should fear, but it would not be a number one topic if it would not be the case. Every time a law that goes against Bible pass, you can hear it and many Christians fight it. I know many Christians first hand that have fear of the end, and even anxiety about it. Not talking about the devil and satan in the back of believer and the world. I know a lady that has schizophrenia, and I think that the teaching of the NT is quite detrimental for her! She actually distrust all doctors because “satan” is in them and her medicine is from the devil. Now, in a lesser level, many Christians believe satan is behind most evil law and the Gay agenda. When the god of this word is in control, you got good reason to fear. And, of course, all that will be used by the anti-Christ in the end time, which will be satan in the flesh! Paul, you better be right about your pre-tribulation rapture, because many prepare bunkers for when you won’t have food and water (Kid you not)!
RT,
Do Christians really believe “the god of this world (satan)” is IN CONTROL of THIS WORLD?
He is on a leash and it is only for a while.. (If G-d puts his word on it, then he would have to back off)
RT,
Jews only fear Hashem. We don’t fear satan or any other power in the universe because they are all under the complete control of Hashem.
It is not a sin to be afraid sometimes. I wasn’t suggesting that faithful Jews never become afraid of people or things in the world. It takes a lifetime of work to only fear Hashem and nothing else. Our greatest spiritual giants achieved an amazingly high level of this trait. There are very many first hand stories of how they feared nothing in the world but Hashem.
Alan, I prefer to think that the commandment to fear God is better translated as to revere God. To have awe and reverence of God, not to be afraid of Him.
Dina,
That is definitely preferable to the fear of punishment. But some are on the level of fear of punishment. It’s not ideal, but it’s a level.
Hi Dina
The point I was raising was that my faith wasn’t built on arguing scripture, or looking at the worlds mainstream religions then having a cup of coffee and then deciding which religion I saw as best.
Of course God has given mankind a conscience to reason with. I wasn’t just saying I blindly just decided follow Christ on a whim.
It was based on exercising faith by Gods grace. This came about through hearing and believing the Gospel message.
So your are saying that you had no clue about the so called prophecies that Jesus fulfilled when you accepted Jesus? How can you be neutral now that you have been sold on Jesus?
Hi RT
The Gospel message doesn’t contain all teachings of the Bible, or every sentence etc.
The Gospel is very simple really.
Its About Christ death, His burial and resurrection.
A sinner just needs to believe that he, the Sinner, is a sinner, and that Christ died on behalf of the sinner, to pay the ransom price for his sins. That through Christ’s death the sin was paid for. That through Christ’s death and resurrection, the sinner once he dies is guaranteed of his own resurrection and ascension, just a Christ’s.
This is all a person needs to know to be born again.
Biblical truths are then learned from then on in a believers life. As they grow and mature in the faith.
So you went with the motion, like almost 100 % of Christians. You probably did not know or cared about the fact that G-d is one and worshiping Jesus would go against the Torah. Now you try to convince us that Jesus is everywhere in the Tanach, and you are not willing to listen or even consider that you could be wrong? It’s like I would try to convince you that eating meat is bad. I would arrive with my conclusion, then I would search for articles that only agree with me, ignoring all the rest of course! Then, I might do a study myself, and do the experiment 10 times until I arrive with the conclusion I want. Yet, you do that with Jesus and we should listen to you?
Hello RT
There is a division of pre, mid, and post tribulation events.
When you speak to a mid and post tribulation, you will see that they will differ between themselves on certain points and then try and squeeze non biblical teachings into there opinions to force a point home. Mostly they hold views such as all saints are the same saints, so then all saints are either church saints, or all are tribulation saints. Or Israel is the Church, Or the church is Israel.
None of these views are Biblically correct.
I can’t speak on the behalf of unfortunate individuals who claim illness due to Satan etc.
The overall message from the NT isn’t of captivity or fear, it is quite the opposite. In fact it couldn’t more opposite. Any believer in Christ has absolutely no fear, but complete assurance, a blessed hope in the Kingdom of God.
“Any believer in Christ has absolutely no fear, but complete assurance, a blessed hope in the Kingdom of God.”
This claim is improvable and plain and simply not true!
Paul, yet you try to use Scripture, reason, and arguments to win us over. Do you realize that you are caught in a contradiction?
Hi Dina
I’m not trying to win you over as you state. You have the Law, prophets and the writings to see. At most I’m just defending the teachings from the NT. I do of course appreciate lots of discussion’s overlap into the Hebrew texts.
You say CH 1 of book A in the NT says that. You say disciple B teaches that. You say the NT is antisemitic, I say otherwise. I’m just saying it doesn’t, it actually says this.
Paul,
What do you say about the Gentiles of Ninveh being forgiven by God WITHOUT BLOOD?
Hi Dina
I agree, God isn’t to be feared in the sense of horror…. Scream…But To be feared in Honor and wonder. I’m sure the Hebrew word shows this.
Paul,
Does Jesus want the non-believers to be terrified of the Lake of Fire? It seems like he’s trying to scare non-believers into believing in him? Am I wrong for thinking this?
Hi Alan
What do you want me say? The gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law. There was never a command for them to sacrifice.
However even before the Law was given, righteous individuals still offered up sacrifice’s.
You have to remember that salvation has always been by Gods grace, through faith. As time went on through history, through the Hebrew texts, that didn’t change, the thing that changed was the content of that faith.
Romans 2 CH v12
Paul,
Here are some things you said about blood being required to get right with God –
“Sticking to Gods principal of atonement, Leviticus 17 is the statute.”
“The blood is a foundation. You cannot approach God in any other way.”
The story in the book of Jonah took place a few hundred years after the Torah was given. God atoned and forgave the people without a blood sacrifice. Do you know why He forgave them? Did you read in the text what God says the reason as for His forgiving them? Does it say it was a free gift of grace? This is what it says in chapter 3 –
8 but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and beast, and let them cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who knoweth whether God will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?’ 10 And God saw THEIR WORKS, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.
Content of that fait? Changed? So we cannot have faith in HaShem like Moses?
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,
Paul Summers, I dont know if you were aware of the G-d fearer movement before Christianity arose?
Before Christians made any converts among the gentiles, the Jewish community generally, as a whole believed that G-d had a basic moral code that he expected the people of all nations to follow.
Characters in scripture like Job, Naamaan the Syrian, Rahab, etc. Gave Jews the notion that there were pious members of other nations who were not members of Israel’s covenant.
These basic rules of conduct for gentiles included abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, abstaining from blood, (both in terms of killing and consumption,) abstinence from theft, from sexual immorality etc. It was also understood that Circumcision was not required for these gentiles.
Today, Jews call these G-d fearers the chassidei u’mot Ha’Olam “pious of the nations,” or Noachides.
When Paul of Tarsus was building Churches of non Jews, he was building them with gentiles from among G-d fearers.
There was not a wall of emnity between Jew and gentile except the walls that some groups tried to build.
Also, Christianity has built again the wall of emnity by saying the Christian is above and better than a Jew who fears G-d.
Hello CR
Just one thing to reply to at the moment.
The middle wall of separation that I mentioned was in reference to the middle wall in the Temple compound. The one that physically kept Jews away from gentiles. It was an actually wall built of stone!
Hello Alan
Like I said fear is not the basis of salvation.
Plus a non believer will at most have no belief in eternal punishment anyway, so for them to be scared off it, or even be convinced of it mere excistance is extremely doubtful.
The Gospel is faith in the works of the crucifixion, not fear of punishment.
Hello RT
“Any believer in Christ has absolutely no fear, but complete assurance, a blessed hope in the Kingdom of God.”
This claim is improvable and plain and simply not true!
Well if it is unprovable, How can it be plain and simply not true??
Find me a text in the NT that shows you to be correct.
In fact show me one of Messiah ( Not Jesus, from a non Christian view) Son of David Of the Hebrew Bible that proves your statement.
James 1 say that any Christian can doubt! This is pure non-sense what you are saying. No believer doubt or fear, really?
Hello RT
You say things out of context.
If you read you own opening statement, you stated that “Christians fear the end times”, I responded with ” no”, gave the reason, then I built on that with the teaching of “no doubts for the believer”
You’ve gone straight to the NT, looked upped the word DOUBT, and thrown it in the mix without a thought of context.
If, if you read the passage it clearly talks about walking circumspectly in the faith, it talks about actually trusting in God through trials, having no doubts in the given situation, that God hasn’t abandoned you etc.
Not once does it state that believers doubt and fear the end.
Gean wrote, ” I still don’t see Yeshua’s acclamation of his being God in any N.T. verses. When i am troubled with those references you’ve listed, i put “word of God” in place of Yeshua himself.”
You are admitting that those texts do indeed bother you. If those words bother you there is a reason why. But instead of rejecting Jesus’ words as blasphemy, making Jesus a blasphemer, you literally change the words to something you can accept with a clearer conscience.
That is not how it works, and certainly not how we arrive at truth.
Hello Alan
I’m not disagreeing with you that the Niniveits were forgiven without the blood sacrifice.
The Niniveits were not under the Mosaic law though, I made that very clear, How can you not see this??????
You can only transgress a Law if you come under that law.
Gentiles not under the Law were still able to walk in accordance with God without the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was given to Israel the Jews. But that was for a specific reason.
Do you think that God had no love for Gentiles???
I’ve always stated, the Bible has always shown that salvation is Based on Gods Grace, through faith. Depending on the dispensation the content of that faith grew through a period of time, as God revealed His plan and purpose. As time prevailed, that content moved into the Mosaic Law.
Hello RT
The content of faith is of course viewed as what God has revealed to man.
In a positive context.
Its not viewed as “go follow other gods that you have not known”
In a negative context.
Paul, you write that the Ninevites were not under the Mosaic Law, so they could be forgiven without blood sacrifice. Only Jews under the Law, you imply, can receive atonement only through blood (dead wrong on that count, but let’s leave that aside for now).
If the Ninevites could be forgiven without blood because they were gentiles, why not you? Are you a gentile, or are you not? If the Ninevites didn’t need Jesus, why do you?
Dina,
I have the same question. Paul is saying that only someone who is bound by the Law needs blood. Therefore, Jews need blood and Gentiles don’t need blood. But he says that he also needs blood. He must think that he is bound by the Law! But he will tell us that he is not bound by the Law because of Jesus’ blood.
I think he’s saying that Jesus’ death made all people Jews. Whether they want to be Jewish or not, it doesn’t matter, everyone is a Jew. And since all people are now Jews, all people need Jesus’ blood to be forgiven. So Jesus’ blood brought all people under the Law, but because nobody can do the Law, we need Jesus’ blood. I think this is what Paul is saying.
🙂
Hello Alan
The first thing I need to do is to correct you on your first statement. No absolutely no do I mean, or that I even implied that any people become Jews from believing in Christ. That’s a totally made up notion or a very ill placed presumption that’s bares absolutely no relevance to this topic. If you are going to make comments, please make them in context to the discussion.
Paul,
Ok, I accept your correcting me. But you did lead us to believe you were saying this. Can you please explain then, if you believe non-Jews have never been brought under the Law then why do they need blood? You said the only people who need blood are those under the Law.
Also what made you think that I would think that God doesn’t love non-Jews?
Paul,
Even though I think everyone here has been shown from the Hebrew scriptures already that Jews can also be forgiven without blood (Deut. 30, 1 Kings 8, Ezekiel 18, etc.), I see you are saying that God used to be able to forgive non-Jews without blood but only until the moment that Jesus died; from this point onward people need Jesus’ blood to be forgiven. This whole theology falls apart because of the passages from Tanakh that I cited above. And there are many other passages in Tanakh that show that bloodless teshuva (turning away from evil and towards faith in God’s will) works to make everyone right with God.
You wrote: “Do you think that God had no love for Gentiles???”
Paul, what made you think this?
Hello Alan
No worries, definitely didn’t mean to mislead you.
I wasn’t accusing you of holding a belief in non love for Gentile, it was aimed in a way to give you a position of seeing salvation isn’t Just for Jews, probably the word I’m looking for is rhetorical??
I’m a little pressed for time at mo, a bit like an Egyptian mummy.
Speak soon.
Paul,
“it was aimed in a way to give you a position of seeing salvation isn’t Just for Jews”
What makes you think that I might believe that salvation is only for Jews?
We have said so many times on this blog that gentiles do not need to become Jewish to have a relationship with God and a place in the world to come. The path for a righteous gentile is simply to follow the Seven Noahide Laws (which are basically rules of ethical/moral conduct).
That is why the Jewish heaven is so much more inclusive and expansive than the Christian one. Paul asks, do you believe salvation is just for the Jews? As if he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with believing that salvation is just for the Christians, while the remaining 5 billion Christians are eternally damned. Double standard, as usual.
By the way, the whole spiritual salvation thing is not Biblically based. Our spiritual destiny lies in our own hands through the choices we make, as the Bible stresses over and over again (Genesis 4:7, Deut 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33). Only we can save us from ourselves, not God.
Paul,
Why do you think I might believe that salvation is only for Jews?
You said that only those not under the Law need blood to be forgiven. So why do non-Jews need blood to be forgiven?
Oops. You said only those who are bound by the Law need blood. So why do non-Jews need blood?
Paul Summers: If you agree that G-d was able to firgive the non Jew without blood, then he can forgive the Jew in the same way.
Think of it this way. If a Christian believes in the shed blood of Jesus, but he persists in wickedness, the NT says he is still condemned. It will turn out that such a person was a vessel fit for destruction.
IE, even if you believe in the blood, if the message of the death of Jesus has no impact on how you live your life, then its not effective. It doesnt matter how much blood was shed.
Judaism has a notion of “the death of the righteous atones,” but its not about anybody shedding blood. Any kind of death can atone if it is a death that produces true sincere repentance.
The atoning power of any sacrifice is in the message of the blood, not actually in the blood itself.
What is the message of the blood?
G-d asks life for life in every act of service, in every commandment.
G-d says blood is atonment because the life of the soul is in the blood. Ie G-d wants the life of your soul, not just the vessel of the life of the soul.
Think of all the Jewish people who gave their lives rather than accepting a forced conversion from the Catholic or Lutheran Churches in Medieval times.
Those people understood that their service of G-d meant “our lives for the life G-d meant us to live.”
Jesus’ blood is not a Vaccine.
Not once does it state that believers doubt and fear the end.
Why would Paul be giving a message to his Churches about the importance of the walk, and of the impirtance of not doubting when trials come, if in fact no believers were doubting?
If nobody is doubting, Paul wouldn’t have to address the problens of doubt and sin in his Churches so often. The very thrust and reason’detre of his writing is because there were these problems among believers.
Paul Summers: If indeed Jesus is the messiah, what do you see the last judgement looking like?
Will it be a creedal exam? Will Jesus merely ask “do you believe I died for your sins?” Or will there be an examination of the whole person’s life, intentions, choices, and actions in the light of Jesus’ ethical teachings?
Hi CR
The last Judgement cannot be “do you believe?” because of course, from the standpoint of being Judged at the end, its only the non believer that is being Judged for condemnation.
The final Judgement, is the second death. In which ALL non believers from Adam will be judged.
Rev CH 21. Vs 7~8b, v 27
So the wording would be based on “why didn’t you believe?”
According to Rev. CH 20 v12.
Romans CH 2 v16.
In the Messianic Kingdom the only Judgement a believer receives is a Judgement based on rewards for works done by faith. All other works, not faith driven, will simply be burnt away.
1 Corinthians CH 3 vs 12~15
Post Messianic Kingdom, The eternal order.
Rev CH 21.
So your interpretation of the last judgement is that its essentially the bonfire for the non believers, and G-d is going to question the sinners with “why didn’t you believe?”
So, in the case of somebody like Hitler or Stalin, (who were both baptized,) are their evil works just “burned away,” leaving solely the merit of Jesus left to save them from hell?
Hi CR
Well Scripturally its a called The Lake of Fire, not a bonfire, but yes.
From Adam up until the Day of Judgement.
Not sure where you get that last statement from though??
Being physically baptised in water, be it a mere sprinkling or a full submersion, doesn’t save no one. Baptism is an outward act showing the baptized there faith, it doesn’t produce faith. It water baptism saved you, then it would render the crucifixion pointless and make salvation based on individual works.
That’s why Child baptism is a non NT teaching. Probably AH and S were baptized as children. Something they had no say in. Child baptism shows the faith, religious works of the parent, not the child.
The works I mentioned are for the believer only in the Messianic Kingdom..
My point is, ascent or confession of Jesus cannot be the grounds to say “I am saved,” if no fruit is borne. If fruit is borne\can be borne by a person, then it doesn’t require confession of the Nazarene to get to get to that point.
Christians spent a lot of time telling Jews that Jews believed wrongly in justification via works, and how bad it is, but then all Christians today seem to believe in justification via confession, baptism, and the mstical wafer ( all of which is itself works.)
It happened to me so many times when I was a Christian that a street preacher would ask me, “do you love Jesus?” I would say yes, and then viola! Conversation done, they said “good” and left.
The same people would then look at an Orthodox Jew and bash them to no end, (not even realizing that when it comes to day to day life Jews are living way more like Jesus actually would have lived.)
Its the height of moral bankruptcy to assume that someone is saved because they “believe” in a messianic figure.
The parable of the minas completely invalidates the idea that belief is the barometer. Actions in faith must be the barometer, and Jews already have actions in faith.
You said that G-d would ask “why didn’t you believe?” on the day of judgement? I could say:
“Well lord, your own chronicle which you left behind warned us several times that it is very unsafe to view a human being as divine, and that even the name of Jesus is not immune to such misuse and abuse by humans. (revelation 13, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Acts 14:12, Mathew 24:5 & verse 24, and Luke 21:8)
Literally thousands of Christian denominations want Jews to put Jesus the person, a claim that he is deity, and his shed blood at the center of their existence, while the same book warns against abuses of the name of Jesus, and warns explicitly not to accept claims of that nature from anyone else.
How can Jews be blamed by a just G-d when all they are doing in rejecting Christianity is putting the plain sense of the Torah 1st?
The 1st time Israel asked for a King, the prophet chastised Israel and said, G-d is your king and you already have his commandments.
Jews were explicitly told that the commandments weren’t too hard (Deuteronomy 30:11) and they were also explicitly warned about people to come who would change set times and laws (Daniel 7:25.)
Hello CR
You asked a question in regarding Baptism, and alluded that the person in question who was a believer, who was saved eternally, having there evil deeds being burnt up.
I then answered you and gave you the NT teaching on this, be it quite a short version.
To answer your next text.
It is very clear from life itself and of course from the Bible that not all confessing followers of God or Christ are who they say they are.
Having said that, the NT does teach that you will know them by there fruits not there works.
Mathew ch 7 v 15-20,
Ch 13 teaches about the yield of fruits. It also teaches about tares, non believers in the same field. A believer in Christ will produce some level of fruit. Some more than others.
Can a non believer do good, and produce fruits, yes of course. Man has the ability to do good. But man cannot be reconciled to God by being good. Goods works by a non believer will be good from mans perspective, but through Gods they will be nil, because the doer will not be in a regenerative state of faith through Christ. John ch 5 v24. There works are irelivant because there unrepented condition still alienates them from God.
If anyone has told you that salvation is based on wafers, baptism etc, then they are scriptually wrong. Some of those physical observations are memorials or acts of obedience in regard to fellowship, but not salvation. Fellowship follows salvation. Works do not produce salvation for a non believer.
Conversion is not based on saying “I love Jesus”. Anyone can say I love Jesus.
I dont disagree that non believers can,do live better lives than some believers. But that’s not purley a proof of a false teaching of the NT. It just shows that a NT believer is walking in correctly.
Sorry need to go. Will try again tomorrow.
Hello CR
The parable of the minas teaches the true heart of a believer in comparison to outwardly show.The lady only had a mere minas, but to her it was her entire livihood. She gave her literal all, and put her trust in God for her economic welfare. Actions do speak louder than words, but its the content of ones faith in the action not just the action.
All the verses you gave are warnings about false christs, but they are viewed by Jesus Himself. The Gospels accounts themselves are sufficient for one to see the Messiaship of Jesus.
One cannot use Jesus teachings as a vindication to suit ones denial of Him when it suits the individual.
If one did read the Jewish scriptures from a Mosaic, Judaism proper perspective then one would see the Messiaship of Jesus. Luke ch 24 v 45.
Israel was given a Earthy king because they refused to walk according to there Heavenly King.
History just repeats itself.
Zachariah ch 11 v6
John ch 19 v15.
Daniel Ch 7 v25, is the anti christ of the tribulation period. Its at the mid point, 3.5 yrs persecuting the Jews.
“Conversion is not based on saying “I love Jesus”. Anyone can say I love Jesus.
I dont disagree that non believers can,do live better lives than some believers.”
And yet your G-d will make the non believer to burn forever. How do you not see the problem with this?
“Daniel Ch 7 v25, is the anti christ of the tribulation period. Its at the mid point, 3.5 yrs persecuting the Jews.”
Does it occur to you that this verse from Daniel had a meaning before the Christians reinterpreted it in the light of the words of their teacher?
The verse warns Jews (who are under the Covenant of Moses) that someone is coming who wants to change their times and laws, IE Moses’ laws.
Hello CR
The Non believer isn’t just someone who denies Jesus as Christ, its all who have rejected the God of Israel pre Christ.
It a very large but shell it all comes down to not believing by faith, by Gods grace. What one had to believe in, ie content, changed or better still, progressed as God revealed more of Himself and His statutes.
Anyone who rejected His offer, no matter who or when, will ultimately pay with eternal suffering.
I don’t see Gods Holy statutes as troublesome.
Daniel made it very clear from his prophecy that Messiah would be here on Earth, and would be cut of from the living. Dan CH 9 v26.
V 27 speaks of the people of the prince.
The people are the Romans. V27. The romans destroyed Israel in AD 70. The prince of the romans is the anti Christ. The prince of v26, not Messiah, is the prince of CH 7.
Basically Daniel was given a 490 years of Gods time plan for Israel. The 490 is broken down into 3 periods of time.
The first 2 periods are combined,
Seven sevens and sixty two sevens. Which totals 483 years.
From the decree which is 483 yes A Man called Jesus of Nazareth was claiming to be The Messiah.
Daniel gave a very clear time frame of Messiahs appearance and death. Which is 483 years from the decree of Cyrus.
What Isaiah prophesied is recorded in fulfillment four times.
2 Chronic CH 36 v22~23
Ezra CH 1 v1~4. 6 v1~5. 6 v 6~12.
The prince who is to come, will establish himself to start the remaining seven. Still future.
Again Paul Summers. My point in bringing the antichrist figure up at all is that the Torah is crystal clear that you are not supposed to worship the “whole host of heaven,” and that Israel saw no form at Horeb.
I bring up antichrist because that tradition shows that The Christian Bible accepted this Torah premise concerning anyone elses claims, but then made an excuse for why its ok for Jesus to be worshipped.
IE the Christian Bible accepts the Torah view that it is wrong for men to associate any shape with G-d, and its wrong to worship members of the host, until Jesus comes up. When Jesus comes up, Christians throw Torah’s advice out the window, just like every other group that claimed their guy as messiah.
Its entirely inconsistent.
As for the notion that messiah had to come before 70 CE, how do you know it wasnt John the Baptist who came and was cut off?
Just because the New Testament says it wasn’t so?
If you prove the New Testament using the New Testament, thats called circular reasoning.
John’s mother was a descendant of David just as Mary was. That means John was a son of David via maternal lineage just like Jesus.
John preached repentance, the kingdom of G-d, and the remission of sins.
John was killed earlier than Yeshua, but it was durring the same time period from Daniel that you regard as prophetic.
John’s father was a priest meaning that John, as both a descendant of David, and as a kohen could truly be seen as a “priest on his throne,” something that Christians can only apply to Jesus metaphorically.
The name Yochanan even means “gracious is G-d,” so could that imply that John is the one who brought G-d’s grace?
You are probably wondering why I am even bringing John up? Let ne explain.
There is a set of Christian homilies called the clementine recognitions.
In this set of homilies is a section called “the disciples of John refuted,” where the Christian author recognizes that some followers of John the Baptist still persisted in believing that John and not Jesus was the promised messiah even though John had died.
The Mandeans (a small baptismal sect in Iraq) still holds John the Baptist as a venerable figure and believe that Jesus coopted John’s movement and tried to take credit for John’s work.
You are probably asking “why is this relevant?”
Its relevant because it shows us that anyone can be plugged into a prophetic timeline, or be plugged into the Torah messiah paradigm via types and shadows as I just showed you took place with the baptist.
If you say, “Jesus fits x prophetic picture,” ok, but so do other people who lived in his own generation!
You can only know who messiah is by the manifestation of the era he brings, and through the barometer of the commandments.
If you believe via type and shadow, its not any different than any of the other groups that have done the same plug and play with their teachers like Shabbatai Tzvi, Bar Kochba, Theudas, etc.
Hi CR
Well of course all you are doing now is arguing on the basis of could be, but not looking at scripture.
To keep it simple and without having to go through type and type of could have beens etc etc etc.
Let’s just look at what John said.
“I am NOT The Christ, but One who comes after me IS.”
Its a lot more simple to stick to what scripture says and definitely not what it doesn’t say.
I’m not into conspiracy theory’s.
Paul,
You can’t prove the truth of NT using NT as proof.
CR is talking about how Jews understood the Torah hundreds and hundreds of years before there was a NT.
Paul, how about answering Alan’s and my questions?
CR is also talking about how Christians understood the Torah’s prophecies before there was a NT.
Jim, I think he means to ask “what if the people misconstrue the prophet’s message, and believe erroneously that he is wrong?”
Paul Summers,
Is Concerned Reader correct? Is this what you mean?
Jim
“The Gospels accounts themselves are sufficient for one to see the Messiaship of Jesus.”
For you maybe, but the gospels are not scripture to the Jews. So, while you may think they are sufficient, a Jew is under no obligation to believe anything they say, or anything of the sort. If a Christian is born as a Christian, he is predisposed not to be critical of Christian claims.
A Jew is obligated to the covenant that THEY MADE with G-d, and they have to judge every claimant EQUALLY in accordance with that covenant’s terms.
You say that Jesus’ warnings are about false Christs. If you were a hearer of Jesus in the 1st century (when the Christian texts did not exist yet,) and you heard a Jew say to you, “watch out for false messiah’s and false prophets,” you would have a criteria on which to determine truth and falsehood, IE the commandments of the Torah.
Judaism has had a few guys come along whose followers said, “so and so rose from the dead,” “so and so did miracles, so and so was actually hashem in a human suit,” etc.
To every one of these claimants, and their movements, the Jews have said,
“finish the job of redemption, spread the Torah’s commands, and inaugurate the era of peace and knowledge of G-d, and we will know its you.”
In Judaism miracles do not prove a prophet is true. Pharoah had magicians who did signs, it didn’t make Pharoah true.
Jesus did not meet the scriptural criteria of inaugurating the era of messiah, and by all accounts a Jew who read Daniel 7:25 in the 1st century would see it as a warning against someone trying to change the then established set times and laws.
Hello CR
Daniel could not have been more clearer on what he was saying.
Your comments on the Gospels are founded on complete scriptural and historic ignorance.
A Christian CANNOT be borne a Christian from birth. Totally impossible, based on the very fact a one day old baby cannot discern between such matters!
In context Jesus was warning about future events, however He did, as I’ve just shown you, which you have totally ignored and gone off on in another direction, speak of a false individual, from the prophets, Daniel.
I agree that there is a counterfeit kingdom.
If you read the Hebrew texts, Messiah was always going to be rejected first, then bring in the Kingdom. Its very clear.
If Daniel is wrong on his prophecy, then Daniel is a false prophet and his writings are to removed from the Hebrew texts.
“Daniel could not have been more clearer on what he was saying.”
Paul, it seems that for you the more unclear something is, the clearer it is, and the clearer it is the more unclear it is.
Daniel’s prophecies of the end times are some of the most, if not the most, hidden of hidden and unclear in all of Tanakh! Daniel ch. 12 – “9 And he said: ‘Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end.”
But what is the clearest of the clear Hosea 11:9 – “I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; FOR I AM GOD AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury – for you is unclear. Why do you read the unclear as clear and the clear as unclear in the Jewish Scriptures?
Paul,
Hosea 14:9 –
Whoever is wise, let him understand these things, whoever is understanding, let him know them. For the paths of Hashem are STRAIGHT [not confusing, mysterious and twisted], and the righteous walk in them; but transgressors stumble in them.
Paul Summers: How very Calvinist of you to censure me and say that I am ignorant of Christianity despite the fact that I was baptized at age 7 (as a Protestant,) have exposure to Catholicism (via my relatives,) exposure to eastern orthodoxy via my friends, and literally went to school where I studied various religions including Christianity in a whole lot of depth.
When I said someone is born Christian, I meant they are born within the cultural framework of Christendom. They read Bible’s with New Testaments, they know the story of Jesus, they think exclusively about the Bible in Christian terms, etc. Culturally a person can be born Christian.
For example, DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (a movie which I love,) tells the Exodus story, but not at all from the Jewish perspective, but rather from a Christian exegetical perspective. Cultural Christianity.
Con, a short while back you wrote something that really resonated with me. You were talking about Paul persecuting religious Jews like him but who had different ideas, and this being a problem in that time. You wrote that religious Jews fought among themselves about the right way to serve God.
The amazing thing is that the rabbis teach that this is exactly the reason for which God punished us with the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent exile. We call it sinat chinam, gratuitous hatred, and if it were not a rampant problem until today, we believe the Messiah would have come by now. A common theme much discussed and promoted among religious Jews is ahavat chinam, the unconditional love and acceptance of our fellow Jewish brethren. Easier said than done, sadly!
Your comments are always thought provoking even when I sharply disagree, though of late I find myself agreeing with much of what you write. I really enjoy reading your comments!
Dina,
This is it: https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/05/differences-a-letter-from-eleazar/#comment-37265
I was very moved by it too.
Thank you, Alan!
Dina and Alan, the fact that Jews today learned the lesson that Jesus and Paul were actually initially preaching about, (the sin the rabbis called Sinat Chinam) is incredible and awesome, and should be humbling to any Christian.
The Jewish people are actually trying to live a cornerstone of the gospel message. So incredibly Ironic as that is lol. 😉
Paul of Tarsus argued with the followers of Jesus’ brother James because these followers thought gentiles needed to convert to Judaism before hashem would love them.
Paul’s entire theological point in all of his epistles is that G-d loves the loving and obedient among the Jews and also among the nations, regardless of their communal identity markers.
Before Paul was on the road to Damascus and had his experience, he says he wanted to inflict harm on Jesus’ followers because of his view of their heresies. After his experience, he realized that in seeking to harm the followers of Jesus, his fellow Jews, he was not acting in the spirit of Torah, but was fighting against Torah’s directive to love your neighbor.
That experience shapes Paul’s whole theology, and that’s why he says that a person is not justified by the law, but by grace through faith acting in love. Grace through faith is a Torah message, its just been stripped of any such original Jewish content or implementation.
Jesus taught the same message in the parable of the good Samaritan. Just because the Samaritan does not practice Torah in the same way, does not mean he/she is a G-dless heretic.
Gamaliel (according to the Christian bible) also lived in the spirit of this message when he also told his co coreligionists to leave Jesus’ students alone, and to see how their movement fared. IE Gamliel adopted a spirit of tolerance to the new Jesus movement.
The Church abandoned both Paul and Jesus’ message when they latched on to replacement theology, and rabidly persecuted non Christians, and Christian groups with whom they disagreed.
This is why I don’t view Jesus as a bad guy. If only the Church had actually learned rabbinic literature (rather than opting to burn it,) the world might be very different today.
CR,
Could you please show me where Jesus and Paul taught against sinat hinam (unfounded hatred for their fellow Jews)?
I only see them teaching people to hate Jews who don’t accept Jesus.
I also thought the parable of the good Samaritan was a cut against the Jewish people.
In the NT, there is a lot of sinat chinam against the Pharisees, who historically bore no resemblance to the portrait of them in the NT. And the story of the good Samaritan is supposed to show up the hypocrisy of pious Jews, although not a single one of them would have behaved that way.
Alan: “CR, Could you please show me where Jesus and Paul taught against sinat hinam (unfounded hatred for their fellow Jews)?”
Kavi: Absent CR’s response, here is a tiny sampling to consider,
Yeshua: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” [Luke 23]
Apostle Paul: “I am telling the truth in Messiah, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Messiah for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” [Romans 9]
Kavi: No matter what you believe about Messiah Yeshua, He did not go through all that torment and willingly give up His life because He hated people.
___________________________
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Kavi, yes or no – did the Father listen to Jesus and forgive their sins?
Apostle Paul: “I am telling the truth in Messiah, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart…”
Kavi: yes or no – is Paul saying that Torah-observant Jews who do not believe in Jesus also have a share in the World to Come? I know that he writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 that Jews killed the Lord Jesus and are hostile to all people.
And here is a tiny sampling of statements in the other direction:
1 Thessalonians 2:15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men. [It’s the other way around. For much of our history, all men were hostile to us.]
Matthew 23:35: That upon you may fall [the guilt of] all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. [Why should the Jews be guilty for all murder? During the time of Abel there weren’t even any Jews!]
Matthew 27:25: And all the people answered and said, “His blood [be] on us and on our children!”
John 8:44: You are of [your] father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [nature]; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. [Vile!]
Revelation 2:9, 3:9: I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9: Behold, I will cause [those] of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie– behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
Matthew 23, the whole chapter. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
Matthew 3:7: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”
“Kavi: No matter what you believe about Messiah Yeshua, He did not go through all that torment and willingly give up His life because He hated people.”
I think it is in consequence of his hatred, you have to see truth for what it is. Jesus did not lay down his life, he was actually accused of treason by the Romans. You are basing your assumptions on a 100% accurate new testament. If the new testament was true, and Jesus would have hated the Jews and cause division amongst the Jews, you would still have to accept that as truth. In fact, many Christians would persecute the Jews if it would have been an open command (just like the Muslims do!). As long as Jesus said it and it is 100% inspired, You see, you just ignore anything that does not fit your belief, because it sounds to rash and impossible to be true. Jesus looked like he hated the Pharisees and all those who followed that idea. It just does not fit on your painted portrait of the perfect son of god, that’s all.
Alan,
Although I’m not particular to “yes” or “no” answers, let’s see if I can minimize my words.
Alan: Kavi, yes or no – did the Father listen to Jesus and forgive their sins?
Kavi: Yes, why would He not?
Alan: Kavi: yes or no – is Paul saying that Torah-observant Jews who do not believe in Jesus also have a share in the World to Come? I know that he writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 that Jews killed the Lord Jesus and are hostile to all people.
Kavi: No, much like Rabbi Singer, Apostle Paul understood the destiny of all mankind who disobey G-d as written in Isaiah 66 and Daniel 12.
_____________________
In regards to 1 Thessalonians– Knowing that Apostle Paul loved his Jewish countrymen and sought for their eternal redemption in Messiah [Romans 9], doesn’t it seem more logical that he is stating the facts as he saw them because he did the same?
Think back to the first century– How did Jews generally treat Samaritans? Gentiles?
And, as for today, do we have any hint of adversity when we view certain actions by some Haredim in Israel?
What might you think of Bnei Brak?
______________________
Kavi,
Oh, the Father can forgive sins without accepting Jesus’ shed blood?
What exactly are you accusing the Jewish people of doing to Gentiles?
RT,
I am curious– When G-d calls His people “whores”, would you accuse Him of hate?
Take a gander through Ezekiel 16…
___________________
When Jews point out the hateful rhetoric of Jesus (which led to nearly 2000 years of horrific persecution culminating in the Holocaust), Christians inevitably respond with the “but the Hebrew prophets also said horrible things to the Jews” argument.
In a classical demonstration, Kavi did just that:
“RT,
I am curious– When G-d calls His people “whores”, would you accuse Him of hate?
Take a gander through Ezekiel 16…”
There are several problems with this.
Number One: This is a one-sided reading of Tanach that is clearly not interested in truth but in pursuing the agenda of demonizing the Jews. (For shame!)
The prophets excoriated the Jews in order to persuade them to return to God and Torah observance. The prophets, moreover, offered words of comfort and hope and reminders of God’s eternal love as a counterbalance to their harsh words. And the prophets saw themselves as a part of the people they were rebuking.
Jesus, on the other hand, offers no such balance. There is no redemption for the Pharisees. There is no promise of God’s love for those who return to Torah. Jesus, especially in John, stands apart from the Jewish people. There is only condemnation for those who disagree with his theology and refuse to accept him as the messiah. (May I remind you all that the Torah does not command anyone to “believe in” the messiah? That the message of the prophets was against idolatry?)
Number Two: The sacred text of the Jewish people serves as an exercise in self-criticism in order to improve the character and behavior of its target audience. Thus the Torah does not spend a lot of time praising the Jewish people for their good behavior. For example, in the time of the Judges, if you do the actual math, you will find that the years that the Israelites followed God’s commandments and did that which was pleasing to Him outnumber the years that they strayed and rebelled against Him by about four to one. In other words, the record is (very roughly) about 75% of the time good behavior and 25% of the time bad behavior. But dwelling on the good behavior doesn’t teach anyone any important lessons, so the Torah doesn’t waste time talking about it much. It should be obvious that the Jewish text demands an extremely high standard of behavior from its adherents.
In contrast, the sacred text of Christians is not a document of self-criticism but a document filled with vitriol against its theological enemies.
The Jewish text criticizes the Jews to teach them to be good. The Christian text criticizes the Jews to teach Christians to feel superior to Jews and justify their own idolatry.
Number Three: the story of Balaam demonstrates that God sends the Hebrew prophets to rebuke His people but He has not given permission to the gentiles to do so. There is an amazing lesson here for self-righteous Christians like Kavi, if they have the ears to hear. The story is placed right smack in between two misdeeds of the Children of Israel (the incident of the bitter waters preceding it and the incident of the mingling with the Moabites and worshiping their idols following it). Yet God allows Balaam only to praise the Jewish people in glowing terms and even to say, after everything that the Children of Israel did, “He [God] perceived no iniquity in Jacob, and saw no perversity in Israel. The Lord, his God, is with him, and the friendship of the King is in him” (Numbers 23:21) and to warn everyone else that those who curse them will be cursed. The meaning could not be more clear to anyone who cares about what God wants from them. God wants gentiles to see the Jews as having no iniquity and perversity. Let the prophets God sends rebuke the Jews in order to hold them to the much higher standard that He expects from us than from anyone else. And let the gentiles beware of cursing out the Jews.
Dina,
Yashar ko’ach gadol (a big yasher ko’ach)!!! Bracha, hatzlacha and a lot of nachas from your family!!!
Dina,
Kavi (and Jews too) should read the chapter of Bilaam a 100 times and contemplate deeply that it was placed right in between two negative episodes as you have pointed out.
Wow, Alan, Amen!
Kavi, G-d gave example of what was Israel’s attitude and why he compares her as a whore. It makes sense and does not imply that All Jews are wicked for all times! Think Kavi, it was a general state of the Israelites at the time G-d spoke to Ezekiel, it does not mean that all the Jews were, are and will be whores, like Jesus and Paul are saying and generalizing!
Alan: What exactly are you accusing the Jewish people of doing to Gentiles?
Kavi: Alan… you are asking a question to my simple questions? The fact is that Apostle Paul plainly loved his countryman and earnestly sought the well-being of their eternal souls [even to the point of his willingness to be separated from Messiah Yeshua…]
Alan: Oh, the Father can forgive sins without accepting Jesus’ shed blood?
Kavi: Why not? Forbearance of Divine Judgment for a particular sin does not compel G-d to impute righteousness… not even to those who humble themselves before G-d [e.g., the Ninevites in Jonah 3, King Ahab in 1 Kings 21, etc.]
_________________________
Kavi,
You accused the Jewish people of mistreating Gentiles since ancient times but you didn’t give examples of how they mistreated them. I personally don’t know what you are referring to, so please back up your general accusations with examples.
The Ninevites did real teshuva – they believed God’s words through Yonah and they all turned from their evil ways as the verses say and their slate was wiped clean in the sense that no further punishment was coming to them. The were worthy of life because they started to live the right way. Hashem forgave their sins and gave them new life without blood – this wasn’t a forbearance of punishment. Ahab on the other hand did not do real teshuva – he did not turn from all his evil and he continued to sin as the verses show. He was still punished but the ultimate punishment was delayed as the verses say.
Alan, Kavi wrote:
Alan: What exactly are you accusing the Jewish people of doing to Gentiles?
Kavi: Alan… you are asking a question to my simple questions?
In other words, Kavi asked a question which implies a false and ugly charge against the Jewish people and how dare you demand that he back it up with actual evidence.
Alan,
I asked three things:
[] Think back to the first century– How did Jews generally treat Samaritans? Gentiles?
[] And, as for today, do we have any hint of adversity when we view certain actions by some Haredim in Israel?
[] What might you think of Bnei Brak?
If your answer is “none” or “I don’t know” to the first two questions– then fine, that’s your answer and perfectly acceptable…
On the other hand, if we are to believe the testimonies of the BC/NT, there was that story about a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and her conversation with Yeshua…[John 4]
_________________________
Alan: “The Ninevites did real teshuva – they believed God’s words through Yonah and they all turned from their evil ways as the verses say and their slate was wiped clean in the sense that no further punishment was coming to them. The were worthy of life because they started to live the right way. Hashem forgave their sins and gave them new life without blood – this wasn’t a forbearance of punishment. Ahab on the other hand did not do real teshuva – he did not turn from all his evil and he continued to sin as the verses show. He was still punished but the ultimate punishment was delayed as the verses say.”
Kavi: What you say appears to be mostly conjectural and not found in the written text.
As a contrary opinion, the Prophet Nahum argues against your theory– Nahum amply describes G-d’s Divine sword of Judgment against Ninevah.
_________________________
Kavi,
I did some research and there is no record of persecution and oppression of Samaritans by Jews. The two peoples didn’t get along and there was sporadic fighting but it doesn’t appear to be as you say that the Jews abused and mistreated them. It seems that the Samaritans had a law about having no contact or business with Jews. If the Sanhedrin made a decree that the vessels of Samaritans made one ritually impure – maybe they did, I wasn’t aware of it – this is not what I call abuse. And the Samaritans outlawed any dealings with Jews according to what I read, which I also am not sure is true.
Why are you asking me these questions about Samaritans, Heredim and B’nei Brak? Are trying to get me to point out problems in the Torah observant community?
When Hashem forgave Ninveh in Jonah’s time, it certainly didn’t mean that they would never backslide, which is what eventually happened. Even Paul Summers agrees that the Ninevites’ teshuva was accepted by Hashem without blood.
There is zero historical evidence that the Jews of Jesus’s time persecuted gentiles or dealt harshly with them in any way; ditto for the Samaritans and early followers of Jesus.
The only “evidence” for this comes from the Christian “NT” which contains lies about Jews that have cost them untold suffering and death for 2,000 years.
If Christians like Kavi want to find problems in the Orthodox Jewish community, they will find them, because no one is perfect. The point for looking for and emphasizing whatever is wrong (while ignoring what is right) is to show that Jews are bad and Christians are good. In other words, it’s anti-Semitic.
Kavi ought to take the beam out of his own eyes rather than try to remove the splinter from the eyes of the hated Jews.
“Alan: Oh, the Father can forgive sins without accepting Jesus’ shed blood?
Kavi: Why not? Forbearance of Divine Judgment for a particular sin does not compel G-d to impute righteousness… not even to those who humble themselves before G-d [e.g., the Ninevites in Jonah 3, King Ahab in 1 Kings 21, etc.]”
Why not? Are you saying that those people won’t suffer in hell, or just that impeding judgment will be removed? I think you are trying to be misleading Kavi and you believe only the impinging judgment will be removed, but will be in hell forever anyway!
Talking of impending judgment, my wife woke me up in the middle of the night saying that she is scared, that G-d will throw us (me, herself and our son) if we don’t figure out if Jesus is really the messiah. I though about Alan’s answer, but I know she is not ready for that kind of answer. She has been a believer forever, is that the rest that Jesus promises? Paul, in your opinion, does it mean she is not saved, because the Holy Spirit is not comforting her? This is the main reason why I despise so much Christianity! The fear of hell, loved ones burning forever for no good reason and the fact of wondering if you are rally part of the “elect”!
RT,
I empathize with your wife’s pain. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Hashem doesn’t say even once that if you don’t believe a particular individual is the true Messiah you will be thrown in hell. If this was so important to Hashem then why didn’t He say this in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures? – “When Messiah comes, if you don’t accept him, you will be thrown in hell.” The Hebrew Scriptures only say that when the Messiah comes he will reign during an era of universal shalom; and the only way he can be recognized as the Messiah is if he is reigning as a real king during the era of shalom. The Torah doesn’t ask us to accept and believe in someone as the Messiah who is not reigning as a real king. When the real king comes and he reigns during an era of universal shalom, then your wife will have a choice of whether or not to accept the Messiah. Until then, this is not something that Hashem expects of a person. And even after the Messiah comes, there is no prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures that says the Messiah will tell everyone – “If you don’t let me rule over you, you will be thrown in hell”. How do I know Messiah won’t talk like this? Because it doesn’t say so in Tanakh and David and Shlomo, nor any of the good kings of Yehuda ever spoke like this.
RT, my heart breaks for the distress your wife is suffering. May Hashem send you both clarity!
Thanks Diana. The reason why I don’t talk too much is that even if she doubts Jesus, she still holds all the other core beliefs of the New Testament. If blood is required and G-d would throw you in hell after one sin, Judaism offers no hope. I do not think that she is willing to reconsider these doctrines yet, so even if I tell her that G-d loves unbeliever, she will not consider what I say.
It must be very hard for you both.
Alan,
You and Kavi have drawn attention to some interesting problems that arise out of Christian doctrine, or if not Christian doctrine generally, at least Kavi’s understanding of it.
Kavi wrote that when Jesus said on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” that God listened to Jesus and forgave those that crucified him. This forgiveness, of course, does not appear in the text. At first blush, one might believe Kavi’s assertion “appears to be mostly conjectural and not found in the written text,” as he wrote in answer to you on another point. Yet, one can see that Kavi almost has to say that God forgave them, or else a couple signficant challenges arise in Christian theology. It turns out, however, that this explanation causes significant problems of its own, as you have already pointed out, Alan.
Before I explain, I should mention that Jesus might never have said this. Of course, I do not hold the gospels to be true, generally, but that is not why I write this. The only book in which it appears is Luke, I believe. And, some early manuscripts do not carry this sentence. So, it is dubious that he said, “Father, forgive them…”. But I am not interested in that point.
The text gives no indication that those that crucified Jesus were forgiven for that crime. I can think of nowhere in the NT where indication of such is given. But if God did not forgive them, two problems arise:
1. Jesus would appear to be more merciful than God; and
2. Jesus would not appear to be effective as an intermediary between God and Man.
Each of these problems is signficant. If Jesus forgives them, but God does not, then Jesus is more merciful than God. Christians are uncomfortable with saying that God is less merciful than Jesus. After all, Jesus is supposed to be fulfilling the will of God. Moreover, that would really show that Jesus is the god to whom the Christian owes his devotion, not the unforgiving Father.
(Yet this does linger in Christian theology. Logically speaking, Jesus is more loving than God is, if one goes by Christian theology. One can see this in John 3:16, which speaks of God’s great love for humanity: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” In the two figures that wish to save humanity, whose actions are more loving. God sends someone to die. Jesus does the actual dying. Though a Christian will deny that they believe Jesus loves them more than God, one can see that their gratitude to Jesus is logically greater, because he makes the actual sacrifice. If he did not, God would still judge all humanity with a terrifying and impossible standard. This just makes God less loveable. And, Jesus is supposed to have said, according to John, that the greatest love is to lay down one’s life for his friends. Christians would not apply that standard to God, per se, but on an unconscious level…)
If the Christian does not want to say that Jesus loves humanity more than God does, he also does not want Jesus to appear to be offering useless prayers. Jesus is supposed to be their mediator, the one that secures forgiveness for them. It would be troubling to think that he was unable to secure their forgiveness on this occasion, that in the throes of death and extreme suffering, Jesus’ prayers were useless. One would be inclined to think that in this moment of obedience and self-sacrifice, Jesus would be more likely to secure the blessings of God, not less.
So, Kavi almost has to say that God forgave the people for killing Jesus, even though the text says nothing of the sort.
However, Alan, you already pointed out a huge problem with this. If one says that God forgave this sin without blood, as Kavi granted, then one must say that God can forgive sin without blood. Obviously, then, the crucifixion of Jesus was not necessary. He did not need to die for the sins of humanity. Kavi attempted to sidestep this issue by saying that God can forgive individual sins without calling people righteous, however this does not answer the problem. In fact, it complicates things.
Kavi granted something that many Christians will not grant. He granted that Nineveh was forgiven without the shedding of blood. Dr. Brown will not grant such a point. He will say that sacrifices were happening in the temple at that time, sacrifices for the non-Jew as well as the Jew. And it was through that blood that Nineveh was forgiven. But Kavi has taken a different tack. He has admitted that Nineveh was forgiven without blood. He argues that Nineveh was not then counted righteous.
This attempt to sweep things under the carpet undermines the whole of Christian doctrine. How many times has a Christian quoted Hebrews: “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” Anyone that has argued with a Christian knows that under most circumstances, the Christian would emphasize the word “no,” almost as if he were shouting it. Again, Dr. Brown would certainly emphasize it this way. Kavi is now arguing that there is some remission of sin, just not that all of it is so remitted. Righteousness is not achieved.
This is absurdity.
If God does not need blood to forgive one sin, then he does not need blood to forgive all your sins. To say that he can forgive one or maybe two or maybe even two million, but not all, is only to limit God. (Of course, this is a major problem with Christianity in the first place. If you say to a Christian that God is not a man, he will respond with a question: “Are you saying that God cannot do anything? Are you not limiting the power of God?” But, of course, this is precisely what Christianity does. It says that God cannot forgive sins without blood, limiting His power. Absurd.) Kavi has now implied that the death of Jesus is meaningless, without meaning to do so. If God can forgive one sin, he can forgive all sins without blood.
Kavi cannot even answer that they could be forgiven due to their ignorance. Sacrifices were made for inadvertent sin. By the Christian reading of Leviticus, this means that blood was needed to cover even inadvertent sins. Sins done from ignorance required blood no less than other sins, so Kavi would have no leg upon which to stand.
Moreover, Christians will tell you—and I believe Kavi has said this—that two elements are needed to get forgiveness for one’s sins. One is blood. The other is repentance. In this case, however, neither prerequisite is met. Jesus is praying for the forgiveness of those that are in the throes of a murderous passion (i.e. unrepentant) before the necessary sacrifice has been brought. So, according to Kavi, neither of these things is necessary for the forgiveness of sin. He is in a serious contradiction.
I should emphasize that this is Kavi’s contradiction, not the Church’s in general. I doubt many Christians would have granted that no blood was necessary for the forgiveness Jesus is praying for here.
I should also point out that Kavi makes Jesus ridiculous here. If Jesus is praying for the forgiveness of this one sin, but not asking for forgiveness for them in general, the prayer is particularly vain. Jesus would be allowing those people to burn in hell for all eternity, just for other sins. The punishment for sinners in the Christian system is no less for one sin than another. To the Lake of Fire go the unbelievers. It is rather absurd to pray, “Do not send Fred to hell for killing me; send him for stealing a 10-cent piece of bubblegum when he was 13.”
Through your discourse with Kavi, Alan, you have shown just how empty his arguments are. His arguments gloss over what are major problems in his religious thought. He ties himself in knots to explain the NT, but rather than explaining problems, he only makes them worse. Thank you for drawing attention to the absurdity underlying his arguments.
Jim
Wow, Jim.
Jim, isn’t it true that it’s not just the blood and repentance that is the only way to obtain forgiveness but it’s “believing in and accepting” the blood that is also a requirement, according to Christianity? Meaning, even if the person repented of their sins and there has been shedding of blood, but the person doesn’t believe in the blood or has no understanding of what the blood means (for example, the person’s mind is not working so well), then there is no forgiveness?
Alan,
Yes, one must “believe and accept” in the Christian model, too. This would make a third prerequisite to forgiveness, although some Christians attempt to make this the same as repentance. Kavi seems to do so on this page when he writes that teshuva is repentance from a false belief system. (He ignores Ezekiel 18 and 33 steadfastly. They do not fit his theology.)
Jim
Jim,
If one must also “believe and accept”, then this makes “forgive them Father” even more absurd (maybe you already said this).
Also, this requirement excludes all of the human beings whose minds are not mature enough or healthy enough to “believe and accept” this doctrine.
Judaism says that all people whose minds are disabled or undeveloped are absolved of those things they are unable to do (in thought, speech or action depending on the disability or age).
If ALL humans without exception are born into this world condemned to hell, and the only way god provided to be redeemed from this is to “believe and accept” something, then all of the human beings whose minds are incapable of this have no chance. How would Christians explain this according to the NT?
Alan, don’t forget about all the peoples on the continents on Earth that never heard of Jesus before the age of exploration and even during, as spreading Christianity to Africa, Asia, and the Americas was a slow process during a time of limited means of transportation.
Alan,
I think most Christians will tell you that there is an age of majority when one becomes responsible to accept or reject Jesus. They might quote him saying: “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Some will also argue that when David’s first child Bathsheba died, David said that he would go to be with him. They take this to mean that the child was in paradise and David will join him there in death. Since the child was in paradise, though a baby, it is taken by them that babies and children under a certain age go to heaven automatically.
Jim
So according to Christianity, not all humans are born with sinful pre-condemned souls?
And what about older people whose minds are not healthy enough to believe anything? And the people Dina is talking about (those in the past who never had a chance to hear) – are they also not pre-condemned?
So who is pre-condemned?
Alan,
These are all good questions, but I feel they go a little afield of the discussion. I will just say that the child does have a sin nature, but he is given a special dispensation–in the thought of many Christians anyway.
Jim
Jim,
That’s fine. I understand.
Thanks Alan, I know, but I don’t think my wife is ready to hear that. She has been fed that lie for too long, and she has a hard time to hear anything that goes against her belief. What gets me is that Christianity promise that its yoke is easy and that you will have peace. Christians promise to have fulfilled life and a life of hope, but in truth, it causes more anxiety and fear to believe in Jesus than not! The G-d of the Hebrew Bible is not like that… I feel such a relief since I came to believe in Judaism. Many Christians finish as atheist and feel the same kind of relief. It’s is painful to always fear hell. It’s like being in an abusive marriage with a husband promising you love and peace, but warns you he will beat you up and kill you if you ever leave him!
RT,
Does your wife notice your relief? Maybe if you pointed out your peace of mind and relief to your wife it would influence her?
It’s a really slippery subject, maybe one day she will be willing to listen…
I see. The best thing to do for your family is to continue to just be a good role model without so many words.
Jim: “But if God did not forgive them, two problems arise:
1. Jesus would appear to be more merciful than God; and
2. Jesus would not appear to be effective as an intermediary between God and Man.
Each of these problems is signficant.”
Kavi: Jim, have you read Deuteronomy 32?
“The L-RD also said to Moses: “I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. Now leave Me alone, so that My anger can burn against them and I can destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
“But Moses interceded with the L-RD his G-d: “L-RD, why does Your anger burn against Your people You brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and a strong hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘He brought them out with an evil intent to kill them in the mountains and wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from Your great anger and relent concerning this disaster planned for Your people. Remember Your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Israel — You swore to them by Your very self and declared, ‘I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky and will give your offspring all this land that I have promised, and they will inherit it forever.’ ”
“So the L-RD relented concerning the disaster He said He would bring on His people.”
[Deuteronomy 32]
Kavi: Messianics believe that L-RD Yeshua is the Prophet G-d raised up to be like Moses.
[] Here in Deuteronomy 32, Moses interceded on behalf of Israel…and in Luke 23, we find L-RD Yeshua intercede on behalf of Israel.
[] The primary concept is one of intercession on behalf of sin
So, Jim, will you contend that Moses is more merciful than G-d?”
_______________________________
Kavi,
Please reread what I wrote. If you do, then I think you will see that your challenge to it is mistakenly issued. If upon rereading you believe that your challenge demands an answer, please let me know, and I shall reply.
Also, I believe you mean Ex. 32, not Deut. 32, a simple typographical error that I mention only so people can look up the sources properly. I have certainly made similar mistakes, and I do not judge you hard for the incorrect citation.
Jim
KAVI: HAVE YOU READ EXODUS 32?
Hmmm…well that was embarrasing!
___________________________
Jim: “But if God did not forgive them, two problems arise:
1. Jesus would appear to be more merciful than God; and
2. Jesus would not appear to be effective as an intermediary between God and Man.
Each of these problems is signficant.”
Kavi: Jim, have you read Exodus 32?
“The L-RD also said to Moses: “I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. Now leave Me alone, so that My anger can burn against them and I can destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
“But Moses interceded with the L-RD his G-d: “L-RD, why does Your anger burn against Your people You brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and a strong hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘He brought them out with an evil intent to kill them in the mountains and wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from Your great anger and relent concerning this disaster planned for Your people. Remember Your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Israel — You swore to them by Your very self and declared, ‘I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky and will give your offspring all this land that I have promised, and they will inherit it forever.’ ”
[Exodus 32]
Kavi: Messianics believe that L-RD Yeshua is the Prophet G-d raised up to be like Moses.
[] Here in Exodus 32, Moses interceded on behalf of Israel…and in Luke 23, we find L-RD Yeshua intercede on behalf of Israel.
[] The primary concept is one of intercession on behalf of sin
So, Jim, will you contend that Moses is more merciful than G-d?”
_______________________________
Jim,
Yes I read your post regarding this matter and it does not have substance…therefore, it is a curiousity as to why you brought it up as the issue poses no problem to the Messianc nor to the Orthodox Jew.
Jim: “However, Alan, you already pointed out a huge problem with this. If one says that God forgave this sin without blood, as Kavi granted, then one must say that God can forgive sin without blood.”
Kavi: I fail to see why there is any problem for me? Why so?
Let us continue to examine the passage from Exodus…
Have you considered that G-d turned away His Judgment when,
[] Where was the blood sacrifice? Nowhere.
[] Where was the teshuva of Moses? Nowhere– he didn’t need to.
[] Where was the teshuva of the people? Nowhere– they were in the midst of sin.
[] Who did Moses ask to “turn”?
Clearly it was G-d who “turned” away from His wrath. [Exodus 32:12 and 32:14]
As such, G-d can forbear His sword of Judgment against,
[] the unrepentant [Israel and the golden calf]
[] the penitant polytheistic pagan [Ninevites]
[] the penitant debased wicked [King Ahab]
… but nowhere do we find that G-d imputes to any of them “righteousness”
_______________________________
Kavi,
Please do not be embarrassed over a typo. It is a small thing, and one we have all done. It is not worth your embarrassment.
Your comparison between Exodus 32 and Luke 23 is without merit and misses the point of my argument. The two situations are unlike. I wrote: “If Jesus forgives them, and God does not…” then Jesus is more merciful than God. This is not the same situation with Moses in Exodus 32. One should keep in mind that, according to Jesus, he has the power to forgive sins. Moses does not make any such claim. Moreover, Moses does not ask God to forgive Israel; nor does the text indicate that God did forgive the people. However, this is what Jesus asks on behalf of people in Luke 23, and according to your conjecture, God forgave them. Perhaps this clears things up.
Jim
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27!
Should the Church have taken that command literally? I think they did!
And the “deadly parable” (see article by Rabbi B with this name) in Matthew 21:33-44. Jesus is saying that the Jews knew who they were killing and they and their children were NOT FORGIVEN for it.
I think only the unreasonable will not see what the NT says. Most of the Church understood and acted on it…
http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm
Alan,
I see you went the extra mile to do some research about Jewish/Samaritan relations a couple millenia ago…not an easy task.
So, in response,
[] We do have Jewish historical texts that imply, at a minimum, a prejudicial contempt towards Samaritans [e.g. Ben Sira 1]
[] As to the same exclusionary contempt towards Gentiles, we have the records of Tacitus and others.
So, are these non-chrisitian historical records true? false? biased? It’s debatable… I bring up Bnei Brak and the Haredim because we all can read factual articles and watch videos from both Jewish and Gentile sources that exhibit this community’s higher level of “separation” and “contempt” in both actions and attitudes against the Israeli government, Palestinians, Arabs, Ethiopian Jews, the Israeli Messianic community, and “liberal” fellow Jews, etc… as such, I’m tending to think those ancient, non-christian records are probably more true than not.
To sum up,
[] In Thessalonians, Apostle Paul’s writings represent a statement of the facts as he saw them and, in my opinion, as he himself lived them out as a Pharisee;
[] In the book of Romans, Apostle Paul clearly and without hesitation states his love for his fellow countrymen and his earnest desire for their salvation in Messiah [Romans 9]
If someone is trying to find fault [not you] and claim Apostle Paul was “anti-semitic” in light of his open expression of love, then perhaps that attitude represents their own biased choice… instead, I think a better perspective is to view him in much the way a parent acts with their children.
_____________
BTW> I need to go to my office job now and cannot dialogue freely…
_____________
Basically what I’m getting at is this. If you are a descendant of a formerly pagan non Jew, and now you believe in the Biblical claims and texts, you may see Jesus, via some prophetic texts as fitting in a messianic role in some sense. If your experience leads you that way, I cant fault you for it.
For a Jew however, there is no such positive historical experience of Jesus of Nazareth.
You should realize that Gentile Christians have persecuted Jews for literally thousands of years ONLY ABATING IN THE LATE 60s!
Christian theocracies made conversion to Judaism illegal, burned Jewish texts, (and burned Jews themselves while they were in Synagogues, simply because they were Torah observant.)
EVEN THE TORAH OBSERVANT JESUS FOLLOWERS WERE KILLED OFF!
Christians told Jews “you will never again inhabit the land of Israel until you accept the king Jesus.”
Christians told Jews “don’t keep sabbath, don’t keep dietary laws, don’t keep your Jewish holidays, your covenant is old and passing away.”
IF A JEW BELIEVES IN THE TORAH THESE WORDS ARE A CLEAR INDICATION OF FALSEHOOD!
To Jewish historical experience this can only mean that Jesus was at best a failed messiah, and at worst a purely evil symbol embodying nothing but pain and suffering.
When a Christian says “but those weren’t real believers,” that is a convenient excuse to have when the Church fathers and Protestant reformers have pages and pages calling Jews evil, simply for observing the commandments.
Hello CR
For a Jew however, there is no such positive historical experience of Jesus of Nazareth.
What about all the thousands of Jews who since Christ have come to know Him as there personal savior?
What about my Jewish friends who are
believers?
Christians told Jews “you will never again inhabit the land of Israel until you accept the king Jesus.”
Of course I do not deny or condone the actions of men who have persecuted Jews in the name of Christ.
How ever, Biblically speaking The Jews will not inherit the Land as promised until they do accept the Messiah. That acceptance has to come through faith and repentance. Not by the sword of forced conversion. Again, however, the sword is used against Israel until they repent and come to faith. It is at this point that Messiah will return and destroy her enemies.
A response to Paul’s statements are in order, not because he is actually hearing us out–he so obviously isn’t, as I will show you–but because, you, the audience, deserve it.
Paul asks Alan how God could love him if he’s worshiping a different entity. The fact that Paul can’t grasp this shows that he believes in a petty, vindictive, mean-spirited God. Those of you who have children know that a parent (i.e. the Father) still loves his children even when they do wrong. And especially when the children sincerely think they are doing right.
Sadly, Christians like Paul pay lip service to the phrase “Our Father Who art in Heaven.” But we Jews, we believe that God loves us the way a father loves his children.
So, yes, Paul, of course God loves you and other Christians who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing and try to live their lives in accordance with basic decency and morality.
Paul asks Alan why he isn’t worried about Paul’s salvation. This is a Christian term (this isn’t a Jewish way of thinking at all), but Jews believe that all good, decent people of all faiths and even of no faith have a place with God in the World to Come because even if their beliefs are wrong they don’t know better and are still trying to be good people. The Jewish heaven is very much more inclusive than the Christian one (Con’s arguments notwithstanding).
That’s why Jews don’t go around trying to convert the whole world.
Paul claims that you either have to keep all 613 commandments or nothing. This is ridiculous. How is a man supposed to keep the commandments that refer specifically to a woman (regarding menstrual cycle and childbirth)? How is a non-farmer supposed to keep all the commandments that apply to farmers? How is a resident outside of the Holy Land supposed to keep the commandments that apply to the Land (such as the time period between the two Temples and also the period of the Second Temple when the vast majority of Jews were living in the Diaspora)? How is a childless couple supposed to keep commandments that apply only to parents? How is a non-Kohen and a non-Levite supposed to keep the commandments that apply only to Kohanim and Levites?
I find it interesting, by the way, that Paul uses the rabbinic count of 613 mitzvos, very interesting indeed.
Where in all of Tanach does it say that we have to keep all the commandments all the time even when we can’t because we don’t have a Temple or we don’t live in Jerusalem? This is a made-up argument by Christians trying to justify the idea that Jesus abolished the Law, although the Torah says the Law is eternal.
Now Paul asks the question that shows he has not been listening: “When and how is the prophet and his words verified as true by the people who have been spoken to?”
I cannot count the number of times we have answered this question. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 ring a bell, anybody?
Per Deuteronomy 13, if a prophet performs signs and miracles and then encourages us to worship other gods, he is a false prophet. Since Jesus was a new god, the (debatable) fact that he performed signs and miracles is not a sign we should follow him. The fact that he pointed to himself to be worshiped as a God proves he is a false prophet.
Per Deuteronomy 18, we are supposed to test a prophet by asking for a sign. If his sign does not come to pass, we know for sure he is a false prophet. The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, which he angrily gave them as if they were wrong for asking, then never fulfilled it. He never proved his resurrection to the Pharisees by appearing to them in his resurrected body. According to Deuteronomy 18, Jesus fails the second prophet test.
Paul’s comment to Con is particularly troubling. Here he dismisses the collective horrific experience of the Jewish people at the hands of Christendom by invoking the very tiny number of Jews who converted willingly to Christianity (this is only in very recent times; rarely was a Jewish conversion before the 1960s done out of sincere conviction). Con was talking about the experience of the Jewish people as a whole. And Paul dismissed it with a handful of apostate Jews who don’t even represent a significant minority.
Paul says something amazing: Christians told Jews “you will never again inhabit the land of Israel until you accept the king Jesus.”
Jews inhabit the land of Israel today. How about that?
Then Paul writes these two ironic sentences:
“Of course I do not deny or condone the actions of men who have persecuted Jews in the name of Christ.”
“Again, however, the sword is used against Israel until they repent and come to faith.”
Wow! Need I say more?
I will say more because there is more to say. Paul finally writes this: “However, Biblically speaking The Jews will not inherit the Land as promised until they do accept the Messiah.”
Tell me, Paul, where in all of the Hebrew Bible does it say this, “biblically speaking,” eh? And how do you explain the fact that Jews have returned to the Land despite not having accepted Jesus?
Paul, I am trouble by your indifference on thousand of years of persecution!
The parable of the minas teaches the true heart of a believer in comparison to outwardly show.
Do you believe in the notion of the invisible body of Christ wherein someone might outwardly be a member of another faith but inwardly be a follower of Jesus?
Paul Summers,
Addressing your comments here: https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/05/differences-a-letter-from-eleazar/#comment-37504 . My comments below are rather strong. They are not nice. But sometimes truth and niceness do not align with one another. What I write below is not meant mean-spiritedly, though it is direct.
It is good of you to admit that your faith in Jesus comes from neither intelligence nor reasoning. Of course, this is already known to us, but nevertheless the admission of this fact excuses us from considering too seriously your attempts at proselytization. It is an admission that your reading of Torah is slanted, distorted by your prejudice. And this admission demonstrates that you are unqualified to interpret Torah, and no one is under any obligation to pay heed to your preaching.
As a point of reason, because your opinion is not substantiated by intelligence or reason, it is less valuable than the opinion built upon those two gifts of God. It is sensible for the person seeking knowledge to go to the knowledgeable, to the expert. One consults a doctor on medical issues, because a doctor knows the body, the disorders of the body, the maintenance of health, and the restoration of health. Consulting one’s uneducated neighbor is much less likely to achieve the desired results. And when one’s automobile malfunctions, the sensible man goes to the auto mechanic, who has a knowledge of cars. If one has a question on the law, he does not consult his mother-in-law (qua mother-in-law) but a lawyer, one who has studied and knows the law. And when one wishes to know the will of God, he does not consult with a man whose understanding is based on prejudice but, rather, to one who has a deep knowledge of Torah.
Of course, you will say that I am twisting your words. You did not claim to come to Jesus through prejudice but through the holy spirit. Your claim is that God revealed the truth to you. Perhaps you have not considered this, but in so claiming, you are speaking on behalf of God. You are claiming to have received some level of prophecy, a claim that should not be made lightly. Deut. 18:20 states that one that “presumes to speak in [God’s] name a word that [he has] not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.” Such a claim should not be made lightly.
Nor do you surely expect us to believe that you heard from God without offering us some proof. Would you accept my word for it if I told you that I heard from the holy spirit that Jesus is neither Messiah nor God? If I did make such a claim, to whom should the impartial observer incline his ear? He would have no way of knowing whether or not either of us had heard from the holy spirit.
You may rightly object that I have not shown that you did not hear from the holy spirit; I have only shown that I cannot know whether or not you have heard from the holy spirit, which is not the same thing. Therefore, you will say, I cannot positively state that you operate from prejudice. (Although since this objection is based on intelligence and reason, perhaps you feel you have no need of it.) This objection is correct, so allow me to substantiate the assertion.
The first proof that you operate from prejudice is not definitive. It is based on your claim that you grew up hearing the teachings of the Church. You were taught to read Torah with a particular agenda in mind. And the community from whom that teaching came was not the community to whom the Torah was entrusted. Your entire youth was a process of learning a prejudicial reading in a community to whom the Torah was a foreign work.
The second proof is like the first. It is apparent to those that read your writing that you rely upon misinterpretations and misrepresentations of Torah to support your belief in Jesus and other Christian doctrines. On this page you have several times made reference to the writings of the apostle Paul, particularly Romans. Yet his work is based on misrepresentations of Torah. For example, he substantiates his argument that all are hopelessly sinful without Jesus from Psalm 14:1: “…there is no one who does good.” However, Paul ignores the context. The Psalm begins by talking about fools that say in their heart that there is no “God”. Paul has made a universal out of a particular. Similarly, he misrepresents Genesis 15:6, which says that God counted Abraham’s faith as righteousness. The passage does nothing to indicate that only faith counts as righteousness as Paul would have one believe. Indeed, in chapter 26, God tells Isaac that the reason God is blessing Abraham is “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (v. 5). Among Paul’s misrepresentations, perhaps the worst is what he does to Deut. 30:11-14. He quotes these verses, while interjecting his own meaning, and omitting v. 11 the end of v. 14. The point of these verses undermines Paul’s entire argument. Moses states that the law is not too difficult to keep. Paul’s omissions alter the meaning.
Compare the two passages. Deut. 30:11: “Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it far away.” Paul omits this and says that the verses following address “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom. 10:6). This is clearly not the case. When he quotes vv. 12 and 13, he then makes them about bringing “Christ down” and “up from the dead”. But Moses is speaking about the nearness of the law. And when he quotes v. 14, Paul writes: “‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart’ (that is the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:8-9). This is a terrible abuse of the holy words of God. Deut. 30 is not about righteousness through faith in Jesus. Deut. 30:14 actually reads: “No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.” Paul has not interpreted scripture. He has rewritten it. He treats Torah as a puppet and puts his own ideas in the Torah’s mouth. To accept such a reading shows that you are clearly reading prejudicially. It is only your prejudice that keeps you from being outraged by such violations.
Such manipulations are not limited to the apostle Paul, of course. Matthew begins his book with just such manipulations. His treatment of Isaiah 7:14 is scandalous. Isaiah’s prophecy to King Ahaz has nothing to do with a messiah to be born 600 years in the future, but Matthew pretends that the verse predicts the Messiah will be born of a virgin. This shameful treatment of scripture is only accepted by you because you were taught to read Tanach in a certain way. You were taught to ignore context to find Jesus into the text, to ignore intelligence and reason.
This can be seen too in the assumptions you bring to scripture. You wrote on this page that Daniel 7:25 was quite straightforward. Yet, unless I am mistaken, you will state that the Son of Man of Daniel is Jesus, a divine messiah, as most Christians do. To substantiate this reading, you must ignore the context of the passage and a direct explanation. The Son of Man is not a “Son of Man” at all, but one “like a son of man”. He is a being contrasted to the four beastly creatures before him. As they are kingdoms, so is he. He is not worshiped as divine but is served by other nations. The one like a son of man is explained directly in v. 18: “But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever.” Yet, the Church maintains that this is a divine figure, a single divine Messiah. The reading is incompetent. It is not the product of the holy spirit but prejudice.
But, it is the third proof that most strongly proves that you operate from prejudice rather than the holy spirit. You teach that which is against one of the very foundations of Torah; you teach that Jesus is God. But, Deut. 4 states that the reason no form was shown at Sinai was so that the Jewish people would not worship anything in creation, and they are warned not to do so. Moreover, it is stated twice in that chapter that God is alone. In chapter 6, it is stated that God is one. These are foundations of the Torah. If one does not understand this, he does not understand even the basics of Torah. Your doctrine was not given by the holy spirit; it is a product of human imagination.
That God is one and alone is so essential to Torah that Deut. 4 states that this is the testimony of the Jewish people. It is to this that God has appointed them as witnesses. Along you come and claim to be appointed by God to witness that God came as a man. Your testimony is obviously not from the holy spirit. It contradicts the Torah that you affirm to be true. Indeed, it is only your prejudice that allows you to affirm as true what the Torah declares to be false. If you read Torah with intelligence and reason, you would not be deceived on one of the foundational teachings of Torah.
And you certainly would not preach this violation of Torah. Deut. 13 states that if one claims to be a prophet, but he teaches a god unknown to the Jewish people, they are not to listen to him. Your claim to being inspired by the holy spirit does not make your teaching true. You teach an unknown god, a human being, a member of creation. It will not be enough to just assert that he is the same god. By definition, he is not. Only 9 chapters earlier, the Jewish people were strongly warned against worshiping anything in creation. It would not matter if you walked on water or healed a leper or rose from the dead yourself. Nevertheless, Torah would prohibit following after your doctrine.
I am sure you understand then, why your claims make no impact. It is not a virtue that you did not arrive at your conclusions due to intelligence and reason. One does not give ear to such people. Your claim to be inspired by the holy spirit is empty. You cannot substantiate it. Nor can one be expected to listen to one that tolerates the distortion of Torah. Certainly, one will not listen to you when you teach something in violation of one of the fundaments of Torah. Still, it is awfully good of you to reaffirm that a person of intelligence and reason has no business listening to you.
Jim
Jim,
May Hashem bless you and protect you; may Hashem show you His shining countenance and be gracious to you; may Hashem turn towards you and establish shalom for you.
Thank you so very much for this letter!
Alan
Paul Summers,
Please know that Hashem loves you whether you’re a Jew or a Gentile and all the good things you have accomplished since you became a believer were actually accomplished with just the help of Hashem, the God of Israel, the God of the universe; there was actually no middle-(son-of)-Man. You can do it without the intermediary and even go much farther and higher. But you will need some support to do it. The people on this blog would be more than willing to help.
Hi Alan
You are joking right????
Dont worry about me you need to speak to Jim ref The book of Daniel.
According to you…..
Daniel’s prophecies of the end times are some of the most, if not the most, hidden of hidden and unclear in all of Tanakh! Daniel ch. 12 – “9 And he said: ‘Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end.”
So you state that this book is virtually impossible to understand. An amazing ststement considering you definitely know what it doesnt say??
Jim states….
The Son of Man is not a “Son of Man” at all, but one “like a son of man”. He is a being contrasted to the four beastly creatures before him. As they are kingdoms, so is he. He is not worshiped as divine but is served by other nations. The one like a son of man is explained directly in v. 18: “But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever.
So here we can clearly see Jim has it all sown up for us.
So according to you the Texts of Daniel are hidden until the end, and unclear in all Tanach.
So has Jim produced the truth in the text based on intelligence and reasoning or by a Heavenly voice? Is this the end?
If its by reasoning and intellectual brains how come you said its hidden?
If its by God, is Jim a prophet to unravel scriptual truth????
Are you praising Jims letter to reveal your ignorance or mine?
Paul,
I am serious that God loves you in spite of the fact that you think you know the Jewish Scriptures correctly. I am serious that all of the spiritual advancements you’ve made were due only to the loving power of Hashem with no middleman. I am serious that we want to help you without being worried about your salvation.
Most of Daniel is very clear and easy to understand. It’s specifically his prophecies of how and when the end times will occur that are hidden. And details of the beasts and the horns are unclear and open to debate as to exactly what they are referring to. But what is not open to debate is that the true Messiah is not God and he will not change the halakhic system that was handed down from God to Moses to Joshua all the way to today.
Hi Alan
Are you taking this blog seriously???
Paul Summers,
I can understand that interacting with people who do not believe as you do can be frustrating sometimes. Nevertheless, I do not see the reason to ask insulting questions to Alan. I do not see the reason to treat him contemptuously.
A better question than whether or not he takes this blog seriously is whether or not you take the Word of God seriously. This question is asked with no frustration or anger, but has a serious point. You readily praise those that misrepresent Torah and make no effort to defend it from the assaults of those like the apostle Paul. You ignore direct statements in Torah that one should not worship anything in creation and that God is one and alone. You have put the word of man over the Word of God.
Do you take Torah seriously? Or is it a mere plaything to you as it was to your namesake?
Jim
Hi Alan
When you say God loves me even though, Biblically I have been worshiping a non entity, and making a mere man God, how can I have spiritually advanced.
Does that mean that idolatry produces spiritual maturity?
Why are aren’t you worried about my salvation?
I was under the impression that God Gave Moses the Law, all 613 commandments. He didn’t give Moses a system of interpretation to take the Law and rearrange it to fit any given circumstance.
If its all the way until today, then practice it in full. In Jerusalem, in the Temple.
Paul,
You also believe in the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth and his universal commandments of morality for all mankind. I see that you are sincerely trying to walk this walk so of course you are going to advance spiritually and morally. And this is also why I’m not worried about your salvation.
God gave Moses the written Torah (the text) and the explanation of the text (aka the Oral Torah).
All 613 commandments still exist but it is God’s will for today that many of them are temporarily suspended until the 3rd temple is rebuilt.
Paul Summers
There are some very kind and thought people here who have spent ump-teen hours trying to show you the errors of your thinking. Would you rather they stop and worry about you instead?
Alan,
Thank you!
Jim
Jim returns with a bang! Welcome back, Jim!
Thanks, Dina.
Paul Summers,
In follow up to my comment here:
You seem to think it a virtue that one should invest unreasoned belief in Jesus and the resurrection. The Torah does not make unreasoned belief into a virtue, however. This is a point at which the NT and Torah are at odds. Allow me to explain why the NT had to make a virtue of unreasoned belief in contradistinction to the Torah.
Moses was established publicly, so that the entire nation would know that he truly was a prophet. (See Ex. 19 and 20.) After that, no prophet was verified in the same public manner. So, any new prophet had to align with Moses, the verified prophet. The people were to test the prophets, as one can see by reading Deut. 13 and 18. They were not commanded to believe just anyone that claimed to be a prophet. They were not even commanded to listen to everyone that could perform miracles. The Jewish people were not to give their unreasoned belief over to any self-proclaimed prophet. They were to investigate. They were to employ their intelligence and their reason.
(They were not commanded to rely upon an inner sense from the holy spirit.)
Jesus did not pass the tests of a prophet. If Jesus claimed to be God, that was a failure of a test right there. Whatever miracles he might have done, no matter how great, he was not to be heeded, as per the Torah. Such a prophet is supposed to be put to death. (See Deut. 13:1-5). Miracles are spectacular, of course. They have a powerful appeal on the emotions. But one is not to lose sight of the truth. He is not to be over-powered by spectacle but to cling to the truth. He is to use his mind. No matter what Jesus did, if he claimed to be god, his miracles count for nothing.
In some ways, Jesus’ other big failure as a prophet is more interesting. Jesus failed to fulfill one of the signs he promised—the major sign he promised. For Christianity to take root, then, it had to exempt Jesus from the tests of a prophet. It would become a virtue that one would believe in the sign, the resurrection, without any proof. John has Jesus telling Thomas that those who believe without seeing would be blessed. Underneath this is an implicit admission by the Church that Jesus did not pass the test of the prophet.
Jesus announced that he would rise from the dead after three days. And yet, he never publicly showed himself. His supposed resurrection was not even announced until fifty days after his death, at which time there was no Jesus walking around on earth, because ten days earlier he floated into the sky. By the time people were being told that Jesus had come back from the dead, there was no proof of such an event. It was a mere claim, unsubstantiated, not a sign.
Having no Jesus, the Church made it a point of faith that Jesus actually fulfilled the sign he promised. But that is not how a sign works. That is not how a test works. The point of a sign is that it can be observed. The point of a test is to verify a claim to prophecy. Making belief that a sign came to pass a virtue short circuits the test of a prophet. Worse, it abolishes it. The teaching of the NT violates Torah and attempts to abolish it.
The Church has long tried to distract people from this issue. Apologists have tried to move the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the Jewish leadership. They have asked why the Jewish leaders never produced a body. This is nothing but a distraction. It was Jesus’ responsibility to pass the test, not the Jewish leadership’s responsibility to prove that he did not secretly pass it. Moreover, a lack of a body is not proof of a resurrection. A walking, talking, once-dead-but-no-longer body is proof of a resurrection. And this the Church has not produced.
The tongues of fire incident is a similar distraction. The disciples are supposed to have spoken in languages unknown to themselves with fiery tongues. Some take this as proof of a resurrection. But, of course, it is not. The two have no relation to each other. The sign offered was a resurrection, not flaming tongues babbling.
The Church offered up these distractions and others, because it could not offer up a living Jesus. He never fulfilled the sign of Jonah. So, the Church had to invent a new commandment, that one should believe in Jesus without sufficient reason. It had to tell people to ignore the evidence. It had to tell people to violate the commands of the Torah. Intelligence and reason would become vilified, though Torah commanded one to employ them. This would be another significant break with Torah, the abolishing of the tests of a prophet. The NT and Torah would remain worlds apart, one demanding unreasoned belief and one teaching that the prophet’s claim must be carefully tested, the mind not laid aside. It is no virtue to lay aside one’s intelligence and reason. One should be suspicious of anyone who tries to convince him otherwise.
Jim
Hello Jim
If a prophet came into Israel speaking “Gods words”, and that prophet was understood to be wrong by the people, what was the people supposed to do with the said prophet?
Again same question but the prophet found to be correct?
Paul,
I do not understand the question. Please clarify. What do you mean found to be “correct”? What do you mean “understood to be wrong by the people”? On what grounds? The questions are vague.
Jim
Hi Jim
I mean if a prophet, proven, or unproven at the time, came and spoke A, B, C. When and how is the prophet and his words verified as true by the people who have been spoken to?
Paul Summers
Paul,
You wrote:
“We do have the choice between good, bad. Non believers do not have the this choice. Non believers can only serve the flesh. Believers can serve either. That’s the issue which is a spiritual struggle.” (June 11, 2017 at 2:16 pm).
This claim is entirely without merit.
The first thing one notes is that like most Christian claims, it cannot be verified. It is nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion, because a person’s motivation goes on inside him, where it cannot be checked. It is easy, therefore, to claim that the unbeliever is motivated only by his “flesh.” No one can prove otherwise. And if one claims that he does not serve only his flesh, that he does desire to serve God, you will tell him that the heart is deceitful above all things and a man may not know what really motivates him. However, if that is your argument, it cuts both ways. Perhaps believers in Jesus can serve only their flesh, but are deceived into believing otherwise, their hearts being deceitful above all things.
The entire argument is hollow, because the Christian will surely quote that only God knows what really goes on in the hearts of people. And yet the Christian asserts that Jesus was sinless and pure, a thing he cannot know. And he asserts that unbelievers serve only themselves, which he also cannot know. These things the Christian cannot know. They are doctrines that do not rise above mere assertion, in the same category as the virgin birth and the resurrection, articles of faith for which no evidence exists. One must just take the Christian’s word for it.
A possible proof would exist if Christians lived superlatively good lives, but this is not the case. You even admit that Christians still sin. They just have a choice in the matter. This is empty rhetoric. There are many very fine Christians, of course. But then there are also very many fine non-Christians. No discernible difference sets Christians apart from the non-Christian world, so that the one group is obviously free from serving “the flesh” while the other is enslaved to it. It does not rise above the level of mere assertion for the Christian to say: “When I sin, I have a choice, but when you sin, you do not.”
It is true, however, that a person may serve himself, believing himself to serve God. This happens when one avoids stealing, because he believes he will be caught but attributes this as fulfillment of God’s will. There are other instances like this, when one keeps God’s Torah incidentally, not because it was commanded.
If one wishes to serve God, he does not steal precisely because God forbade theft. He is not worried about being caught. He is not motivated by the philosophical idea that stealing destroys trust in a society. Instead, he heeds the words of his Master. At the moment when his desire moves him to take what belongs to someone else, he remembers that HaShem disallows such an action, and he denies his desire and thinks on something else.
He reflects that all that he has is really God’s. He does not seek to gain more goods in an illicit manner then, for in so doing, he denies the ownership of God. He recognizes that his fellow is beloved of God, too. He may not therefore lay claim to his fellow’s property, causing him pain.
He knows also that, because his fellow is precious to HaShem, he may not abuse him. He may not lay hands upon him, except in certain instances. He may not malign him. He avoids doing these things, precisely to fulfill the will of God. He avoids doing them, because God loves his fellow and his fellow is made in God’s image.
And so it goes through all those things commanded upon a man. He does what is commanded. He avoids what is prohibited. He does not do these things for self-serving reasons.
He studies the Torah, so he will know his duty. He does not wish to violate it accidentally. He does not wish to treat the commands of his King as a light thing. He does not perform the Torah grudgingly, but he is glad to do it. He knows that he owes God everything, and he performs his duty with gratitude. And he studies to know the proper attitude to take toward things in the world, to avoid acting as if they are his. He is concerned not with only his actions but his attitudes.
One need not believe in Jesus to undertake the service of God. Indeed, one is better off not having Christian notions of the futility of keeping the Torah in mind if one wishes to serve HaShem. It is much better for him to recognize that, in fulfilling that part of the Torah that applies to him, he is fulfilling his duty than to think that fulfilling the Torah cannot save him. Service to God means fulfilling His will.
Jim
Beautifully said and inspiring, Jim!
Dina Said: “In the NT, there is a lot of sinat chinam against the Pharisees, who historically bore no resemblance to the portrait of them in the NT. And the story of the good Samaritan is supposed to show up the hypocrisy of pious Jews, although not a single one of them would have behaved that way.”
Dina and Alan
It seems to me (from history) that in second temple times there were many who could have applied the title of “Perushim” to themselves. The title didn’t just apply to the sages, but like any group there were undoubtedly groups with different levels of stricture in their views that nonetheless overlapped with the movement of pious ones, and considered themselves such in some ways, but not others.
For example, as in America today there are Democrats and Republicans with Libertarians somewhere dotted along a spectrum in between. it seems to me likely that “Pharisee” can denote several groups that agree some, and disagree some.
For example, Jesus himself and his own views definitely wouldn’t be Sadducean, but would overlap quite significantly with the views of the Pharisees.
You have Beit Hillel, Beit Shammai, the Zealots, etc. there were undoubtedly some who considered themselves “perushim,” even if they had wildly divergent views.
The Talmud itself (as we have discussed before) has some minority rabbinic opinions in it that make us moderns blush because of how strict the opinion is. Those opinions wouldn’t be discussed in Talmud if there weren’t some people who thought those opinions were noteworthy.
We know from the dead sea sectarian halacha (composed by an apocalyptic group of priests,) that they had extremely strict halacha, to the point that they wouldn’t even eat food prepared by other Jews.
I’m sure that back then, (just like today,) there were many people who shared certain opinions here and there with groups that they may not have formal membership in.
For example, some more moderate religious folks might appreciate what the zealot is doing to uphold the tradition, though they themselves wouldn’t be so zealous. You guys get what I mean?
The New Testament says many negative things against both Sadducees and Pharisees, but it also shows examples of Pharisees who were hospitable to Jesus and to the gentiles, (more hospitable than Jesus even.)
it shows Pharisees who tried to rescue Jesus from Herod, and it shows Gamaliel adopting a patient wait and see attitude to the early Jesus movement, (an act for which Gamliel is considered a saint in the orthodox Church to this very day.)
I think that sometimes judging second temple Judaism through the lens of Talmud can be as anachronistic as studying 1st century Christianity through the lens of the Nicene fathers.
Judging a time period of such theological diversity through the lens of a codified, organized, and authoritative tradition codified almost 200 years after the fact can be difficult.
We have to remember what the gospels are. Codified biographies culled from oral traditions written after the fact by Christians who are contemplating what the Nazarene meant to them, and in many ways, their own contemporary community struggles make it into the text in a very bad way.
The Pauline epistles written in the 50s show a mixed bag of relations between Jews and Christians that is deteriorating.
The earliest Synoptic gospel (Mark) is written in the 70s when tensions weren’t likely as high.
John by contrast is written in the 90s CE when relations between Jews and Jesus followers have reached fever pitch, and the community is made up of gentiles far more than it is Jews.
We also need to remember that Christianity had its protected status as an ancient religion revoked when it was no longer considered Jewish. IE Jews could practice their religion, but Jewish and gentile Christians could not.
During the reign of Diocletian Jews and Christians got persecuted by Rome together.
Con, this is all very interesting, and I don’t disagree with much of what you write. But if Jesus was a type of Pharisee, then he exemplifies sinat chinam, accepting some and hating others. This is what the rabbis of the time warned against. The sinat chinam of the Jesus Pharisees eventually led to horrific persecutions of the Jewish people, much as the sinat chinam in the story of Kamtza bar Kamtza led to the destruction of the Second Temple.
It was a problem all around, and the rabbis taught that we paid the highest price for it. All God wants is for us to love each other and treat each other kindly. And tragically many of still act as if that is too much to ask for!
CR,
What you’re saying makes sense but I still don’t see how you’re showing that Jesus and Paul modeled and preached ahavat hinam (the opposite of sinat hinam). Isn’t that what you were claiming – that they preached against sinat hinam?
Sorry, CR, but neither Jesus nor Paul EVER preached a message of Jewish unity. Jesus’ message was one of absolute division and malice toward his fellow ( unbelieving) Jew. His message was one of loyalty to him and him alone, over and above any unity within Judaism or even family.
Matthew ( the gospel to the Jews) 10:33-37: “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
And Matthew 12:47-49- ”Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.” But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.”
To Jesus, and to Paul, it was belief in and obedience to THEIR teachings that made one a “real Jew”. The concept of one’s doctrine and faith as defining who is a Jew is not a Jewish teaching, but as we see on this forum regularly, it is how Christians define “real Christians”:
Romans 2:28-29 – “A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.”
How is this ” real Jew by way circumcision of the heart and spirit” defined, according to Paul?
Galatians 1- “Just as I said to you from the first and now again I say to you, that if anyone evangelizes you outside of what you have received, he shall be damned.”
2Cor- “For if he who comes to you would preach another Jesus to you, whom we have not preached to you, or you should receive another spirit which you have not received, or another gospel which you have not received, you may well be persuaded.”
With all due respect, CR, you’re incorrect on this point. Both Jesus and Paul were absolutely divisive and preached open division among Jews: those who believed Jesus and Paul were “real Jews” ( for Paul) and “my real brothers” ( For Jesus) , while those who rejected the message were not.
Addendum: In my opinion, the parable of the good Samaritan was just as much an excuse to once again bash the Jews as hypocrites as it was to illustrate who one’s neighbor is. Jesus could have used ANY group of people in that illustration, including himself or his disciples. He could have even told the parable with a Kohen who was injured and a Samaritan and Sadducee who passed by, while a Levite or Roman stopped to help. In other words, his parable required a victim, a hero and two villains, and of course the Jews were once again the villains. This is just the opposite of what you are trying to convince us of, CR.
The fact that the Orthodox Church accepted ONE non-converted Jew as a decent person is does not in any way serve as evidence that Jesus or Paul preached against Jewish disunity.
Con, this is all very interesting, and I don’t disagree with much of what you write. But if Jesus was a type of Pharisee, then he exemplifies sinat chinam, accepting some and hating others.
I’m only saying what I think the intent of J’s ethic seems to have been in theory. In practice, the second temple period was full of sinat Chinam as you say. I think the righteous in those days may have been righteous as Noah was, IE there were those who were righteous in the generation IE nobody’s perfect. Many Jews did not get along with other Jews, and Christians did not get along with other Christians.
That does make more sense to me. In other words, he didn’t quite practice what he preached (he may have, we’ll never know–all we know is the words the NT put in his mouth).
Jim and Alan: intetesting discussion you guys were having with Kavi. For Kavi, I think its commendable that you see that Hashem can forgive without blood.
As Alan and Jim have noted though, if blood of Jesus is not always required it creates problems for Christianity.
Some Christians would say that even if someone could be saved without Jesus’ blood, someone would still need to personally confess Jesus as good/innocent/G-dly before the last right or judgement, IE salvation through what Catholics would call baptism of blood/baptism of desire.
The theif on the cross for example, did not know Jesus or his doctrines (virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.) personally, but viewed Jesus as an innocent victim nonetheless, whereupon they both die on their respective crosses.
So, in Catholicism at least, the fact that the theif dies (shedding his own blood) along with a positive view of Jesus is what covered him.
The problem PROTESTANT Christians never deal with is the passage where Jesus says TO HIS STUDENTS AND NOBODY ELSE: “many will come before me and say lord lord, have I not prophesied in your name, and in your name cast demons out, and in your name done many wonderful works?
I will say to them (followers of Jesus in this context) I NEVER KNEW YOU YOU LAWLESS ONES.
Christians (in protestantism at least) always fail to see that Yeshua himself seems to say that you are to be judged by your lawful works, by DOING WHAT HE SAYS, and also by how you reeacted to the death of Jesus, not one or the other, but both.
As opposed to the actual blood of Jesus atoning, its the reaction to it that atones. Thats actually how the rabbinic notion of “death of the righteous atoning” works. When you see death, and personally examine your own life, and improve yourself.
You see it in Acts where Peter is preaching to some Jews about the death of Yeshua, (and the text says of the Jewish hearers) “they were cut to the heart.” “Brothers what shall we do?” Peter answers “REPENT AND BE BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF JESUS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.”
In Acts, the way the death of JESUS ATONES as described by Peter is based on the person’s works that are meet with the repentant heart, and as motivated by someone’s remorse over Jesus’ death.
Unlike Christianity, Judaism teaches that any righteous person’s death can motivate this spirit of turning to G-d. The figure in Zechariah who dies motivated REPENTANCE, SORROW, A BROKEN HEART, when he died. Jesus to most christians by contrast is just a blood transfusion or vaccine of magic G-d blood.
We also have to commend Paul Summers for admitting that the Ninvehites were forgiven without blood because, as Paul Summers wrote, the only ones who need blood for atonement are those under the Mosaic Law whereas those not under the Mosaic Law (non-Jews) do not need blood. Dina and I then asked Paul that since he believes that both Jews and non-Jews now need blood to be forgiven does this mean he believes non-Jews were somehow brought under the Law. We are waiting for his response.
Paul Summers agreeing that the Ninveites were forgiven without blood –
Alan: “The Ninevites did real teshuva – they believed God’s words through Yonah and they all turned from their evil ways as the verses say and their slate was wiped clean in the sense that no further punishment was coming to them. The were worthy of life because they started to live the right way. Hashem forgave their sins and gave them new life without blood – this wasn’t a forbearance of punishment. Ahab on the other hand did not do real teshuva – he did not turn from all his evil and he continued to sin as the verses show. He was still punished but the ultimate punishment was delayed as the verses say.”
Alan: “When Hashem forgave Ninveh in Jonah’s time, it certainly didn’t mean that they would never backslide, which is what eventually happened.”
Kavi: Alan, in reviewing your comments regarding the modern Rabbinic theory of teshuva…
[] Since you describe real teshuva as inherently weak and temporary [that is, subject to backsliding], how does one determine if their teshuva is real and complete?
[] What are the criteria for real teshuva to remain real and complete in the sight of the Almighty Judge?
[] In describing Nineveh’s real teshuva, does it bother you that the Ninevites remained pagan polytheists “who do not know their right hand from their left.”? [Jonah 4]?
[] If you excuse Nineveh for backsliding, why condemn King Ahab?
_________________________
Kavi,
I’m sorry but I am choosing to not do this anymore. I don’t feel that we can have a real conversation. I try to answer all of your questions but you don’t have to give me the same courtesy and then you disappear in the middle of a conversation sometime for weeks and when you come back you just bring up a different topic and then go back to your same MO.
Alan,
Thank you for the conversations we had.
Although I try with good intentions to follow discussions, I cannot always respond in a timely manner as much as I would like [e.g., the subject of Midrashim and Psalm 41]. As time is not usually on my side…by the “time” there is time, the blog viewers have switched to an altogether different topic.
As such, I hope you will understand that I have not purposely avoided any topic we have examined together.
Respectfully Yours,
Kavi,
Thanks for explaining. I understand why it can be difficult to stay on top of the discussions. Even though I believe you that this difficulty is to a large extent beyond your control, it is just too frustrating to feel completely not heard. Maybe in the future I’ll be ready to do it again.
Sorry to change the subject, but I had a conversation yesterday with my wife and she said that Isaiah 42 servant cannot be Israel. She based herself on the fact that those verses don’t really fit Israel.
he (Israel) will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.
He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets
How can that be if sometime Israel fought back (Maccabees, etc.)
he will bring justice to the nations.
I am not saying that it fits Jesus, but it does not looks like it fit Israel totally. Can that be the future messiah?
Also, she pointed out that the Servant is a covenant to the people. And because that, she says an individual needs to be that “new” covenant. Bother!
What would you say? I pretty much said that she put to much emphasis on one word, when the whole picture of Jesus does not fit with the Tanach. And of course, it finished in an impasse, where I am “closed minded” and “unwilling to be neutral”. If I agree that the covenant is a person, then who else fits the portrait than the man-god?
Can you please give me an advice?
RT I have some articles that you may find helpful please search for the article entitled “Armor Bearers”
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
RT, I’m going to give you advice of a different kind, and forgive me if you would have preferred not to receive unsolicited advice. My suggestion is not to discuss this with your wife anymore. I don’t see any benefit to your relationship and it is highly unlikely she will be able to hear you. Instead, the conversation will devolve into accusations of bias and other bitter words. Perhaps she will be able to hear it from someone else (perhaps not), but from you it is too emotionally charged.
I would also encourage you–although I’m sure you already are doing this–to see things from your wife’s perspective. She married a Christian man, and you’re the one who changed on her. I’m always highly sympathetic to the spouse who doesn’t change simply because that spouse didn’t bargain for change when he or she got married. It’s a tough situation all around, there is no doubt about that, and painful for both of you. I really feel for the two of you!
I pray that God grant both of you clarity!
I agree with Dina, if you see it’s ruffling her feathers.
Thanks for the advise, I will listen. Just one rectification though, I was atheist when I married her 😉
Lol, I shouldn’t make assumptions. Then whichever religion you choose is fair game :).
RT
I’m in the same situation except we were both catholic when we married. She does not believe jesus is god so that makes it a lot easier since neither do I now. She just thinks he is important and her belief is that the most important thing is how one lives their life. I know it does bug her though since on the rare occasion she gets angry she will bring it up in a negative way. I have learned to have conversations generically, and stay away from certain topics.
RT, my assessment of your situation might be totally off the mark. Feel free to completely disregard this!
RT, the servant refers overwhelmingly to Israel, but occasionally to Isaiah himself (see Isaiah 49:1-6) and to the Messiah, as in this case. However, although it refers to the Messiah, if you read the description you will see that it cannot be talking about Jesus.
RT,
It seems that first Isaiah 42 is describing the ideal Israel with whom Hashem made a covenant to “be for Me a people of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6)”. A nation of priests to whom? To the other nations while the end of the chapter is speaking about current state of Israel which is not ideal.
Isaiah 42:2
“He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” IS THIS JESUS? Let’s see….
Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Matthew 27:46
Matthew 27:50
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence.
42:6 – “for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations” – the deal/covenant that Hashem made with the Jewish people and with Isaiah himself was precisely to be priests and a light to the nations. This is not a new covenant. The covenant here is not a person, it is a deal that was cut between two parties – between Hashem and Israel in general and Isaiah in particular.
42:19 – “Who is blind, but My servant? Or deaf, as My messenger that I send? Who is blind as he that is wholehearted, and blind as Hashem’s servant?” WOULD YOUR WIFE SAY THIS IS JESUS?
Alan,
You missed why he would be snuffed out: Isaiah 42:3= He will faithfully bring forth justice.
As many say, “Praise Yeshua!”
Wouldn’t be snuffed out”
When did Jesus bring justice to the Gentiles? You can argue, like my wife does, that it does not fit Israel, but it sure does not fit Jesus either! Jesus clearly said that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, he never preach to the nations, nor cared about it!
RT,
Which verses do not fit Israel according to those who argue this way?
“He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice” Israel went to war at least at some occasions (Maccabees, 70 AD)
“He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth”
We cannot say that Israel, as a whole, is doing that. Maybe the following remnant is trying to bring justice to the earth…
It’s at least hard to prove that Isaiah 42 talks 100% about Israel.
RT,
First let’s read Isaiah 41:8 to see who the servant is –
“But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend”
And in 41:9-10, Hashem tells the Jews that He will never give them up –
9 Thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the uttermost parts thereof, and said unto thee: ‘Thou art My servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away’;
10 Fear thou not, for I am with thee, be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I strengthen thee, yea, I help thee; yea, I uphold thee with My victorious right hand.
And our enemies will EITHER fade away as in the next verses or as in 2:3 they will come to learn from the Jews –
11 Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded; they that strove with thee shall be as nothing, and shall perish.
12 Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee; they that warred against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought.
2:3-
3 And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
“He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice” – In the future it will not be necessary to warn the nations or to prophesy to them because THEY WILL COME BY THEMSELVES to learn justice from Israel as it says in 2:3 and in Zachariah 8:23-
23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’
“He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth”
This means that Hashem’s plan to light up the world with justice and love THROUGH HIS SERVANT will eventually come to pass (the SERVANT – the Jews led by Moshiach – will never throw in the towel) as in the following verses –
Isaiah 11:9-
“They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Zephania 3:9-
“For then will I turn to the [non-Jewish] peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent.”
The Jewish commentaries agree that this passage is about the Messiah. But the Messiah is not Jesus.
Dina,
Rashi on these verses in Tanakh doesn’t say it’s the Moshiach.
You’re right, Alan, I don’t know which commentary the Stone Tanach uses for this interpretation. Rashi says that this prophecy is about Jacob, that he will not need to raise his voice to the nations to rebuke them, for they will come of their own volition to Jacob to learn the truth about God.
So while this may not be about the Messiah per se (and I need to find out why the Stone edition has that), it is a messianic prophecy, meaning, it is an end-time prophecy about Israel and the nations that has yet to be fulfilled.
So, RT, this answers your question about how this can fit Israel.
RT,
Did you see my and Dina’s responses to your question on how those two verses fit Israel? Does it help? Would it help your wife or do you think it’s better not to show her yet?
RT,
This why Christians take their stand!
Is this Scripture talking about Tyre in Ezekiel?
I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”
11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.[b]
Your settings and mountings[c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”
Bibs writes:
“RT,
This why Christians take their stand!
Is this Scripture talking about Tyre in Ezekiel?”
Then he quotes from Ezekiel 28, wherein God warns the king of Tyre of destruction for presenting himself as a god.
Does anyone follow this logic?
This is why Jews take their stand. Because Christians make no sense.
Dina,
I’m sure it doesn’t.
RT,
Do you know?
Bibs writes, “Dina,
I’m sure it doesn’t.”
You’re sure what doesn’t what? It would be helpful if you wrote more straightforwardly.
Dina you answered King of Tyre
RT,
Your answer?
Bibs, I can’t stand people who play games. It’s childish. Come on out and make your point. Tell us who you think the passage is about (in contrast to what Ezekiel says).
Dina,
He likely thinks it’s the “fallen angel” aka the Satan. He might want to prove to us now that it’s the Satan and only one with the Holy Spirit is qualified to understand the Hebrew scriptures.
Even so, how on earth is it even remotely relevant to our discussion here?
And if it were Satan (it’s not, but let’s just stay with this for a split second), how did God so completely fail to destroy him, since Christians believe Satan is alive and well?
Bibly, let me read your mind… As Ezekiel talks about Satan (and not Tyre), the god of this age, who as cast out on the earth for his haughtiness, because he disobeyed G-d and wanted to take his place, so Isaiah 42 talks about Jesus, even if it says Israel and Jacob, because he is in heaven and will not get tire until he establish justice in the earth. Make sense, Jes help me with my unbelief!
I am sorry to disappoint you, but Satan is a righteous angel as per the Hebrew Bible, not a god.
“Did you see my and Dina’s responses to your question on how those two verses fit Israel? Does it help? Would it help your wife or do you think it’s better not to show her yet?”
Yes it does help what you wrote. Thanks for both. The Bible right now is quite a controversial subject, as I am the one who is unwilling to be neutral. I think I should just wait and avoid the subject the most I can, that’s what I have been doing for the past 3 years anyway. I don’t think I can see Jesus is a positive light, I see the comments and the arguments from the Christian side and they are almost inexistent.
RT,
If she asks you and you think she is open to listening to you, then I don’t think you have to avoid it. Otherwise, I think you are doing the right thing by not talking about it.
819,
You wrote: “This is why Christians take their stand!” And then you did not address the topic at all. You wandered off to a separate topic, causing confusion.
It would have been more accurate if you wrote: “This is why Christians move from topic to topic.” You continually show that you cannot make a legitimate argument for your contention that one should worship Jesus. When challenged on your [mis]interpretation of one passage, you quote another passage, irrelevant to the topic. This may disorient the reader, but it does nothing to establish your points.
Jim
“how did God so completely fail to destroy him, since Christians believe Satan is alive and well?”
The “seed” of the woman failed to crush Satan on the cross… as per Romans 16:20 LOL
RT,
I appreciate you see this guardian cherub, as a righteous angel who was the garden of eden.
Or better yet, per scripture., till wickedness was found in him.
Was Ezekiel talking about Tyre or someone else?
Bibly, you take literally something that should be understood as a hyperbole or metaphor…
RT,
Ezekiel is talking about Tyre then…
Alan how about you?
I don’t want to play.
or Tyre or Jesus:
“‘In the pride of your (JESUS) heart
you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a mere mortal and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.
Are you wiser than Daniel[a]?
Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god,
I am going to bring foreigners (ROMANS) against you,
the most ruthless of nations;
they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
and pierce your shining splendor.
They will bring you down to the pit,
and you will die a violent death
BLANK We can delete parts that don’t fit what we want it to mean,… I learned by our Christians brother that it is just fine to do that and not dishonest 🙂
BLANK
Will you then say, “I am a god,”
in the presence of those who kill you?
You will be but a mortal, not a god,
in the hands of those who slay you.
You will die the death of the uncircumcised
at the hands of foreigners.
RT,
Jesus or Tyre was in the Garden of Eden?
Hyperbole my friend! Did satan die the death of the uncircumcised?
RT,
A guardian cherub was cast down from heaven due to wickedness, was in the garden of (GOD).
God, Adam and Even, and a Serpent.
‘Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’
Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!= Ezekiel 28- I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Star or Cherub fell from Heaven to the Earth?
Both Verses are Hyperbole?
Isaiah 14 talks about Babylon Ezekiel 28 talks about Tyre. Now you chose your translation correctly… As I was comparing Ezekiel 28 with Jesus, so Isaiah 14 also fits Jesus. Jesus is the only person that is called Morning star. You may laugh at my theories and I would not take them literally either, but that makes actually more sense then your non-sense of Satan, a cherub who rebelled against G-d. This is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible. There are quite a few resemblance between Jesus and Satan…
RT,
I appreciate your bold response.
Ezekiel speaks of an (Anointed Cherub) being cast down from heaven.
Tyre nor Babylon were a Anointed Cherub or Star in Heaven.
The Arena is from (Heaven down to Earth) in the (Garden of Eden.)
Common Sense says: Satan is this Cherub.
Plain and Simple!
You take Jesus words and put it in the original Hebrew Text. Because Jesus said that “satan” was coming down from heaven, does not mean that it is the only explanation nor the good one! As I said, this text does not speak of Jesus, nor Satan. This text talks about Tyre. Nowhere the Hebrew Scriptures say that the Serpen was Satan. You also take that from the New Testament. In fact, the Serpent of Genesis 3 is, as per Genesis 1 GOOD!
RT,
Tyre and Babylon fell from Heaven.
Got it.
Alan, I don’t blame you for not wanting to play. It’s a silly game.
Yes it did… The Bible said so! Where? In Ezekiel 18 and Isaiah 14. If all words from the Bible is true and Ezekiel 18 say it’s Tyre, not Satan, then Tyre felt from heaven. Do you doubt the Bible Bilby?
Dina,
True Yeshua believers and True Judiasm believers don’t agree on much.
We believe in Spiritual everlasting Kingdom, and Hell is for those who don’t Beleive in Gods Messiah.
You believe in a Messianic Solomon Type of Reign for Israel, where people will come cater to the Glorify a Holy Nation.
But, just as Rehoboam (David Seed) did what was evil, because he did not determine in his heart to seek the LORD, -not all of Israel is Israel.
That said, God is the only 1 who Is Righteous and to be Worshiped,
Thus we WE Worship the Father who 1 with the Son in Spirit who is Davids Seed..
Yeshua is Lord to the Glory of His Father. Who is 1.
Actually, Bibs, we take God at His word regarding the messianic promises which offer universal hope for peace and knowledge of God to all of mankind. You believe in the lies that you have inherited from your fathers (Jeremiah 16:19).
You are not interested in actually engaging in a real, honest conversation using reason and logic to back up your baseless assertions (because you cannot). You are only interested in your one-sided self-righteous preaching and in pompous declarations of your faith.
You perpetuate the 2000-year tradition of Christian contempt for Jews, of Christian refusal to hear Jews with an open and understanding heart.
And you dare to curse the Jews to hell (“We believe in Spiritual everlasting Kingdom, and Hell is for those who don’t Beleive in Gods Messiah”). Scripture tells us what happens to those who curse God’s people.
A while back I had refused to continue dialoguing with you for these reasons. I once again refuse to continue this conversation.
Anyone else who wants to take this up with the logic-challenged Bibs? Be my guest.
“and Hell is for those who don’t Beleive in Gods Messiah”
This is not something that someone with a circumcised heart can say. It takes a tough layer of skin over the heart to be able to say such a thing and to believe and live with such a belief.
Bible819
“And Hell is for those who don’t Beleive in Gods Messiah”
I was reading about “tochacha”, this morning and I thought about you.
“This is not something that someone with a circumcised heart can say.”
There are two events that made me change my mind about Jesus. Three if I count the fact that I was looking into the pagan origin or the Trinity when those happened. I talked to a rabbi for an unrelated reason. I mentioned G-d to him, but could not help thinking that he though I was worshiping a foreign god, even if I called him HaShem. He said he was going to pray for me at Yom Kippur (which was nice from him). A few days later, my wife asked me if I wanted to go to the synagogue (a real one ) for Yom Kippur. I thought it was nice, especially that I started having this thought that G-d was not who I thought He was. That evening, I heard my wife said that all those there did not know G-d and would all finish in Hell. That was it… I could not believe that a loving father would throw all the Jews in Hell. I could not believe that G-d would throw anybody in Hell for the fact that they do not worship Jesus, or understand that he was a “sacrifice”. That was it!
Very good people can have blockages of the heart. You can pray for Hashem to open your family’s hearts.
Supposedly it’s me who have the blockage of the heart…
We all have blockages. Hashem commands us in the Torah to do our best to work on unblocking them and in the future He will finish the job. When we try to unblock our heart, He helps us. But the complete unblocking will be only in messianic times.
Yes, but aren’t blockage good if it’s for foreign gods like Jesus?
RT,
I don’t think there are any good heart blockages. The more it’s unblocked the more sensitive one is to bad things such as foreign gods.
RT, concerning Jesus your heart is only blocked from her perspective; it isn’t blocked from our perspective :).
Truth is, the only person whose actions and beliefs you can control is yourself. So focus on yourself and hopefully everything else will fall into place. And in the meantime I can only offer my sympathy for the extremely painful and tough situation you find yourself in.
Thanks Dina, honestly it’s getting better. The first few months of my “conversion” were way more bumpy! I guess it’s a deterrent for many who could consider Judaism as truth.
There’s no question, it requires a tremendous courage and self-sacrifice to change your beliefs out of sincere conviction, especially once you’re married and have children.
RT, thats exactly how I felt in college studyimg both Judaism and Christianity.
Its profoundly sad, because When Christianity started, it started as a small Jewish sect, (with messianic ideas probably not disimmilar from those in Chabad, except centered around the Crucifixion) but when gentiles picked up the belief system, anything Jewish that had existed started to lose a foothold, and not only that, the Jewish Christians were persecuted out of existence.
Gentile Christisns had Sunday, Easter, (and much.much later Christmas.) They alteted times and laws.
I always had to struggle between the clear words of Jesus (which seemed pro Torah on their face) and the replacement theology of the Church.
As a Christian, I never believed Jews were lost. How could the very people who taught Jesus’ ethic to the world, (the Torah ethic) be lost?
I remember feeling sick to my stomach after seeing Schindler’s list in 8th grade (for a school assignment.)
Was I supposed to believe that Nazi pigs with “Got Mit Unz” on their belts were “saved,” because they were Baptized? I never believed that.
I am proud of my family members who fought tooth and nail to send those Nazi pigs (may their bones be ground to dust) to their end.
Was I supposed to believe that the wonderful Dr. Who gave me the ability to walk was going to hell, just because he was Jewish?
No. Screw that.
I remember crying after Svhindler’s list and my Jewish friends comforting me, and I thought “how screwed is this that they are comforting me?”
Why should a Jew have to comfort a Christian when its Christian books that contain the gas in them?
Christianity preaches a deity of love who died for you, but its a deity of love who exists without any sense of justice or measure for measure.
So, its not a deity of love, but one of possesion. Not a relationship of mutual goodness, but of fear and dependance.
I hope your wife can read my posts and comments 1 day.
CR,
I am very moved and awe-inspired by what you wrote. I hope one day RT’s wife will read your posts too!
Just one question – your doctor’s name was Dr. Who? That’s an unusual Jewish last name.
Connie, you are a special soul.
Dina,
He has a lot of great things going for him, but we are all special souls. We are all equal before Hashem. CR has a lot of gifts and he’s really trying in the world, as they say.
Hmm…I don’t think it’s that simple.
It’s what we do with the souls that we are entrusted with that defines us. Some people reach greater heights than others. We may start out morally equal, but we don’t end up morally equal. There are righteous people and wicked people and everyone else in between.
Con has a soul that is uniquely deep and sensitive. There are others like him, to be sure, but not too many–which is why we value people like him.
I don’t think he’s so special and I’m sure he agrees with me. 🙂
He’s a regular guy, even though for a long time I thought he was a gal.
“which is why we value people like him”
Dina,
Please explain what you mean by this so people don’t get the wrong impression that we only value people who stand out.
I mean why we value goodness in people. Because it’s not so common. For example, excellent doctors are highly sought after because most doctors aren’t excellent. In each field you have a spectrum, with the few outstanding ones at one end and the few truly awful and incompetent ones at the other end, and the rest crammed in the middle in varying degrees of mediocrity (some better, some worse).
Also you wrote–and I know it was jokingly–“I don’t think he’s so special and I’m sure he agrees with me.”
Before that, you wrote: “He has a lot of great things going for him, but we are all special souls.”
So are we all special, or are we all regular?
If everyone stands out, then no one stands out. If everyone is regular, then no one is special.
I submit to you that some people are better than others. Some are unusually good and some are unusually bad. Some are unusually compassionate and some are unusually callous. And everyone else in between in varying shades and colors. I submit to you that Con is unusually compassionate and sensitive. Much more so than most of the people I’ve dialogued with here, and for sure more than I.
I don’t understand why you’re having trouble with this. Isn’t it obvious? I mean, doesn’t common sense observation tell you this is so?
Dina,
I just got hung up on the word “value”. I would have been more comfortable with the word “appreciate”. Maybe this is my own mishagas ( http://www.yiddish.co/mishegas/ ).
I believe we are all unique and special and that everyone has their moments when they stand out. I also believe we have to view ourselves as regular humans at the same time, because we are both regular and special. But yes, we do value goodness (honesty, integrity, empathy, giving, etc…) very very much. These things come more naturally to some than to others but we all have the ability to keep working on it. And the work itself is highly valued even if nobody else in the world knows about it but Hashem. Mikha 6:8 – “and to walk humbly with your God”. It’s a secret just between you and God.
So are you and Con just regular guys, or you special? Regular sometimes, special sometimes?
If everyone is special, then no one is special. That’s why I don’t agree that we are all special.
Unless you put it this way: Some people are specially incompetent (like Donald Trump). Some people are specially evil (like Hitler). Some people are specially sweet tempered, some are specially bad tempered. No one is inherently good or bad, but become righteous or wicked through the actions they choose.
If you prefer, we appreciate people who are uniquely good because most people are mediocre (in their own various and unique ways).
I don’t agree that we are all wonderful, special people. I just don’t have that rosy colored view of the human race. How can I, when there is ISIS and Noam Chomsky?
Dina,
I don’t think we are all wonderful. I just believe that Hashem made each human being unique both physically and especially spiritually. It doesn’t mean that we are all wonderful. It just means we each have a unique contribution to make to the world. And the same is true of each nation. Each nation has a unique contribution to make and each person has a unique contribution to make. This is a Torah idea. As you said it is up to each person and nation how they will use their unique strengths. These potentials can remain undeveloped and they can be used for evil or they can be cultivated and used for good.
CR is obviously doing some great stuff in this world.
But having said that, I will add two points to support your argument:
1. Pirkei Avos teaches that we should not dismiss any person or thing because every person has his time and every thing has its place (in other words, everything was created for a unique purpose.
2. There was a great sage (I forget who) who carried a piece of paper with him wherever he went. One side said “bishvili nivra ha’olam” (“the world was created for me”), and the other said, “v’anochi tola’at velo ish” (I am a worm and not a man). A reminder of his inherent self-worth yet a warning to retain his humility.
Dina,
You picked excellent Torah sources to back up what I was saying. Thank you!
Yeah, I can argue out of both sides of my mouth with the best of them.
We still value you. 🙂
🙂
Yes thanks CR. I hope she would too… Just on thought, no many Christian would be honest, but you are 100% right the he is a deity of fear and dependence. I can see that now, but would have never acknowledge it when I followed Jesus. I also can see that through my wife, and how hard it is for her to even look at Judaism.
One point though, she totally disregard Oral Torah, and by consequence, she thinks Judaism is in the wrong path as much as Christianity. How can I answer that? For example she believes only Levites should teach and be Rabbi. Also she holds many of the bias of the New Testament against the Talmud. How can I show here it is not the case, if I am not knowledgeable in the Oral Torah?
RT,
I am sorry for the stress between you and your wife. I can understand to some degree what you are going through. My wife went to Iraq for a year. When she left, I was a Christian. When she came back, I was not. This disrupted our lives for a while. I would urge you to be patient, but I do not think you need me to tell you the obvious. You already know how difficult this is for her. So, I do not have much advice to give, but you do have my empathy.
I have been giving much thought to the Oral Torah lately, and if I can find the time, I will write an article on this. And I would definitely read R’ Blumenthal on the Oral Torah. Also, if you can gently show her that she is mistaken on the Levites only teaching, then you might consider addressing two errors. The first is that she does not act in accordance to the principle that only Levites are qualified teachers of the Torah. The second is that the Torah does not teach that only Levites teach the Torah.
If you address the first point, you must be incredibly tactful. The point is not to call her a hypocrite, but she may hear it that way. However, if it can be done, you can show that clearly she does not think that only Levites are to teach Torah. Jesus was not a Levite; he was supposed to be a Judahite. Paul was not a Levite; he claims to be a Benjaminite. None of the disciples were known to be Levites. And the succeeding teachers of the Church were not even Israelite, let alone Levite. If this were the standard by which she tested a teacher, she would not be a follower of Jesus.
And the Torah does not teach that the only teachers are Levites. When Moses first establishes judges, they are from all the tribes (Ex. 18). In Deut. 16 and 17, where laws regarding judges are being discussed, they are not appointed solely from the Levites. And in Deut. 17, it is clear that one is to follow the instruction of the judges, not just Levites. So, she is mistaken on this point.
On a separate note, it is not unusual for a Christian to be ready to burn down Judaism if their Christianity is proven unfounded. If I understand you correctly, your wife is willing to do this. Leaving Christianity is a painful thing. Something rises up for many people that says, “Oh yeah? If Christianity is not true, then neither is Judaism! So there!” This is a natural response to feeling deceived.
Bear with her and study with her. (I guess I am offering advice, after all.) You know that she has been taught to disrespect Judaism. Point out to her that God appointed the Jewish people to be His witnesses. Show her that in Zechariah, it is written that the non-Jewish world will come to the Jew for instruction. If the Jews had left their mission behind, this would not be the case. And be patient with her.
Jim
RT,
I think what Jim wrote is excellent. I would just like to expand upon what Jim about Deut. 17. See verses 9-11 –
9 And thou shall come to the priests, the Levites, and TO THE JUDGE that shall be in those days [ALL THREE KINDS OF JEWS HERE AS JIM POINTED OUT] ; and thou shalt inquire; and THEY [PRIEST, LEVITE OF ISRAELITE] shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.
10 And thou shalt do according to the matter which THEY shall declare unto thee from that place which Hashem shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that THEY SHALL TEACH YOU.
11 According to the law which THEY SHALL TEACH YOU, and according to the judgment which THEY shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which THEY shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
Here is one example which clearly points to the existence of a verbal Divine explanation of the text –
Deut. 12:21 –
If the place which Hashem your God will choose to put His name there is too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which Hashem has given you, AS I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, and eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.
Hashem says that when we slaughter animals for food we must slaughter as He commanded but it doesn’t say anywhere in the Written Law how to slaughter. When and to whom did He command HOW to slaughter? To Moses at Sinai, who taught Joshua. And Joshua (who was not a Levite, but rather an Ephraimite) taught the Elders. And on and on in an unbroken chain of transmission.
I highly recommend the book “Maimonides Introduction to the Talmud” by Zvi Lampel. It’s pretty short and it’s designed for the beginner. You will have a good handle on the purpose and structure of the Oral Law after reading this. After reading this, I recommend his next book “The Dynamics of Dispute” which is more difficult but still for the beginner.
RT, there are sources that show Jesus’ teachings from the beatitudes/sermon on the mount with their rabbinic equivalent from the oral tradition.
Dina posted something like that once. I know rabbi Skobac had a video series where he goes through a New Testament text and shows where they are similar or different from Judaism.
When Jesus argues that the rabbis circumcise on shabbat, so he should be allowed to heal on shabbat, he is actually arguing about a point of law not written in the written Torah.
RT,
In the following excerpt from https://judaismresources.net/2015/07/20/the-pharisees-in-the-gospels-an-excerpt-from-covenant-nation/ , Rabbi B shows how the NT portrays Jesus as a Pharisee –
“This is corroborated by Jesus’ teaching as recorded by Matthew: “the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.” (23:2,3). Although Jesus goes on to malign the Pharisees for hypocritical behavior, but he does not take issue with their authority or their interpretation of the Law. In fact some of the laws he mentions and upholds in his subsequent diatribe (such as the tithing of spices) are of rabbinic origin.
Jesus is described as observing the Passover Seder according to rabbinic tradition (Luke 22:18-20). When Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath law, an accusation that only makes sense according to the Pharisaic understanding of the Law, he never exonerates himself by arguing against the Pharisaic definition of the Law. Jesus’ defense always assumes that the Pharisaic definition of the Law is correct, it is only the application of the Law in those particular instances (i.e. for the purpose of healing) that Jesus takes issue with.”
Lol Alan. His name was Dr. Bernstein. Great doctor.
I love Dr. Bernstein! What a mensch!
Had he actually been Dr. Who, that would have been cool.
🙂
Who wouldn’t want to take a spin in the Tardis?
I like your knowledge and scriptures.
Genesis has Elohim, created Adam, from which Eve is taken, then the serpent who deceives Eve and she eats The Forbidden Fruit and gives it to Adam who also eats it.
from this 1 disobedience all others flow,
how are we to get the fruit back on the tree?
we need another Adam A Perfect One Sinless Obedient to YHVH.
Yehoshua ~ Emmanuel born of The Virgin of Judah Israel in Bethlehem of Judea Israel is The Seed of The Woman!
He is also The Seed of Abraham and The Son of King David
Baptised by John who He declared as The Last and Greatest Prophet of The Old Covenant of Sinai
The Holy Spirit came down as A Dove and remained fulfilling Jeremiah 31 v 31-34
breaking the law is sin.
Jesus is now anointed and indwelled with The Holy Spirit The First , He is The 2nd & Last Adam
He is no longer under the law in which bodily fluids make unclean sinners, He is willing and able to touch and heal The Sick, the dying dead, bloodied even leprous! He uses His own spite to heal the blind and dumb!
He raises His beloved friend Eleazer = Lazarus! John 11.
He is The Seed, who willingly and obediently just like Isaac carries the wooden means of His own death
Jesus goes on The Tree! He suffers The Death is taken down and buried for 3 days
He is The Resurrection! Brand New Eternal Spiritual Life!
40 days later after appearing to 500+ eyewitnesses He ascended back into Heaven
10 days later at The Very First opportunity The Day of Pentecost ~ The Holy Spirit comes RUSHING! He can’t wait!
to infill The 120 men women and children
hallelujah Emmanuel ~ God with us!
YHVH Will.
AMEN!!!
I think this is the first time hearing Jesu being referred to as a fruit.
The apple of your eye?
how about duet 28:64?
yes there is ample paganism all over the earth even Christendom some denominations more than others.
but GOD is The Eternal Spirit, He longs to indwell us as on Pentecost
600BC The weeping prophet Jeremiah wrote 31 v 31-34
31 new covenant promised
32 NOT LIKE SINAI 🪦🪦
33 Indwelling
34 No Sin
because the Sinai laws have ended so no sin.
new covenant ~ Love ~ God & people
unforgivable sin= not believing in the promised and long awaited Messiah Jesus Christ The Lord
Revelation 3 v 20 He’s waiting for your invitation 🙏🏻
Habakkuk ~ The just shall live by Faith!
Are Christian’s the house of Judah or house of Israel?
Christian’s are 1 in Jesus Christ, who was Born of The Virgin Mary a Royal Princess of Judah, Israel. He was conceived in Nazareth Galilee northern Israel and Born in Bethlehem near Jerusalem In Judea. God is Spirit.
The first Adam was of the earth, physical
Jesus Christ The 2nd and Last Adam is from Heaven
once you have experienced The Baptism in The Holy Spirit, you pass from faith, lord I believe help me with my unbelief into Knowledge ~ knowing ~ indwelled ~ Hope ~ Scriptural Hope ~ Sure!
The True Israel of GOD ~ YHVH is Eternal Spiritual limitless A mixed multitude A Commonwealth.
transferred from Adam and his sin and death
into
JESUS CHRIST THE LIFE GIVING SPIRIT.
Revelation 3 v 20
the male human sperm Must enter the female egg ~ time and environment dependent! ~ a short window/ season.
if not both fall away and return to dust of the earth.
connection Conception Brand New Unique Life!
You MUST BE BORN AGAIN FROM ABOVE!
🐛 < 🦋
✝️ < 🕊️
You mentioned Jeremiah 31: 31-34. It looks like 31 starts in the middle of a sentence so we really need to start with 30, it tells us who God will make this new covenant with. If we skip reading 30 anyone could insert any name they choose. I know you didn’t do that but you did not answer the question. Maybe your just having a nice conversation with yourself?
Are Christian’s the house of Judah or house of Israel?
GOD is A Covenant maker and keeper
Everyone comes from Adam the sinner
It is GOD who is Perfect and Righteous!
All the covenants HE made are with mere mortals
Jesus is The Resurrection and The Life!
His Covenant is The New Covenant ~ Unique ~ Spiritual Eternal
Does Gd lie to us mere mortals? If so, Israel, The house of Judah and Christian’s are in big trouble. Why believe Jesus if god lies? He may as well say , I am the way the truth and the lie.
If Gd does keep his covenants does he lie about human sacrifice and cannibalism?
Jesus is said to be fully human and fully god and eating his body and drinking his blood raises more questions and doubts. I’m sure there are Christian library’s full of answers to my questions but I have never heard an answer that passed the smell test, or common sense test. If this was the only resurrection in the Bible it may help some people. I don’t think it would help me.
God told Abraham to kill Isaac his Son of promise. On mount Moriah ~ what’s the prophetic pattern being laid down?
Jephthah also sacrificed his daughter as a burned offering, judges 11.
Q was Jesus a sacrifice or was HE Punished?
The Jews got The Romans to crucify Jesus
Eating bread and drinking wine is hardly cannibalism! It’s metaphorical
Jesus is The Only Resurrection ~ raised to Brand New Eternal Spiritual Life, not just raised back to mortal human existence which will eventually die and go back to dust, Jesus did Not see any decay as per The Prophets.
The Tanahk leaves many unanswered questions
The New Covenant gives All The Answers
Judaism is a antiChrist movement due to rejection of The One & Only Promised Redeemer JESUS CHRIST THE LORD.
“God told Abraham to kill Isaac his Son of promise. On mount Moriah ~ what’s the prophetic pattern being laid down?”
Where is the pattern? God did not have Abraham sacrifice Isaac.
If he would have allowed Isaac death, he would have lied to Abraham about Isaac and Leviticus 20: 1-5 would be a lie.
According to your belief Gd does approve of human sacrifice
and he proved it by sacrificing Jesus.
“Jephthah also sacrificed his daughter as a burned offering, judges 11.”
Again, Where is the pattern? Gd did not have Jephthah sacrifice his daughter. Your book, New Testament, Jesus ask Gd not to kill him
But he has it happen anyway.
“Q was Jesus a sacrifice or was HE Punished?”
You tell me.
“The Jews got The Romans to crucify Jesus”
According to who? The New Testament? You teaching tells
Us Gd required Jesus to die on a cross everyone would just be fulfilling his
“Eating bread and drinking wine is hardly cannibalism! It’s metaphorical.
Unless your Catholic. Catholics believe that during the consecration at Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in a miraculous transformation known as transubstantiation.
“Jesus is The Only Resurrection” ~ raised to Brand New Eternal Spiritual Life, not just raised back to mortal human existence which will eventually die and go back to dust, Jesus did Not see any decay as per The Prophets.
What about 1Kings 17, 2 Kings 4, 2 Kings 13?
“The Tanahk leaves many unanswered questions”
Yes
“The New Covenant gives All The Answers”
About what? To me it raises more than it
“Judaism is an antiChrist movement due to rejection of The One & Only Promised Redeemer JESUS CHRIST THE.
We discussed many of the reasons why it’s anti christ. If you
Followed the Torahs teachings, you would be anti christ also.
I like your knowledge and scriptures.
Genesis has Elohim, created Adam, from which Eve is taken, then the serpent who deceives Eve and she eats The Forbidden Fruit and gives it to Adam who also eats it.
from this 1 disobedience all others flow,
how are we to get the fruit back on the tree?
we need another Adam A Perfect One Sinless Obedient to YHVH.
Yehoshua ~ Emmanuel born of The Virgin of Judah Israel in Bethlehem of Judea Israel is The Seed of The Woman!
He is also The Seed of Abraham and The Son of King David
Baptised by John who He declared as The Last and Greatest Prophet of The Old Covenant of Sinai
The Holy Spirit came down as A Dove and remained fulfilling Jeremiah 31 v 31-34
breaking the law is sin.
Jesus is now anointed and indwelled with The Holy Spirit The First , He is The 2nd & Last Adam
He is no longer under the law in which bodily fluids make unclean sinners, He is willing and able to touch and heal The Sick, the dying dead, bloodied even leprous! He uses His own spite to heal the blind and dumb!
He raises His beloved friend Eleazer = Lazarus! John 11.
He is The Seed, who willingly and obediently just like Isaac carries the wooden means of His own death
Jesus goes on The Tree!
He suffers The Death is taken down and buried for 3 days
He is The Resurrection! Brand New Eternal Spiritual Life!
40 days later after appearing to 500+ eyewitnesses He ascended back into Heaven
10 days later at The Very First opportunity The Day of Pentecost ~ The Holy Spirit comes RUSHING! He can’t wait!
to infill The 120 men women and children
hallelujah Emmanuel ~ God with us!
YHVH Will.
AMEN!!!