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
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 
Jim,
Is it clear to you that Hashem forgave the people of Ninveh in the book of Yonah? It is clear to me that He did, even though the word “forgive” is not mentioned but in 4:11 it says that Hashem had pity on them – “and should not I have pity on Nineveh”. You pointed out in another post that in Exodus 32 it doesn’t say that Hashem forgave His people. It just says that Hashem agreed with Moshe not to annihilate them.
But almost identical language is used in Yonah 3:10 –
“And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and GOD RECONSIDERED THE EVIL WHICH HE SAID HE WOULD DO TO THEM; and He did it not.”
Exodus 32:14 –
AND HASHEM RECONSIDERED THE EVIL WHICH HE SAID HE WOULD DO TO HIS PEOPLE.
One of the differences I notice is that the name Hashem is used in the Exodus verse while the name Elohim is used in the Yonah verse. These names signify two different modes of how God relates to the world. Hashem is usually the name of compassion and Elohim is usually the name of strict justice. However, in Yonah 4:11, it is the name of Hashem speaking, not Elohim, who says: “and should not I have pity on Nineveh”. But, the major difference is that in Yonah the people did teshuva before God reconsidered. But in Exodus, the people had not yet done teshuva when Hashem told Moshe He would reconsider Also in Yonah it says “and He did it not” which seems to be redundant, but must really be teaching us something else.
Perhaps we need to define atonement, forgiveness and “remission of sins” as opposed to just suspension of punishment (which could still come at a later time) in both Judaism and Christianity.
Alan,
It would be difficult to say that God forgave His people in Ex. 32:14. After Moses pleads for God to relent, he goes down to the people, breaking the tablets and such. Then he tells the people that he will go back up the mountain and try to win atonement for them. And when he goes up, he asks God to forgive the people in v. 32. But if God forgave them before Moses descended, why is Moses asking God’s forgiveness when he reascends the mountain? It appears to me that when God initially relented, that did not indicate the people had been forgiven.
I am all in favor of a glossary of terms. Much confusion arises from homonymous terms between the Christian and the Jew. Definitions, according to each system, would be good for outlining the differences and incompatibilities between the two systems.
Jim
Jim,
I see that nowhere in Exodus 32 does Hashem say he forgives their sin even though Moshe requests it. Moshe succeeded in preventing their being wiped out but didn’t succeed in getting Hashem to forgive them. And Hashem punished the people immediately even after Moshe prevented their destruction.
What about in the book of Yonah? Did Hashem forgive? Or was it only wiping away the punishment without real forgiveness. I believe the text shows that Hashem really forgave them and completely wiped away all punishment.
If Ezekiel is to be believed, that when you turn away from your evil ways and do good, then you will surely live and your sins will not be remembered, then God forgave Nineveh when they repented.
When God agreed not to destroy Israel, there hadn’t been any repentance.
Dina,
I think the same. Hashem has promised all over Tanakh that He greatly desires bloodless teshuva and that He is receptive to bloodless teshuva at all times; and the person, community or nation that does bloodless teshuva is lovingly accepted by Hashem with open arms. Teshuva doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the debts have been completely paid off. But it always means that a process of being born again has occurred and in Hashem’s eyes we are right with Him again.
Daniel 9:19 –
19 ‘O Lord, hear, O Lord, FORGIVE, O Lord, attend and do, DO NOT DELAY; for Thine own sake, O my God, because Thy name is called upon Thy city and Thy people.’
Didn’t Daniel realize the Temple was destroyed and there were no more sacrifices when he made the above prayer to God? Was Daniel making a vain prayer to God? Didn’t he have any clue from his knowledge of the Torah that it was impossible to do teshuva and have God forgive you without blood and without being able to fulfill all of the commandments? I guess he didn’t have a good understanding of the Torah. Or perhaps…is it possible that he did know something about the One he was praying to?
Dina and Alan,
It seems to me that you are correct regarding Yonah. Though it does not say that God forgave them, for the reasons Dina stated, it is likely that they were. And thus they were not destroyed.
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?” (Ez. 18:23)
Jim
Thanks, Jim. Perhaps we can say that teshuva that has been accepted is forgiveness. The word forgiveness doesn’t have to be said because that is what “accepted teshuva” is. They are the same thing. There is higher and lower teshuva and therefore higher and lower forgiveness. Teshuva done from fear of punishment alone is a lower level and therefore the forgiveness is not as strong. But teshuva done out of feeling bad that we hurt Hashem and his world is higher and therefore the forgivness is also higher.
Jim,
Your analysis is fundamentally flawed because your fundamental premise is false— namely, that “forgiveness” in the B’rit Chadashah/NT strictly means that G-d confers eternal righteousness—it does not.
On the contrary, the concept of “forgiveness” found in the BC/NT is no different than what we find in Tanakh— namely, Divine Judgment for sin(s) may be granted either on an eternal or temporal basis.
The Orthodox describe teshuva being inherently temporal, imperfect, and marked with human frailty- hence no one can claim with any degree of certainty that their teshuva achieved perfect righteousness before the Almighty Judge—they must leave that decision up to G-d.
David, on the other hand, describes a secure, eternal righteousness whereby,
[1] G-d would not impute sin…and yet,
[2] G-d requires David to continue to seek forgiveness within that framework of perfect imputed holiness.
[see Psalm 32]
As such, to David there are two “levels” of forgiveness—
[1] one of a complete, eternal Yom Kippur cleansing of sin…and yet,
[2] one that maintains ongoing fellowship with the eternal Creator.
L-RD Yeshua is mediator of the merciful covenant of G-d’s eternal Yom Kippur— the New Covenant that accomplishes circumcision of the heart.
Like a parent who freely gives up their temporal life to save the lives of their children, so L-RD Yeshua surrendered up His temporal life to save the eternal souls of mankind.
____________________
Kavi, you arrived with your theory first. David did not believe or trust in Jesus in the first place. You can see that through the Psalm you quote! It actually contradict what you believe…
Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
You see, David confessed his sins to HaSHem and he was forgotten. There was actually no sacrifice there, even less a foreign sacrifice of a human being that would happen 800 years later!
For CHristians, they see those text as fulfillment, For Jews, they see them as contradiction. Why? Because one of them arrives with his theory first, and the other see if it makes sense before accepting it. Why Kavi can’t you read Psalm 32 for what it really said? David confessed and was forgiven by G-d. (See Ezekiel 18). Anybody can do it and you do not need sacrifice.
He will not always content, neither will he keep his anger forever, his ways are higher than our for that reason! He is not like a man who keeps grudges forever like you want us to believe.
RT: Why Kavi can’t you read Psalm 32 for what it really said? David confessed and was forgiven by G-d. (See Ezekiel 18). Anybody can do it and you do not need sacrifice.
Kavi: Psalm 32 is meant to be sung by the righteous,
“Be glad in the L-RD, and rejoice, ye righteous; And shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.” [Psalm 32:11]
The Orthodox do not pretend that they have assurance their teshuva compels G-d to impute righteousness [e.g., the deathbed confession of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai].
So, why should anyone surrender up David’s song of eternal assurance in Messianic redemption in exchange for a modern Rabbinic teshuva theory that is just as ineffective as the sacrificial system?
In contrast, Messianic “teshuva” (where G-d circumcises the heart) does achieve the righteousness demanded by G-d and, thereby, provides eternal rest, peace, and assurance of salvation before the Almighty Judge.
___________________
RT: Kavi, you arrived with your theory first. David did not believe or trust in Jesus in the first place.
Kavi: On the contrary, David understood Moses and his writings about the future, suffering Kinsman Redeemer.
David understood G-d’s plan of salvation didn’t change from the days of Gan Eden when the suffering Redeemer is introduced along with the first blood sacrifice [Genesis 3]
As far as futility to take away sin, teshuva mimics the sacrifical system… a continual, useless cycle whereby real sin is followed by a hoped for forgiveness which never makes a person perfectly righteous… both teshuva and sacrifice simply remind us just how sinful we are.
Yom Kippur annually reminded Israel of their sinfulness… as the most holy of sacrifices, the rites of Yom Kippur never eternally imputed righteousness to anybody. If so, neither the High Priest nor the people would need to go through the whole process again year after year after year after…. [Leviticus 16, Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6]
In Torah, Yom Kippur was only one of a number of temporal deeds of obedience which, taken together, could postpone G-d’s Divine Judgment and allow Israel to continue to live Divinely blessed in the land.
Modern Rabbinic theory of teshuva is just as bad…
[1] Teshuva just continues the inability to offer lasting value and certainly offers no assurance of righteousness before the Almighty Judge.
[2] Where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern teshuva theory at Mt. Sinai?
[3] Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?
[4] etc
_________________________
But an eternal G-d certainly did have an eternal purpose in establishing blood sacrifice from the days of Adam/Chava… namely, to point to His Chosen Divine Kinsman Redeemer whose ultimate suffering would destroy the works of Satan that separate us from G-d.
G-d didn’t change His plan of salvation… but He did decide to take a long, long time to testify and reveal His plan.
G-d’s plan did not include sinful mankind’s futile sacrifices but, instead, testified of an act of G-d Himself who graciously found a way to send the Redeemer into the world who could then freely give up His life and shed His own blood to eternally save mankind from their sins… all by Faith in G-d and His enduring promise and not by our own works. [Psalm 118:21-23, Deuteronomy 30:14, Habakkuk 2:4].
David understood G-d’s teaching through the words of Moses… and David sang of this future, suffering Divine Kinsman Redeemer who would triumph over Satan.
Those who G-d makes eternally, securely righteous through Faith in His Anointed One, L-RD Yeshua, may with blessed assurance sing Psalm 32.
_________________________
Kavi,
Do you think you are a tzadik gamur (completely righteous)?
Do you think you have a circumcised heart?
What does it mean to you to be a tzadik (a righteous person)?
What does it mean to you to have a circumcised heart?
following
Alan,
The concepts supporting “tzadik gamur” are far too steeped in Orthodox theology to make a direct comparison to what a Messianic believes.
So, let me approach your question this way,
“Holy, Holy, Holy is the L-RD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” [Isaiah 6]
G-d made mankind righteous when He breathed the breath of life into him.
…yet Adam/Chava found out too late just a glimpse G-d’s holy demand for righteousness when they “simply” ate a piece of fruit from the forbidden tree. [Genesis 3]
…immediately, G-d deemed them unholy,
“you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.” [Genesis 2]
… It didn’t matter whether Adam/Chava did/didn’t do teshuva or did/didn’t do sacrifice—they became unholy to a Holy Almighty Judge.
___________________________
Although G-d loves mankind, He is also the Eternal Righteous One and the Almighty Judge… as such, the Echad L-RD could not simply sweep sin under the rug and “forgive and forget”– for sin, judgment required that we be punished.
So, Being the G-d of loving-kindess, righteousness, and justice [Jeremiah 9], He would therefore, by His nature, need to establish a salvation inherent to all three aspects of His nature– a way that graciously, yet judicially declare us righteous through an eternal Yom Kippur.
Consistently, from the beginnings of Genesis and throughout Tanakh, G-d slowly revealed that His Suffering, Kinsman Redeemer would need to fulfill the heart of the Law and institute an everlasting Yom Kippur that “spiritually circumcises” our souls and so makes us eternally righteous…
Therefore, G-d instituted a kind of righteousness that is as eternal as G-d is… a righteousness that cannot again be impugned by the sins of our weak, cursed, “uncircumcised”, dying, fleshly minds and fleshly bodies… instead, eternal Yom Kippur gives the righteous a new heart/mind [soul] and where the Holy Spirit may dwell despite all the evil that exists outside. [as an analogy, one might (not “must”) think of a Holy G-d in the Tabernacle surrounded by all those who were in rebellion around Him– Utmost Holiness in the midst of the utterly evil].
___________________________
David sang about those who were made righteous according to eternal Yom Kippur– an eternal righteousness where G-d would not impute [ascribe] sin to the inmost being [the soul] despite the sins of the flesh. [Psalm 32, Psalm 51:6]
Through L-RD Yeshua’s fulfillment of a better, everlasting Yom Kippur, G-d can give us an eternal, secure hope to be with our Echad L-RD G-d forever.
___________________________
Kavi,
Did you answer any of my questions?
Kavi,
Let me ask one question at a time –
Are you, Kavi, a tzadik (a righteous man)?
Alan: Are you, Kavi, a tzadik (a righteous man)?
Kavi: “Tzadik” according to Talmud/Rambam or Tanya?
Neither… again, too much Jewish theology clouds the issue.
____________________
Instead, G-d made the Way to securely establish my own eternal soul eternally righteous.
As such, G-d’s Way to righteousness makes my soul as righteous as He is righteous.
Why? G-d is Holy… and G-d “re-births” the souls of all Messianic believers akin to the day that G-d breathed the breath of life into mankind– only infinitely better because L-RD Yeshua’s fulfillment of everlasting Yom Kippur perpetually protects the soul from spiritually dying again like the day Adam/Chava sinned.
____________________
Kavi,
I’ll ask as simply as possible – Are you today a righteous man* according to Tanakh?
*a righteous man is called a tzadik in Tanakh.
Alan: I’ll ask as simply as possible – Are you today a righteous man* according to Tanakh?
Kavi: And it is not “simple”… particularly if your worldview encapsulates “tzadik” according the interpretations of Talmud or Tanya.
Moreover, going beyond Judaism and Messianics, what of other faiths of nations who have their own definitions and traditions of “righteous men/women”?
___________________
Therefore, by forced necessity, I described whom G-d considers righteous [“tzadik”] in accordance to His prescribed Way of righteousness.
Moses, David, the Prophets, and all the holy ones (including me) who accept G-d’s Way of righteousness have their souls made securely righteous– not a righteousness of our own, but a righteousness imputed us by faith in Him and His Word.
___________________
Kavi,
Are you aware that the words tzadik (righteous man), tzadikim (righteous men), tzedek (justice) and tzedakah (righteousness/justice) are in the text of Tanakh very many times? Do you think these words are only in rabbinic writings?
I am asking you about a word in Tanakh, like the word mashiach and yeshua which also come from Tanakh.
I’ll ask again – according to what is meant by “righteous” in Tanakh, are YOU Kavi, today, righteous?
Alan: I am asking you about a word in Tanakh, like the word mashiach and yeshua which also come from Tanakh.
Kavi: Not exactly… for G-d by His nature is the Righteous One, the Almighty Judge, and the only True One Who is Lovingly Kind.
Because of His nature, G-d lovingly made Adam/Chava “righteous ones”… and continuously judged them as such until Adam/Chava ate of the forbidden tree and became unholy.
Therefore, G-d alone judges the meaning of “righteousness” by His eternal nature… and G-d openly testifies to His eternal standard of righteousness through the example of Adam/Chava.
_________________________
Alan: According to what is meant by “righteous” in Tanakh, are YOU Kavi, today, righteous?
Kavi: I thought I had already answered… but I don’t mind repeating,
Moses, David, the Prophets, and all the holy ones (including me) who accept G-d’s Way of righteousness through the Anointed Redeemer have their eternal souls made securely righteous by G-d Himself…it is not a righteousness of our own, but a righteousness imputed us by faith in Him and His Word… a Word of Promise that the Echad L-RD founded in Genesis and testified to and revealed throughout Tanakh.
_________________________
Kavi,
So even though the word tzadik/tzedek appears in Tanakh a few hundred times you will not discuss this Tanakh word with me? And you won’t discuss it even though you think you are one?
Alan,
G-d gave us His definition of His righteousness as well as His definition of those souls He judges righteous.
…not only have I discussed these matters conceptually, but I provided very real examples from Tanakh…
…what have you given me in return?
__________________
G-d made only One Way for mankind to receive His righteousness– His One Way through the Anointed Redeemer… as such, His One Way sets the context for all my thoughts and conversations… not Rambam, not Baal Shem Tov.
__________________
Kavi,
You realize that if the NT is not consistent with Tanakh, your religion collapses. That’s why you care very much about showing how the Tanakh is in synch with or at least doesn’t contradict Christianity. I asked you if you believe that your definition of Tzadik (not any rabbinic definition) comes from the Tanakh. All you said was something about Adam and Eve being tzadikim. But nowhere in Tanakh does it call them tzadikim. Tzadik/tzedek appear a few hundred times in Tanakh and it always means someone who DOES the RIGHT THING. There is one time where God COUNTS Avraham’s believing in God’s words as justice/righteousness. It doesn’t say that this belief made Avraham a tzadik. The belief was considered as if he had DONE “tzedakah” as the verse says. A tzadik is the opposite of a rasha (a lawless person) – it is one who DOES the right thing.
Kavi,
“as such, His One Way sets the context for all my thoughts and conversations… not Rambam, not Baal Shem Tov.”
What I think you mean by the above is that you can only read the Tanakh in terms of the NT but not on its own terms (pre-NT). You got accused me a few times of imposing rabbinic ideas on Tanakh even though I wasn’t – I only wanted to discuss the text of Tanakh. What you accused me of – imposing a non-Tanakh source onto Tanakh – you just admited that it’s ok for you to do just that.
Kavi,
If you really wanted to know what Tanakh means by tzedakah (justice–love is the best definition, not righteousness which is very ambiguous) you would read Tanakh on it’s own terms –
Isaiah 56:1-
Thus saith the LORD: Keep ye judgement, and DO TZEDAKAH; for My yeshua (salvation) is near to come, and My favour to be revealed.
Isaiah 58:2-
Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways; as a nation that DID TZEDAKAH, and forsook not the ordinance of their God, they ask of Me righteous judgements, they delight to draw near unto God.
Psalms 106:3-
Happy are they that keep justice, that DO TZEDAKAH at all times.
Psalms 106:30-31-
Then stood up Phinehas, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.
And that was counted unto him for TZEDAKAH, unto all generations for ever. (KAVI, WHY DIDN’T PAUL OF TARSUS TEACH THAT THE ONLY WAY A PERSON IS RIGHTEOUS IN GOD’S EYES IS IF HE KILLS PEOPLE WHO HAVE ILLICIT RELATIONS LIKE PINCHAS DID?)
Genesis 18:19-
For I have known him [Abraham], to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO TZEDAKAH AND JUSTICE; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.’
Genesis 18:22-23-
And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
And Abraham drew near, and said: ‘Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? (KAVI, ALL OVER TANAKH THE WICKED ARE THOSE WHO DON’T ACT ACCORDING TO HASHEM’S LAWS, THE RIGHTEOUS ARE THOSE WHO ACT ACCORDING TO HASHEM’S LAWS).
Kavi,
The Torah and commandments are forever –
1 Chronicles 15-18 –
Remember His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations;
which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac;
And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant;
Psalms 119:44 –
So shall I [David] observe Thy law continually for ever and ever
I forgot Proverbs 21:3-
“TO DO TZEDAKAH and justice is choicer/more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” I would love to know if Paul of Tarsus quotes or misquotes this verse anywhere in the NT.
And, Kavi, Ezekiel 18:5 –
“And a man when he will be a TZADIK and DO JUSTICE AND TZEDAKAH.”
Here is the rest of the definition of a TZADIK from Ezekiel 18 –
6 and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a woman in her impurity;
7 and hath not wronged any, but hath restored his pledge for a debt, hath taken nought by robbery, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
8 he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true justice between man and man,
9 hath walked in My statutes, and hath kept Mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
Kavi, your definition of tzadik and tzedakah is not Hashem’s definition of these words. What makes a tzadik according to the NT is not what makes a tzadik according to Tanakh. A TZADIK IS SOMEONE WHO D-O-E-S TZEDAKAH (JUSTICE-LOVE) and who ACTS ACCORDING TO HASHEM’S LAWS – THAT’S WHY THE WORD TZADIK SOUNDS LIKE THE WORD TZEDAKAH. Do you see in any of the verses I have posted about tzadik/tzedakah your definition of tzadik/tzedakah? To you, the tzedakah that makes someone a tzadik is TO BELIEVE that Jesus is the final and eternal Yom Kippur sacrifice. This BELIEF is your tzedakah that makes someone a tzadik.
Let me rewrite one verse in Ezekiel –
9 hath walked in My statutes, and hath kept Mine ordinances, to deal truly; HE IS A TZADIK, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
Kavi,
HE – THAT person who Ezekiel just described – HE is a tzadik. This is Tanakh’s – Hashem’s – definition of what a tzadik is. It bears no resemblance to your tzadik.
And just like a good human father who is gracious and patient with his children, so is Hashem but infinitely more so. He only wants us to try, he doesn’t want us to be perfect. Being a tzadik doesn’t mean that one is perfect!
Proverbs 24:16-
For a TZADIK FALLS SEVEN TIMES, and rises up again, but the wicked stumble under adversity.
Ecclesiastes 7:16-
DO NOT BE TOO MUCH OF A TZADIK; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
—–
And King David who sinned, as we discussed in depth a few weeks ago, was still tzadik because he picked himself up, did teshuva (Kavi – teshuva according to Tanakh), taught others how to do teshuva, and returned to Hashem and His commandments. All of the following prophecies were said AFTER David had sinned and done teshuva –
1 Kings 3-
14 And if thou wilt walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.
1 Kings 9-
4 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before Me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep My statutes and Mine ordinances;
1 Kings 11-
38 And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in My ways, and do that which is right in Mine eyes, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as David My servant did, that I will be with thee, and will build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee.
1 Kings 14-
7 Go, tell Jeroboam: Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over My people Israel,
8 and rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee; and yet thou hast not been as My servant David, who kept My commandments, and who followed Me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in Mine eyes;
Alan, you’re on a roll! Great work!
Baruch tihiyeh (may you be blessed)! 🙂
Kavi keeps mentioning this modern rabbinic teshuva theory even after I posted Scriptures showing it is neither modern, nor rabbinic, nor a theory. Kavi did not respond but kept right on.
Here are the citations again:
Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18 and 33; 1 Kings 8:46-52; Hosea 14:2
Dina,
Kavi feels that the main thing he gets with Jesus that he can’t get any other way is that he has a guarantee that he will be considered righteous after he leaves the world and his soul will live forever. It’s this guarantee that seems to be the biggest attraction for him. He feels that with the Father alone, there is no such guarantee. Kavi feels that only Jesus can give him this “job security” and he doesn’t want to give this up. Kavi knows that when Jews sin, they have teshuva and Hashem will remove our sins even without a blood sacrifice. Kavi admitted this with Ninveh and I think he can see that it also applies to Jews. But Kavi says that in order for a person not to be condemned to hell or eternal death he must be righteous. But what a penitent without Jesus doesn’t have is a guarantee of God judging him/her to be righteous. Kavi admits that a person could be righteous without Jesus but he also thinks that there is no way to guarantee permanent righteousness without Jesus. So according to Kavi, the main thing he needs Jesus for is the guarantee of “winning the court case in heaven”, otherwise the pre-Jesus system of keeping the commandments, sometimes messing up and doing teshuva is perfectly fine because this is EXACTLY HOW KAVI HAS TO LIVE HIS LIFE RIGHT NOW TOO. He has to do his commandments, mess up sometimes and do teshuva. So the only thing separating Kavi from Judaism appears to be this guarantee that he thinks he has with Jesus. Well guess what? He is terribly mistaken about the Father. The Father of the Tanakh is patient, bears insult, is slow to anger and DESIRES to JUDGE US FAVORABLY and give us life. He has told us in Tanakh that a little bit of teshuva IS A GUARANTEE of eternal life. So Kavi it turns out that Jesus gives you nothing that the Torah doesn’t already have from the Father. We have a guarantee too. Please forgive any spelling or grammatical mistakes. I’m typing fast and don’t have time to proof read (which is my MO anyway).
Exactly so. God is not quick to consign sinners to eternal death. You have to be supremely wicked for something like that (perhaps something along the lines of a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein).
I wonder why it doesn’t occur to Christians how a just and merciful God could send Hitler, the Nazis, and their victims to the same fate. (In fact some even believe that the Nazis who were Christian are indeed in heaven, while their victims roast eternally in the lake of fire.)
“Kavi feels that the main thing he gets with Jesus that he can’t get any other way is that he has a guarantee that he will be considered righteous after he leaves the world and his soul will live forever. ”
Alan, I doubt that is how Kavi think. He might say it like that, but his ways are craftier than that.. You and I are doomed to hell. We CANNOT be tzadick or righteous. He think that your good deeds and righteousness are like filthy rags. The only one that are righteous are the follower of Jesus and those who trusted that the messiah would come and die for their sins. You can see that in Kavi’s comment:
“Moses, David, the Prophets, and all the holy ones (including me) who accept G-d’s Way of righteousness have their souls made securely righteous– not a righteousness of our own, but a righteousness imputed us by faith in Him and His Word.”
Translation:
G-d’s Way: Jesus. Why? Jesus said I am the way.
a righteousness of our own: Fitly rags
His word: Jesus. WHy? See John 1
“Moses, David, the Prophets, and all the holy ones (including me) who accept JESUS’ righteousness have their souls made securely righteous– not a righteousness of our own (LIKE YOU and all Jews, and all non-followers of Jesus), but a righteousness imputed us by faith in Jesus and Jesus.”
Kavi said:
“Therefore, G-d alone judges the meaning of “righteousness” by His eternal nature… and G-d openly testifies to His eternal standard of righteousness through the example of Adam/Chava.”
Translation: One sin deserves hell, Romans 6:23. And that’s where you will finish, just like Adam.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death (HELL) by sin; and so death (HELL) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Deaths = Hell as per Revelation 2:11 and 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection (follower of Jesus): on such the second death hath no power
Kavi said:
“G-d made only One Way for mankind to receive His righteousness– His One Way through the Anointed Redeemer… as such, His One Way sets the context for all my thoughts and conversations… not Rambam, not Baal Shem Tov.”
Translation:
One Way: Jesus
Anointed Redeemer: Jesus
“G-d made only Jesus for mankind to receive Jesus’ righteousness– Jesus’ Jesus through the Jesus… as such, His Jesus sets the context for all my thoughts and conversations…”
So, it’s not like he thinks you are righteous or good. He thinks you deserve hell and you cannot be righteous. Your good deeds is as filthy as a tampax as per Kavi. It’s all tricks if he made you think that you had a single drop of righteousness (as per his own idea)
RT,
Thanks, I needed that. But I still have some hope that Kavi heard something I said this time.
Doubtful. If he did, then that would mean Jesus blood is not needed. And if the blood is not needed, then the sacrifice is not needed and if the sacrifice is not needed, Jesus is not needed. That would go against the New Testament teaching and would render him as an antichrist. It still may takes years before he can even handle this. I have seen two people (CR and someone else) that acknowledged that Jesus was not the messiah after talking to them. CR is the only one that kept on blogging after, so in truth he might be the only one. But it’s worth the effort…
Alan: I asked you if you believe that your definition of Tzadik (not any rabbinic definition) comes from the Tanakh. All you said was something about Adam and Eve being tzadikim. But nowhere in Tanakh does it call them tzadikim.
Kavi: When G-d breathed the breath of life into Adam… what unrighteousness was in G-d that made Adam likewise unrighteous?
Since we know there is no unrighteousness in G-d whatsoever… therefore, we know with certainty that G-d made Adam/Chava perfectly righteous.
______________________
Kavi, are you lying through your teeth or did you not see the many posts Alan wrote–and no doubt spent a lot of time researching–showing you the exact definition of tzadik within Tanach? How can you say that all he wrote was something about Adam and Chava (actually I think you were the one who kept saying things about Adam and Chava; Alan wrote about a whole lot of other things)?
I am appalled and astounded by your behavior.
Dina
KAVI is quoting Alan
Whoever
either way it is clear that KAVI is doing everything he can to avoid answering Alan’s straightforward question
Alan, I think it is pointless to talk to Kavi. He seems determined not to hear what you are actually saying.
KAVI
https://judaismresources.net/2013/03/12/ten-letters-4-beauty-and-spirituality/
The qualities of God are inseparable. God is the Ultimate Merciful One precisely because He is the Creator. He is supremely holy because He stands outside of nature and He is completely righteous because He is an independent existence.
As dependent beings all of us who exist between heaven and earth can only share the blessings that God showered upon us – we can’t create new blessings. Our kindness is only a relative term when seen against the backdrop of God’s mercy. God’s mercy is limitless because He is limitless.
Holiness is the separation from all pettiness and self-interest. Only the One who intrinsically needs nothing can truly be separate from all self-interest. Perfect righteousness is only possible by the One who brought every detail into existence and who has intimate knowledge of every action and thought that ever existed and that will ever exist – together with the ability to deal with every detail with unlimited power. It is only the Creator of all who constantly sustains all that can be called intrinsically righteous.
Dina: “How can you say that all he wrote was something about Adam and Chava (actually I think you were the one who kept saying things about Adam and Chava; Alan wrote about a whole lot of other things)?
I am appalled and astounded by your behavior.”
Kavi: As the Rabbi mentioned, I quoted directly from Alan’s post… I know WordPress is difficult to follow, but before posting, please do a simple search.
Now then, Alan wrote a great many things and it will take a little time to compile an answer… I started with Adam/Chava because that’s where Alan starts his dialogue.
And, to be frank, Alan does not start out on very solid footing… for G-d did indeed created mankind righteous… for G-d is righteous and the author of all righteousness… and He made mankind in His image.
_______________________
I will restate my very simple question.
Kavi has admitted that he is a righteous man (in Hebrew this is called a tzadik).
The words tzadik/tzedaka appears in Tanakh 479 times (according to my concordance). They appear zero times in reference to Adam and Eve.
I want to know from Kavi if his definition of tzadik/tzadakah has the same meaning as the Tanakh’s definition of these words.
I have asked this question about half a dozen times already, but all Kavi has given me so far has been his original midrashic teachings about Adam and Eve.
Kavi and Rabbi B., did both of you miss the myriad posts where Alan takes the time to define tzadik and tzedakah according to Tanach, especially the very clear definition as he demonstrated in Ezekiel 18?
Here are a couple:
https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/06/forgive-them-father-by-jim/#comment-38012
https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/06/forgive-them-father-by-jim/#comment-38013
And another one:
https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/06/forgive-them-father-by-jim/#comment-38014
As Alan pointed out, Tanach couldn’t be more clear on the definition of a tzadik, which bears no relationship whatsoever to Kavi’s definition.
I am appalled because Kavi is pretending that all Alan wrote was something about Adam and Chava. Allan wrote that the word tzadik is not used about these two; it’s not all he wrote, not by a long stretch. (Kavi is the one who raised the subject of Adam and Chava in regard to righteousness.)
So I still stand by my condemnation of Kavi’s behavior.
Alan: “Tzadik/tzedek appear a few hundred times in Tanakh and it always means someone who DOES the RIGHT THING.”
Kavi: The root word “zadak” does indeed imply an ethical standard and is used to describe weights, paths, speech, people, and G-d Himself.
So, on one hand, we have G-d as perfectly righteous…
And, on the other hand, we have people who fall short of G-d’s righteousness…
The problematic heart of the matter is when mankind pretends “ethics” or “morality” can elevate us to the point of being acceptable to G-d and His standard of utter Holiness.
_______________________
G-d never opposes someone who does what is moral since it is a reflection of His perfect righteousness… but mankind’s moral behavior does not compel G-d to Judge that person righteous according to His standard of Holiness…
… and in considering the Judgment before an Almighty G-d, certainly R. Yohanen ben Zakkai found no comfort in Orthodox theology on his deathbed.
________________________
Your concepts demand more of a response and I plan to do so.
In the meantime, a couple things to think about:
[a] Isaiah 58:2- Take a look at what Rashi says about this passage.
[b] Ecclesiastes 24:16- In context of the preceding verse, what does it mean to ‘fall’?
________________________
Kavi,
I am staying focused so I’m not going to answer your new questions right now, because they are distractions fom my simplest of questions.
You think you are a tzadik (because Paul of Tarsus says that according to Tanakh a person like you is a tzadik).
Kavi, are you (and Paul of Tarsus) using the words tzadik/tzadakah the way Tanakh uses them?
KAVI Doesn’t it strike you as odd that you consistently accuse Alan of working with a Talmudic template when Alan didn’t quote the Talmud once while you , who claim to be working with Tanach have nothing to support your fantasy but misunderstood quotations from rabbinic literature? Reminds me of Jesus accusing everyone of being sinners when it is his own slander that caused more bloodshed than we can count
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi, maybe you can answer that question:
Is there any tzadik (righteous in the eye of G-d) that does not believe in Jesus (or the future messiah for those before Jesus time) except Adam and Eve before they sinned?
RT,
A person is born into this world INNOCENT and PURE FROM SIN – but not a TZADIK. A tzadik is someone who ACTS according to God’s LAWS – he/she lives a life of TZEDEK (justice – the state of being law abiding) and DOING TZEDAKAH (justice-love) to his fellow humans. A rasha (a wicked person) is someone who does not live according to God’s Laws, he does not fulfill his duties of tzedakah (justice-love) to his fellow humans.
So Adam and Eve came into the world innocent and pure from all sin, but they were not yet tzaddikim until God taught them His laws. Once they were aware of God’s laws, they could then choose whether to DO His laws or whether to NOT DO them. When they chose to do God’s laws they were tzadikim. But they were not created tzadikim.
Kavi, Paul of Tarsus and the rest of the NT teach that according to Hashem (and the Tanakh) a tzadik is ONLY someone who believes in the “Final Eternal Yom Kippur Sacrifice (Jesus)”. And Paul of Tarsus attempts to bring proof of this from Tanakh. His “proof” is one of the most ignorant “Torah lessons” I have ever seen. He takes the word tzedakah (in the verse about Abraham) which means an act of justice-love and teaches that it instead means innocent – that “believing” is an act of tzedakah which makes the person innocent. TZEDAKAH NEVER MEANS “INNOCENT OF SIN” IN ALL OF TANAKH. Paul of Tarsus told one of the biggest whoppers in human history.
Alan Mind-blowing clarity! Thank you!
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Baruch tihiyeh (may you be blessed) Rabbi B! Thank you!
I need to clarify something so that I do not leave anything out. I wrote that the primary meaning of tzadik in Tanakh is a person who does tzedakah and tzedek. When the word tzadik appears in Tanakh it has this meaning the overwhelming majority of times. There are a handful of times in Tanakh that the word tzadik does not have this meaning, but rather means someone who is on the right side of the law in a court case, just as the word rasha (wicked) is sometimes used in Tanakh to mean one who is on the wrong side of the law in a court case, e.g. “and they (the judges) vindicate the tzadik and find the rasha guilty” (Deut. 25:1). This verse is speaking about people who take their grievance to court.
However, the word tzedakah only means justice or justice-love in every instance in Tanakh. It never means innocence, nor vindication, nor justification, nor “being right with G-d” as Paul of Tarsus and the NT teach us. This one NT teaching has pulled the wool over the eyes of people who don’t know Hebrew and has also killed the heart of the Torah, namely Hashem’s love of true righteousness which is the DOING OF TZEDAKAH.
Correction to my last comment:
I didn’t actually write that the primary meaning of tzadik is one who does tzedek/tzedakah; I wrote that this was the only meaning since I had forgotten that there was a secondary meaning. And I just learned that there is a tertiary meaning – in one place, according to my concordance, it means one who is correct (not always correct but correct in a particular circumstance). But the main point is the NT completely changes the real meaning of the word tzedakah to something it never meant before.
Excellent research, Alan!
Todah rabbah, Dina! (people can Google that)
Alan: “So Adam and Eve came into the world innocent and pure from all sin.”
Kavi: …”pure from all sin”… Alan, are you going to say sin is righteous and reflects righteousness?
Of course not… Adam/Chava were indeed pure from all sin as you say– hence, “righteous”.
____________________
To know G-d is to know His characteristics are Echad…[Jeremiah 9]
[] G-d is the Almighty Judge who Does Justice.
[] G-d is the Righteous One who Does Righteousness.
[] G-d is the Lovingly Kind One who Does Loving Kindness.
By His nature, does G-d have the power to do evil? do an injustice? do an un-lovingly kind deed?
No… For G-d, and To G-d, Justice, Righteousness, and Loving Kindness are inseparable… He is an Eternal, Echad L-RD.
So again, by what part of His Being when He breathed life into mankind was there any injustice, unrighteousness, or lack of loving kindness?
None… G-d made mankind in His image. He breathed into man life… and in that life are those inherent, eternal characteristics of His because there is no darkness nor deceit in Him.
____________________
As such, in creating mankind the “state of being” of Adam/Chava’s eternal souls was that of justice, righteousness, and loving kindness… like Him, so we were.
After sinning, G-d judged Adam/Chava not just… not righteous… and not loving…
After sinning, Adam/Chava ceased from their “state of righteousness” and fell into a “state of lawlessness”.
After sinning, there was no turning back– no teshuva, no sacrifice… mankind was unholy.
Adam/Chava sinned… and they were cursed.
“You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.” [Genesis 2]
G-d’s Judgment in Genesis is completely consistent as what He says in the Law,
“Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.'” [Deuteronomy 27]
…and repeated,
“Thus says the L-RD, the G-d of Israel,
‘Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant.'”
[Jeremiah 11]
____________________
Yet G-d gave mankind hope.
G-d, without violating any of His characteristics, made a gracious way to judicially make mankind’s eternal soul righteous.
This re-birthed “state of being” of the soul is exactly what L-RD Yeshua graciously did on behalf of mankind when He fulfilled eternal Yom Kippur.
A Mighty G-d who freely yielded Himself up to die… much like a parent who does the same for their children…
____________________
BTW> Your references to “tzedaka” in Tanach for Genesis 15:6 should be,
Genesis 15:6, 18:19
Deuteronomy 24:13
2 Samuel 19:28
Job 37:23
Psalm 33:5, 106:3
Proverbs 8:20, 11:18, 11:19, 12:28, 13:6, 14:34, 15:9, 16:31, 21:3, 21:21 (twice)
Isaiah 10:22, 45:23, 56:1, 59:9, 59:17, 60:17, 61:10, 61:11,
Isaiah 58:2 (where you should read Rashi’s commentary…)
Jeremiah 33:15
Amos 6:12
Malachi 4:2
Are you sure all these references, in context, mean what you want to say?
____________________
KAVI Instead of reading Rashi’s commentary on Isaiah 58 which is not relevant to the conversation why don’t you read the words of the prophet. God’s word has the power to set you free from your error. And God couldn’t give pure righteousness to Adam and Eve simply because His righteousness – like you explained is one with His being – and God didn’t create new God’s Furthermore – your interpretation on “in His image” is refuted by the fact that after the sin of Adam we are still spoken of as created in the image
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
I will look at the Rashi later. But I thought you were against “clouding the issues with too much Jewish theology” to quote you? Is it or isn’t it ok to impose rabbinic sources on Tanakh?
I am quite sure that every instance of the word tzadakah in Tanakh means an act of justice oe justice-love. If you disagree, please show me the verses.
My question has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. I only mentioned them to correct something you said about them.
My only question is why does Paul of Tarsus use the word tzedakah from the verse in Genesis to mean “innocence/vindication/right and pure before God” when this is never the meaning of this word in the hundreds of times it appears in Tanakh? Can you address this question?
Ok, here’s the Rashi on Isaiah 58:2 –
“כגוי אשר צדקה עשה וגו’ – “כך שואלים אותי תמיד משפט צדק, ואין דעתם לקיימם’
On the words “like a nation who did tzedakah and the judgement of its God they have not forsaken; they ask Me about laws of tzedek; they desire nearness to God”, Rashi says, “Like this, the continually ask me just judgement (judgement of tzedek) but they do not intend to fulfill them”.
Kavi, first of all you’re bringing rabbinic midrashim into our discussion which you asked me not to do. Second, what are you trying to show me with this Rashi?
“BTW> Your references to “tzedaka” in Tanach for Genesis 15:6 should be,
Genesis 15:6, 18:19
Deuteronomy 24:13
2 Samuel 19:28
Job 37:23
Psalm 33:5, 106:3
Proverbs 8:20, 11:18, 11:19, 12:28, 13:6, 14:34, 15:9, 16:31, 21:3, 21:21 (twice)
Isaiah 10:22, 45:23, 56:1, 59:9, 59:17, 60:17, 61:10, 61:11,
Isaiah 58:2 (where you should read Rashi’s commentary…)
Jeremiah 33:15
Amos 6:12
Malachi 4:2
Are you sure all these references, in context, mean what you want to say?”
I looked at all of the above references and every single time the word tzedakah appears in these verses it means justice/justice-love – it never means innocence/vindication/justification/sinlessness/purity/holiness/rightness with God.
It seems to me the English translation of the word tzedakah as “righteousness” is a main cause of all of this confusion. In Jewish talk, the English word righteousness means justice/justice-love. But thanks to Christianity, the English word righteousness has come to instead mean innocence before God. Many English translations of Tanakh translate tzedakah as righteousness instead of justice. But I am telling you that what they mean by righteousness is justice not innocence/purity/holiness.
Kavi wrote:
“By His nature, does G-d have the power to do evil? do an injustice? do an un-lovingly kind deed?
“No… For G-d, and To G-d, Justice, Righteousness, and Loving Kindness are inseparable… He is an Eternal, Echad L-RD.”
Well, then, what do you make of this:
Isaiah 45:7: Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.
I would like everyone to please note that Kavi has not addressed two major challenges:
1. Alan’s challenge on the Tanach’s definition of tzadik.
2. My challenge that what Kavi calls the “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” is neither modern, rabbinic, nor a theory but taught outright in Tanach. Kavi has completely ignored this challenge repeatedly, but here are the sources again:
Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18 and 33; 1 Kings 8:46-52; Hosea 14:2
Kavi doesn’t have a leg to stand on because the Torah teaches against his avodah zarah. If he could find clear teachings to support his corrupt and twisted theology he would have cited them by now.
Alan: Kavi, first of all you’re bringing rabbinic midrashim into our discussion which you asked me not to do.
Kavi: I’m curious to know when I asked you not to speak of midrashim? Even I spoke of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer in relation to Genesis and, as I remember, I also brought up Midrash Rabbah in our conversation about Psalm 41…
________________________
Of course ignoring Alan’s main points and my challenge…
Alan: Are you, Kavi, a tzadik (a righteous man)?
Kavi: “Tzadik” according to Talmud/Rambam or Tanya?
Neither… again, too much Jewish theology clouds the issue.
—-
Alan: I’ll ask as simply as possible – Are you today a righteous man* according to Tanakh?
Kavi: And it is not “simple”… particularly if your worldview encapsulates “tzadik” according the interpretations of Talmud or Tanya.
Moreover, going beyond Judaism and Messianics, what of other faiths of nations who have their own definitions and traditions of “righteous men/women”?
___________________
Alan,
… and where did I “forbid” you anything?
I myself refused to be tied to rabbinic theology because it strays far, far from the truthful reality of G-d…
_____________________
You refused to answer my question because you wrongly assumed that I was asking about the rabbinic definition of tzadik (when in reality I told you that I was only asking about the plain meaning of the word in Tanakh).
Kavi, where did Alan say you “forbid” him to do anything? Using quotation marks means you are quoting Alan’s words directly. Where did Alan use the word “forbid” regarding your wish that he not discuss rabbinic definitions?
Alan showed you where you said that you weren’t interested in rabbinic definitions, so he brought you definitions from Tanach that are so clear you can’t get any more clear. Yet you want to quibble on distractions and refuse to refute this definition using Scripture. Why is that, I wonder?
And why have you not answered my challenge where I showed you in Scripture that your modern rabbinic teshuva theory is neither modern, rabbinic, nor a theory?
Alan: “You refused to answer my question because you wrongly assumed that I was asking about the rabbinic definition of tzadik (when in reality I told you that I was only asking about the plain meaning of the word in Tanakh).”
Kavi: Partially correct…I would not prepare an answer based on rabbinic definitions of tzadik [which I held true to that notion].
…yet, I never “forbade” you to do anything… I not quite sure I ever have to anyone.
…in fact, I freely said to RT, “Since you seek and are pleased with the modern Rabbinic theory of teshuva– then by all means go and live it out… I will not deny you your prerogative!”
I freely support free speech…
________________________
Kavi,
Let’s just drop the rabbinic sources. I’ll stick to the plain meaning of Tanakh if you also agree to do so. This means you can’t use Rashi to explain a verse to me, ok?
Alan: “In Jewish talk, the English word righteousness means justice/justice-love.”
Kavi: So, when we find in these Scriptures we spoke of “two” different Hebrew words for “justice” and “righteousness”, we’re to believe they mean the same thing?
[For example, Genesis 18:19, Job 37:23, Psalm 33:5, Proverbs 21:3, Isaiah 56:1, Jeremiah 33:15, etc]
“The L-RD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.”
[Psalm 33:5]
or,
“How blessed are those who keep justice, Who practice righteousness at all times! [Psalm 106:3]
____________________
Kavi,
Here are some definitions-
Tzedek – justice; the practice of making sure our fellow human beings receive and get to keep what is rightfully theirs according to the laws of God
Tzadakah – justice-love or benevolence as a duty
Tzadik – 1). one who does tzedek and tzedakah; one who is law-abiding; 2). one who is on the right side of the law in a court case; 3). one who is correct or right in a particular circumstance
Mishpat – from the word shofet (a judge); the law handed down by a court and accepted by the litigants or by an entire society. It can be a man-made law or a divine law.
The word tzedakah never ever means innocent or pure or holy or clean or vindicated or justified.
Kadosh means holy.
Tahor means pure.
Naki means clean.
Lehatzdik means to vindicate or to justify (it has the same root as the word tzedek).
Mutzdak means vindicated or justified (same root as the word tzedek).
Tzedakah is the PERFORMANCE of BENEVOLENCE AS A DUTY. It never ever has the connotation of innocence/clean/pure/holy. Look at these verses and tell me if you think it makes sense that God is telling us to DO INNOCENCE, to DO PURITY, to DO HOLINESS. God is telling us to DO JUSTICE and JUSTICE-LOVE.
https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/06/forgive-them-father-by-jim/#comment-38009
Alan, you already gave him the definition of tzadik and tzedakah according to Tanach and supported your definition exhaustively with crystal clear verses. Kavi is clearly not listening.
I’m hoping that a pinprick is opening in his ears.
For the glossary –
Correction to Naki – in addition to meaning clean (not dirty) it is also used in Tanakh to mean innocent or guiltless.
Kedusha means holiness.
Taharah means purity.
Nekiut means cleanliness or innocence.
Alan: “Tzedakah is the PERFORMANCE of BENEVOLENCE AS A DUTY. It never ever has the connotation of innocence/clean/pure/holy.”
Kavi: …”No connotation” between tzedakah and holiness?
The HOLY L-RD disagrees…
“‘Let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the L-RD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the L-RD.” [Jeremiah 9]
Tzedekah and Mishpat and Chesed emanate from a Holy G-d Who IS Righteous, Just, and Lovingly Faithful…
The Holy L-RD IS and therefore the Holy L-RD DOES…
Knowing that an Echad G-d cannot be separated from His holiness,
…Will a man argue that the L-RD G-D IS guilty, unclean, impure, or unholy?
…Will a man argue that L-RD G-D DOES anything that can be deemed guilty, unclean, impure, or unholy?
…Will mankind argue G-d “owes” them “the performance of benevolence as a duty”?
The HOLY L-RD says,
“Who hath given Me anything beforehand, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is Mine.” [Job 41]
__________________________
Kavi,
Tzedakah is one mitzvah – a mitzvah of action – that can lead to holiness when combined with other mitzvot.
Do you hear this?
You DO tzedakah, not partake of it.
You PARTAKE/ABSORB holiness, not do it.
Alan: “You DO tzedakah, not partake of it. You PARTAKE/ABSORB holiness, not do it.”
Kavi: And so G-d “aborbs” holiness? G-d “partakes” of holiness?
…on the contrary, His Tzedakah, Mishpat, and Chesed define “holiness.”
_____________________
And as to your concept of “justice-love” as a duty,
…Will mankind argue G-d “owes” them “the performance of benevolence as a duty”?
The HOLY L-RD says,
“Who hath given Me anything beforehand, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is Mine.” [Job 41]
__________________________
“Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done.” (Proverbs 19:17)
We “give” something to God in the sense that we do what He wants. Only we human can do such a great thing!
Hashem doesn’t partake of holiness – He IS holiness and we partake of His Holiness.
Hashem DOES tzedakah with us and we emulate Him and do what He wants by DOING tzedakah towards each other.
Do you hear this?
That was a Christian translation. Here is the exact translation:
17 He that is gracious unto the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and his good deed will He repay unto him.
:
Alan: “We “give” something to God in the sense that we do what He wants.” [referring to Proverbs 19:17]
Kavi: …”give” or “lend”? [Pr 19]
…”give by doing what He wants”? [unknown Tanakh refererence?]
Again, The Holy Creator plainly states without the need of interpretation…
“Who hath given Me anything beforehand, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is Mine.” [Job 41]
__________________________
What’s “under the whole heaven” we can’t give him – we can’t give him “stuff”. But what’s “above” the heavens – doing His will – which includes DOING TZEDAKAH (not BEING tzedakah which makes no sense) towards each other is how we can in a sense “give” to him or in another sense “lend” him and He will “repay” us as the verse says. Do you hear this?
Hashem has everything except for one thing – He wants us to do His will. This is something He can’t do for Himself. If we don’t do it, He doesn’t have it. So when we do His will, we really are giving Him what He wants the most.
Alan: “What’s “under the whole heaven” we can’t give him – we can’t give him “stuff”. But what’s “above” the heavens – doing His will ”
Kavi: …again,
… “Who hath given Me anything beforehand, that I should repay him?” and
… “Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is Mine.” [Job 41]
… Did you know the mind of G-d beforehand so that He now is “obligated” to you as a benevolent duty [a “Tzedakah” as you defined it]?
G-d is the Creator of all things… your mind, your body, your soul, your ability to will or want… He is the Creator of all spirits, all mankind, all creatures, all matter, and the heavenly host of the universe.
…so, according to your definition of “justice-love” [“Tzedakah”], is there anything you gave G-d beforehand that “obligates” Him to you?
______________________
Kavi,
We can’t give Hashem anything because He doesn’t lack anything – He has it All. Does He desire anything from us? Yes He does. So when we try to comply with His desire we are fulfilling His desire. This is all we can give back to Him. It’s a paradox.
You want to say that tzedakah as used in Tanakh means or sometimes means a state of being good, holy and acceptable to God, right? Please show us the verses in Tanakh that clearly demonstrate this – only verses that are clear and unambiguous. There are none. But there are numerous verses that state “TO DO tzedakah”. There are zero verses that say “TO BE tzedakah”. This is because tzedakah is an action and not a state of being. Just like you can’t say “BE CHARITY”, you can say “BE tzedakah”.
Alan, do you see how Kavi has distracted you and has got both of you running around in circles over the word tzedakah?
Originally, Kavi challenged you to provide a Biblical, non-rabbinic definition of the word tzadik. You rose to the challenge magnificently, providing a crystal clear definition based on Tanach that cannot be disputed. Then you counterchallenged by asking if he is a tzadik according to Tanach. Kavi sidestepped your challenge by talking about tzedakah.
I would like very much to see Kavi respond to the earlier challenge first.
Dina,
You are right, I’ve gotten distracted.
Alan, Christian missionaries are brilliant at distraction when confronted with uncomfortable facts.
Dina: “My challenge that what Kavi calls the “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” is neither modern, rabbinic, nor a theory but taught outright in Tanach.”
Kavi: On one hand, it is “modern” because G-d did not make a “teshuva covenant” with Israel at Mt. Sinai.
On the other hand, in a way, I think Dina you may be conceptually correct… mankind’s attempts to make themselves righteous goes back to Adam/Chava’s “fig leaves”
But what did G-d say?
“The L-RD G-d commanded the man, saying,
“From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat
from it you will surely die.” [Genesis 2]
….Did you ponder G-d did not continue and say,
[]… BUT, if you do teshuva, I will make you righteous”
….Or, that G-d did not say,
[]… BUT, if you eat lots of “good” fruit like I told you to do, your “good” deeds will easily outnumber the “bad” ones and, I will freely grant you freedom to remain in Gan Eden and welcome you into My Presence”
On the contrary, G-d prevented Adam/Chava from teshuva or sacrifice… they were both cast out because G-d judged them sinfully unrighteous.
______________________
Kavi, thank you for finally responding.
All the instructions from Moses are part of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. This includes keeping Shabbos and refraining from eating non kosher meat.
Your modern rabbinic teshuva theory is fully described in Deuteronomy 30 in Moses’s words to the nation of Israel (read it carefully). If Moses is modern, what does that make Jesus?
Adam and Chava are completely irrelevant, since God did not make a covenant with them. Therefore, I do not see their place in this discussion.
If the only thing that holds any force of law, so to speak, is God’s covenant at Sinai, then show me where He put in that Sinaitic covenant the need for a sinless human’s death to cover for the sins of mankind. Show me something as clear as Deuteronomy 30.
Furthermore, if Solomon and Ezekiel espoused a “modern” teshuva “theory” because their words were not recorded at Sinai, then it is your teshuva theory that is modern, for they predate Jesus by quite a few centuries.
Dina,
So, now that I have answered your challenge, why not answer my questions?
[1] Where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern teshuva theory at Mt. Sinai?
[2] Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?
______________________
Dina: “Originally, Kavi challenged you to provide a Biblical, non-rabbinic definition of the word tzadik.”
Kavi: Dina, have you have forgotten your own words?
…where you said, “1. Alan’s challenge on the Tanach’s definition of tzadik”
___________________
So, on the contary, it was I who did not want to define righteousness according to Orthodox theology…
… for I said, “The concepts supporting “tzadik gamur” are far too steeped in Orthodox theology to make a direct comparison to what a Messianic believes.”
and,
… likewise, in regards to Alan’s question, “Are you, Kavi, a tzadik (a righteous man)?”… I then said, “‘Tzadik’ according to Talmud/Rambam or Tanya?
Neither… again, too much Jewish theology clouds the issue.”
…again, Dina, just a simple search through this blog identifies nothing you said is true.
___________________
Alan’s definition of “Tzedakah” is falling apart because it does not align with Tanach…
…and we have yet to discuss matters such as,
[] Define “Does Justice”?
[] Can those who do “moral” deeds be unrightoues?
[] Why is “sin” missing from Alan’s definitions?
[] What does Alan mean by “state of being”?
[] What about circumcision of the heart?
[] …and more.
This is what the L-rd says:
“Let not the wise boast of their wisdom
or the strong boast of their strength
or the rich boast of their riches,
but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me,
that I am the L-rd, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,”
declares the L-rd.
“The days are coming,” declares the L-rd, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places.
For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” [Jeremiah 9]
Why uncircumcised in heart like the nations?
Modern Rabbinic Teshuva is not much different, at its uncircumcised heart, than Egypt (Ma’at) and many other nations who believe their “fig leaves” and “good deeds” can outweigh the scrutiny of G-d’s HOLY Judgment.
…Dina, this G-d you think you proclaim is not like those other gods…
___________________________
Kavi,
Thanks for bring Jeremiah 9:24 (23 in the Hebrew Bible) –
23 But let him that glory, glory in this, that he understands, and knows Me, that I am Hashem who DOES (the verb OSEH) kindness, judgement, and justice-love, in the earth; for these things I desire, says Hashem.
Who does innocence/holiness/purity? Does this make sense. Bring me one clear verse in Tanakh that defines tzedakah not as an ACT but as something else.
Kavi, it is you who should do a simple search and read what is actually written.
You said that “in regards to Alan’s question, ‘Are you, Kavi, a tzadik (a righteous man)?’… I then said, “Tzadik’ according to Talmud/Rambam or Tanya? Neither…”
Exactly so! The answer is neither–Alan asked you if you are a tzadik according to Tanach. Alan also showed you crystal clear verses from Tanach that define the word tzadik with crystal clear clarity, then asked you if you still consider yourself a tzadik according to this definition. You completely ignored these posts, preferring to quibble about the definition of the word tzedakah.
I’m wondering if you will ever face up to that challenge.
I have shown you that the teshuva you call “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” is actually ancient teshuva practice, part of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. You have also not responded to this. You claimed that the teshuva is modern, despite quotes from Kings and Ezekiel, in the sense that it wasn’t mentioned at Sinai. Although that is untrue (as Deuteronomy 30 shows), by your own standards, Jesus’s teachings are modern rabbinic teshuva theory, while the teachings of Tanach are ancient teshuva practice. Please show me why this is wrong.
Also, you challenged me to show you that teshuva was sealed in a blood covenant at Sinai. What do you mean by this? What covenant was sealed in blood at Sinai? My Bible is silent on the details. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Alan: “Who does innocence/holiness/purity? Does this make sense. Bring me one clear verse in Tanakh that defines tzedakah not as an ACT but as something else.”
Kavi: I have never directly written anything addressing your logic of “does holiness”…
…rather, I have been addressing your question,
“What does it mean to you to be a tzadik” (which you asked more than one time)…
Thus, my whole discussion centers on Tanakh’s definition of “righteous” and “righteousness”,
[a] G-d is Righteous… He is sinless…
therefore,
[b] G-d does Righteousness… His deeds are sinless…
Because G-d’s deeds are sinless… they are judged guiltless, holy, and pure.
…and that’s despite mankind’s attempts to do just the opposite,
“Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?” [Job 40]
________________________
Kavi, you think you are a tzadik (a righteous man) because Paul says if you believe in Jesus then God ascribes tzedakah to you. Am I right or wrong about this? I’m right.
Alan: “Kavi, you think you are a tzadik (a righteous man) because Paul says if you believe in Jesus then God ascribes tzedakah to you. Am I right or wrong about this? I’m right.”
Kavi: Alan, although there are many ways to build a straw man argument, isn’t your construction a classic example?
Where does Paul say in Genesis 15 or here in Romans 4 that the Hebrew word for “tzedakah” equates to the Hebrew word for “holiness”?
…neither!
________________________
BTW> Have you ever read or tried to understand Apostle Paul’s Torah instruction about Genesis 15 that he begins way before Chapter 4 in the Book of Romans?
________________________
He doesn’t say that tzedakah means holiness. He says it means righteous and justified – 2 adjectives that describe a person’s spiritual standing. Tzedakah is a noun which means an act of benevolence out of duty.
Yes I have read Romans 1-3 also. And Paul abuses the Tanakh in these chapters too by using another verse to “prove” that having faith causes one to be a tzadik and saves one from death.
Alan: “He doesn’t say that tzedakah means holiness. He says it means righteous and justified”
Kavi: On the contrary, Apostle Paul says nothing of the sort.
Where does Paul say in Genesis 15 or here in Romans 4 or Romans 1 through 3 that the Hebrew word for “tzedakah” equates to the Hebrew word for “holiness” or equates to the Hebrew word for “righteous” or equates to the Hebrew adverbial word for “justified”?
…again, nowhere.
___________________
Note: Although it is good to read some of the Book of Romans, did you read it with an attitude to understand the author (even if you sincerely disagree)?
___________________
Kavi,
It seems to me that Paul is defining tzedakah in Romans not as as action but as a quality of the person; not as a mitzvah the a person does but the spiritual status of being justified in the eyes of God.
If you think I’m wrong, then tell me what Paul means by tzedakah?
Yes, I tried to read it with an attitude to understand him. It’s not easy for the average person to understand him.
Kavi asked Alan, “Note: Although it is good to read some of the Book of Romans, did you read it with an attitude to understand the author (even if you sincerely disagree)?”
I would like to know if Kavi reads the Hebrew Bible with the attitude to understand how Jewish people (the target audience, you know) have read it and continue to read it. Does he read it to understand the heart and mind of the Jew, with compassion and love? Does he read to learn what God is teaching the Jewish people, instead of using it as a text to shore up his beliefs about Jesus?
Alan: “It seems to me that Paul is defining tzedakah in Romans not as an action but as a quality of the person…
…not as a mitzvah the person does but the spiritual status of being justified in the eyes of God.”
Kavi: I see what you are saying… then to begin, I will clarify that “Faith” and “Trust” and “Belief” are equivalent translations.
So, now then, risking clarity for the sake of brevity, Apostle Paul writes that…
…Apart from the Mitzvot, “Trust” in G-d and His Promised Redeemer makes a person righteous AND that “Trust” is reckoned by G-d as a “deed of faith” [Tzedakah].
How so?
When I examine the 613 Mitzvot, I could not find one “work” that directly says, “Trust in the L-rd alone for salvation.”
…Nothing in the 613 Mitzvot on the order of,
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
Therefore, “Faith” in G-d and His Promised Anointed Redeemer result in:
[a] …G-d adjudicates one’s soul as righteous, AND
[b] …G-d reckons “faith” as a Deed of Tzedakah apart from deeds of Mitzvot, AND
[c] …G-d then enables His righteous ones to live “by faith” to do righteous deeds throughout their brief life on earth.
___________________
“…Apart from the Mitzvot, “Trust” in G-d and His Promised Redeemer makes a person righteous AND that “Trust” is reckoned by G-d as a “deed of faith” [Tzedakah].”
So faith makes one a tzadik? Where do you see this definition of tzadik in Tanakh?
Tzedakah is a “deed of faith”? Where do you see this definition of tzedakah in Tanakh?
Alan: So faith makes one a tzadik? Where do you see this definition of tzadik in Tanakh?
Kavi: “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the Tzaddik will live by his faith.” [Habbakuk 2]
______________________
Alan: Tzedakah is a “deed of faith”? Where do you see this definition of tzedakah in Tanakh?
Kavi: “Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
_______________________
KAVI If this wouldn’t be serious it would be hilarious. You make up a convoluted explanation and you accuse the Jewish people of not adhering to Tanach? A few simple questions: 1 – faith in who? (in the case of Abraham and Habbakuk) 2 – Isn’t there a passage in Tanach that explicitly tells us upon whom it is that God bestows His eternal kindness? 3 – And since when does Tanach advise us to obsess over our eternal fate? Isn’t the Tanach’s primary directive to obey?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
What you are doing with these two verses is that you are (ab)using them to redefine the word ZEDEK (which is the root word of both tzadik and tzedakah). The word TZEDEK means JUSTICE, NOT FAITH. Faith is EMUNAH the root of which is AMEN. THERE IS NO WORD IN TANAKH FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS FAITH ALONE. But there is a word that appears hundreds of times in Tanakh for someone who DOES the commandments and that word is TZADIK.
Isn’t it curious that there’s no word in Tanakh for someone who has faith (emunah)? I wonder why that is?
Are you ok with taking a Hebrew word in Tanakh and giving it a definition that is unknown to the Torah or to the Jewish people?
I should have mentioned that the foundation of being a tzadik is to BELIEVE in the One who gave the commandments. But in order for the Tanakh to call someone a tzadik that person must DO IT (the IT includes doing teshuvah when one messes up).
There is no word in Tanakh for one who is just a believer. A tzadik is one who has faith AND does – he is called a tzadik because he practices justice (tzedek) to both God and Man.
“A tzadik by his faith will live” because he realizes that the foundation of having EMUNAH (faith) is what gives him the strength to serve God, to do His commandments and not to be a rasha (a lawless person).
The verse doesn’t say Avraham DID tzedkah because He didn’t DO AN ACTION. Hashem merely counted his faith in a specific prophecy AS IF he had done tzedakah. The verse says nothing about being a tzadik, which is a different word than tzedakah (as everybody knows by now because I have defined it at least 20 times already).
Malakhi 3:18 –
יח וְשַׁבְתֶּם, וּרְאִיתֶם, בֵּין צַדִּיק, לְרָשָׁע–בֵּין עֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים, לַאֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ. {פ} 18 You will return and discern between the righteous (tzadik) and the wicked (rasha), between he that serves God and he that does not serve Him.
The word for “serve” is OVED which means to serve or to WORK. This verse doesn’t say, “You will return and discern between the righteous (tzadik) and the wicked (rasha), between he that BELIEVES/HAS FAITH and he that does not BELIEVE/HAVE FAITH.” It says nothing about faith (emunah). Why? Because SERVICE/WORKING FOR GOD includes faith; faith is a part of service. There is no such thing in Tanakh as a tzadik who has FAITH ALONE. As I said before, there is not even a word in Tanakh for someone who believes or has faith.
Dina: “I have shown you that the teshuva you call “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” is actually ancient teshuva practice…”
Kavi: And I have shown that,
[a] Modern Rabbinic Teshuva was not an option to rescue Adam/Chava.
[b] Modern Rabbinic Teshuva was not part of the Mt. Sinai covenant. [Exodus 24]
[c] Modern Rabbinic Teshuva is, at its core [“uncircumcised”] heart, an ancient religion similar to the ancient Egyptians (Ma’at) as well as similar to many nations today who somehow believe their “good” deeds can outweigh “bad” deeds in the afterlife…
…again, the L-RD is not like those other gods.
___________________________
Dina: “By your own standards, Jesus’s teachings are modern rabbinic teshuva theory, while the teachings of Tanach are ancient teshuva practice. Please show me why this is wrong.”
Kavi: As I have said before, the roots of Messianic Faith go back to the G-d’s promise found in Genesis 3
___________________________
Dina: Also, you challenged me to show you that teshuva was sealed in a blood covenant at Sinai. What do you mean by this? What covenant was sealed in blood at Sinai? My Bible is silent on the details. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Kavi: We can examine Exodus 24 for the details.
___________________________
BTW> How many “levels” of teshuva did Moses prescribe to the people?
___________________________
Kavi, why do you still keep calling it modern rabbinic teshuva theory when I have shown you from sources in Tanach that there is on such thing? Have you checked my sources?
Can you please explain to me why teshuva as described in Deuteronomy 30 is not part of the Sinaitic covenant?
If Isaiah is so important to you, you should heed his words:
43:10, 12: “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “and My servant whom I chose, in order that you know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall be. I told and I saved, and I made heard and there was no stranger among you, and you are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “and I am God.”
44:8: Fear not and be not dismayed; did I not let you hear it from then, and I told [it] and you are My witnesses; is there a God besides Me? And there is no rock I did not know.
59:21: “As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My spirit, which is upon you and My words that I have placed in your mouth, shall not move from your mouth or from the mouth of your seed and from the mouth of your seed’s seed,” said the Lord, “from now and to eternity.”
You do not belong the witness nation, nor did God did promise to retain forever His spirit upon you and His words in your mouth. You show that you don’t care about God’s words when you dare to tell us how to understand our own Scriptures.
Dina: I would like to know if Kavi reads the Hebrew Bible with the attitude to understand how Jewish people (the target audience, you know) have read it and continue to read it.
Kavi: Tanakh roots my faith in G-d and His Redeemer…
If Orthodox teachings were reasonably logical and consistent and true, there would be far, far more reason to join the Orthodox community… like you, I seek after Truth and found it in Tanakh.
However, the Prophet Isaiah speaks very explicitly regarding the past and current state of Orthodox teaching… therefore, I seriously heed his warning. [Isaiah 28 and Isaiah 29]
__________________________
Dina: Does [Kavi] read it to understand the heart and mind of the Jew, with compassion and love? Does he read to learn what God is teaching the Jewish people, instead of using it as a text to shore up his beliefs about Jesus?
Kavi: [a] G-d loves all mankind… and His salvation is for both Jew and Gentile.
The Ancient of Days teaches His Divine, Anointed L-RD freely gave up His life to eternally save you from your sins that separate you from Him… a parent’s love runs very deep… how much more love can He give?
__________________________
“His salvation is for both Jew and Gentile.”
God teaches repeatedly that your spiritual salvation lies completely in your own hand. You are the author of your spiritual destiny (see Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33). God’s salvation is purely physical and/or political (i.e., He saves us from annihilation, He saves us from our enemies). This is how the word salvation is used throughout the Hebrew Bible. Show me one place where the word “yeshua” (salvation) or “ge’ulah” (redemption) means God will save you from your sins.
Alan: “The word TZEDEK means JUSTICE, NOT FAITH.”
Kavi: I never said the Hebrew word for Tzedek equates to the Hebrew word for Faith.
G-d is Just, Righteous, and Faithfully Kind… and, being so, does Mishpat, Tzedakah, and Chesed.
So, how do you define “Does Justice”?
And, what happened to “sin” in your definitions of “righteous” or “righteousness”?
______________________
Faith/Belief/Trust is crucially important to G-d.
“In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth…”
…does G-d “prove” He created all things?
…does G-d even “prove” He exists?
…or, rather, does He not provide testimony to mankind to believe Him and in Him?
The righteous live by faith/belief/trust in a Truthful G-d whose testimony is found through His Words and His Deeds.
And, since mankind’s faith in G-d is fundamentally important to Him from the beginning of time, isn’t it reasonable to think “faith” leading to His salvation is not only important, but necessary?
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
“Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
[] Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere.
[] What Mitzvot of Sacrifices or Teshuva could eliminate sin from the consciences of the people as they year by year by year went through Yom Kippur… none.
[] What Mitzvot or Teshuva did G-d give Adam/Chava to allow them back into Gan Eden… none.
______________________
Kavi,
“So, how do you define “Does Justice”?”
People have to do justice (tzedek/tzedakah) and Hashem does tzedek. People have to do tzedek and tzedaka by following the divine laws that govern our relationship with our fellow humans and with Hashem. Hashem does justice with us in that everything He does with us is perfectly fair and out of love and for our good even if we can’t understand how it is good and fair.
“And, what happened to “sin” in your definitions of “righteous” or “righteousness”?”
A tzadik is someone who consistently tries to maximize that amount of time he is law-abiding and to minimize the times he breaks the law. And teshuva is an integral part of his life. Proverbs 24:16 – “For seven times a tzadik falls and gets up, and the wicked stumble in evil.”
“And, since mankind’s faith in G-d is fundamentally important to Him from the beginning of time, isn’t it reasonable to think “faith” leading to His salvation is not only important, but necessary?”
Yes, faith is a necessary part of serving Hashem and of being a tzadik.
““Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
[] Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere.”
You are not reading this verse correctly. Avraham was old and he didn’t believe he could still have biological children. But Hashem told him that it would happen. Avraham believed THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise of Hashem and Hashem counted Avraham’s belief IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise as tzedakah (a just act) even though Avraham didn’t actually DO an action.
“[] What Mitzvot of Sacrifices or Teshuva could eliminate sin from the consciences of the people as they year by year by year went through Yom Kippur… none.”
Kavi, has the INCLINATION for selfish behavior and for pleasure-seeking been eliminated from your conscience and heart RIGHT NOW TODAY WHILE YOU ARE STILL ALIVE IN YOUR BODY?
“[] What Mitzvot or Teshuva did G-d give Adam/Chava to allow them back into Gan Eden… none.”
The decree was they would not be allowed back in themselves no matter how much teshuva they did. Just like Moses was not allowed to go into the Land of Israel no matter how much teshuva he did.
By the way, I didn’t mean to say there is no word for “to believe” in Tanakh. There certainly is – the verb le’ha’amin (to believe). But the noun “believer” is nowhere to be found in Tanakh, unlike the noun tzadik which is found hundreds of times. One time, in Deut. 1:32 it is used as verb which could also possibly mean the noun “believers” – “Yet in this thing you do not believe (ma’aminim –
plural verb or possibly “you are not believers” ) in the LORD your God.” This is the one and only time in all of Tanakh that we find this form of the verb “to believe”. The word ma’amin which means to believe (singular) and also means “a believer” appears zero times in Tanakh. Tzadik (singular) and tzadikim (plural) appear hundreds of times.
Alan, it take a lot of gall for Kavi to say “Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere” when I have shown him many other passages that describe ancient Biblical teshuva practice. His idea of modern rabbinic teshuva theory exists only in his imagination.
Dina,
Oy. I don’t know how much longer I can keep up the dialogue with Kavi if he can’t even hear one iota of anything we are saying. I’m still hoping that he can hear at least one iota of something.
One thing I would like him to hear is that we are not bringing any Jewish or rabbinic ideas into our discussion of the text of Tanakh (except of course translations of Hebrew words which we both have to trust the Jewish and rabbinic tradition for).
I hear you!
The greatest difficulty for Christians like Kavi is separating their emotional attachment to Jesus and their spiritual experience that they call being filled with the holy spirit. This emotional entanglement makes it close to impossible (yet not impossible) to see clearly and to use reason and common sense.
That’s why, for example, although I provided Biblical-only sources regarding our ancient practice of teshuva, Kavi insists on calling it “modern rabbinic teshuva theory.” It is why, although I showed him a Biblical source to the contrary, he insists that teshuva is not part of the covenant at Sinai.
Although I don’t believe Kavi is intentionally dishonest, it still truly boggles the mind!
Dina,
100% – teshuva IS part of the covenant at Sinai! It’s one of the commandments we received from Moses from Sinai! And how to do it and what it accomplishes is explicit in the text of the 5 Books of Moses (as well as in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures) without needing to bring any Jewish or rabbinic ideas into the discussion.
Alan: People have to do justice (tzedek/tzedakah) and Hashem does tzedek… Hashem does justice with us in that everything He does with us is perfectly fair and out of love and for our good even if we can’t understand how it is good and fair.
Kavi: What then would be the definition of Mishpat? [Jeremiah 9]
_______________________
“Kavi: What then would be the definition of Mishpat? ”
Tzedek is a divine principle whereby everyone and everything in creation gets what they need and keeps what is theirs on all levels of life, the spiritual, emotional and the physical.
Tzedakah is the act of performing tzedek, specifically the bestowing of benefits because it is our fellow creatures’ right and not merely from our own feelings of kiindness.
Mishpat is the implementation of the principle of tzedek through legislation and adjudication and following the legislation. It also refers to Hashem’s judgment as well as that of human judges.
Alan: “And teshuva is an integral part of [a Tzadik’s] life. Proverbs 24:16 – “For seven times a tzadik falls and gets up, and the wicked stumble in evil.”
Kavi: Are you sure “falls” means “sin”? In context, should it not refer to G-d helping the righteous overcome the schemes of the wicked…
Proverbs 24:15-16
“Do not lie in wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous;
Do not destroy his resting place;
For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again,
But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.”
How often does the Hebrew word for “falls” refer to sin?
_______________________
“How often does the Hebrew word for “falls” refer to sin?”
As a general rule, the expression “to stumble in sin” is used consistently in Tanakh and not “to fall into sin” in contrast “to fall” which consistently refers to a person’s situation and wellbeing. However, this “falling” is always a result of sin in Tanakh, for example:
Micah 7:8-9 –
8 Rejoice not against me my enemy; though I am fallen, I shall arise; though I sit in darkness, Hashem is a light to me.
9 I will bear the indignation of Hashem, because I have sinned against Him; until He pleads my cause and executes judgment (mishpat) for me; He will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold His righteousness (His tzedakah).
Even in English, we speak of “falling into sin”, “falling spiritually”. In Tanakh, a person only falls in status and wellbeing as a result of sin. And the Tanakh teaches us that a tzadik can sin but when he does teshuvah he becomes a tzadik again, see Ezekiel 18 (no mention of blood or sacrifices, even though sacrifices help when they are “sacrifices of tzedek” see Psalm 51:12).
Alan: “Kavi, has the INCLINATION for selfish behavior and for pleasure-seeking been eliminated from your conscience and heart…”
Kavi: I never said it did… I was pointing out that Orthodox Yom Kippur performed each year reminds people they did NOT perform the Mitzvot…
…hence, a reminder that they are cursed according to the Law.
“Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” [Deuteronomy 27]
Shouldn’t it give one pause that the annual reminder of Orthodox Yom Kippur testifies the people are cursed because the Mitzvot were not obeyed?
Should G-d’s curse be taken lightly?
_______________________
Kavi,
I’ll try to reply to you tomorrow. But I noticed that you skipped one of my replies. Does this mean you concede that your reading was wrong and the Jewish reading is the correct one? Here is the one you skipped –
““Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
[] Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere.”
You are not reading this verse correctly. Avraham was old and he didn’t believe he could still have biological children. But Hashem told him that it would happen. Avraham believed THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise of Hashem and Hashem counted Avraham’s belief IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise as tzedakah (a just act) even though Avraham didn’t actually DO an action.
“…hence, a reminder that they are cursed according to the Law.”
Shouldn’t it give one pause that the annual reminder of Orthodox Yom Kippur testifies the people are cursed because the Mitzvot were not obeyed?
Should G-d’s curse be taken lightly?”
So, Kavi, you still have an inclination to sin just like me! And you have freewill and Hashem to help you in your battle in turning away from evil and doing good just like me!
Yes, bad things happen to the Jewish people when we don’t uphold the Torah. And good things happen to the Jewish people when we do uphold the Torah. Yom Kippur reminds us of this and the fact that HASHEM HAS FAITH IN US that we CAN DO IT. Hashem is just like a good parent whose children always know that the parent has faith in them and never gives up on them. Yom Kippur is a joy not because it reminds us that we are cursed but because it reminds us that Hashem is a good parent who has FAITH IN US and WHO FORGIVES US and WHO KNOWS WE CAN DO BETTER! He never gives up on us! Oy, how Christianity has slandered the Father to the world!
Alan,
No, I haven’t skipped it… but it’s late in the evening like you said and, since you wrote quite a bit, I plan to get to it tomorrow evening…
_____________________
Kavi,
In Tanakh, there is no way to say “Avraham believed Hashem”. When the Tanakh wants to say “Joe believed Bill” it says “Joe believed IN Bill”. Avraham didn’t think he would ever have biological children, but when Hashem told him that he would, Avraham believed Him – or as it is written in Tanakh – “He believed IN Hashem”. But in this case it means that Avraham believed Hashem. It doesn’t mean that finally Avraham became a believer in Hashem. Avraham was a believer in Hashem a long time before this. So Hashem’s considering this faith an act of tzedakah wasn’t because all of a sudden Avraham became a “believer”, it was merely because Avraham believed that he would have biological children just like Hashem said he would. Whatever it means, Avraham did an act of tzedakah by believing he would have a child with Sarah. It doesn’t mean that Avraham was considered a tzadik because he was a “believer”. As I’ve said many times, tzadik doesn’t mean “believer”; it includes being a believer but ONLY if it leads to a life of tzedek which is the pursuit of divine justice to all of Hashem’s creatures.
I wrote:
“Kavi, in Tanakh there is no way to say ‘Abraham believed Hashem'”, i.e. Tanakh only ever says “to believe IN Hashem”.
I was wrong. I found this in Deut. 9 –
23 And when the Hashem ent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying: ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you’; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the Hashem your God, and YOU BELIVED HIM NOT nor hearkened to His voice.
The Hebrew says “believed him” not “believed IN him”.
As I’ve said several times, I am not a Torah scholar. I am just trying to share what I have learned. If I ever become aware that something I have shared with you was incorrect, I will let you know.
Dina: “Alan, it take a lot of gall for Kavi to say “Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere” when I have shown him many other passages that describe ancient Biblical teshuva practice.”
Kavi: One of those passages I quoted was,
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
As to your passages… you have fundamentally shown me just how extremely far rabbinic eisegesis has gone to support their own modern theory of teshuva…
…to which I again respond,
[] How many levels of rabbinic teshuva did Moses prescribe in his writings?
[] In Exodus, at Mt. Sinai, where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern rabbinic teshuva theory?
[] Isn’t rabbinic teshuva at its fundamental ‘uncircumcised’ heart, not much different than the Egyptians (Ma’at) and many other nations who believe their “good deeds” can outweigh their “bad deeds” on Judgment Day?
[] Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?
___________________________
Hi Kavi, I am responding to your comment here: https://judaismresources.net/2017/07/06/forgive-them-father-by-jim/#comment-38306
You quoted from Isaiah 12 about God being our salvation. I don’t see the connection between this verse and teshuva, which is what is under discussion. I also do not see salvation being used to mean that God is saving us from our sins. Please find me one instance in all of Tanach where it is clear that salvation is used in the context of God saving us from our sins. Just one, Kavi. If that is the primary meaning of the word, it shouldn’t be too hard.
You also stated that “As to your passages… you have fundamentally shown me just how extremely far rabbinic eisegesis has gone to support their own modern theory of teshuva.”
This is merely assertion on your part, which you do not substantiate. For the sake of clarity, I suggest that you define “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” and show how it differs from ancient Biblical teshuva practice as described in Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33, and 1 Kings 8:46-52.
I will now tackle your questions one at a time:
How many levels of rabbinic teshuva did Moses prescribe in his writings?
Why do you need a number of levels and is there a Biblical basis for this line of questioning? What is the definition of rabbinic teshuva? Moses taught about teshuva as we understand it; please see Deuteronomy 30. Also, why are the words of Solomon (1 Kings 8:46-52) and Ezekiel (18 and 33) irrelevant?
In Exodus, at Mt. Sinai, where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern rabbinic teshuva theory?
When at Mount Sinai did God make a covenant in blood confirming anything? You repeated the above question although I have already asked you this. Furthermore, I pointed out, in an earlier response to this question, that Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 30 are part of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Tell me, are the Jewish dietary laws part of the covenant? Why or why not? How do you make this determination?
Isn’t rabbinic teshuva at its fundamental ‘uncircumcised’ heart, not much different than the Egyptians (Ma’at) and many other nations who believe their “good deeds” can outweigh their “bad deeds” on Judgment Day?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. How about you stop making things up about the rabbis and let’s just look at what God says in the Torah?
Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?
Where do you see God demanding sacrifices from Adam and Chava? Why is this story even relevant to our discussion? They are not part of the covenant between God and Israel.
Kavi: “Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
“Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
[] Where are the 613 Mitzvot or Teshuva in these passages… nowhere.”
Alan: You are not reading this verse correctly. Avraham was old and he didn’t believe he could still have biological children. But Hashem told him that it would happen. Avraham believed THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise of Hashem and Hashem counted Avraham’s belief IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR promise as tzedakah (a just act) even though Avraham didn’t actually DO an action.
Kavi: Abram’s own father Terah didn’t begin having children until the age of 70…
…and, the fact that Abram himself was capable of siring children is evident by the testimony of Sarai… and that it didn’t take Abram very long afterward to foolishly sire with Hagar the child Ishmael… [Genesis 16]
_________________________
Alan, you stated plainly that “Tzedakah” is “the performance of benevolence as a duty.”
In Abram, this definition does not seem to be supportable.
_________________________
Kavi,
Avram (he wasn’t Avraham yet) had been living in the land of Israel for 10 years and Sara was barren. Avram had no other wives and didn’t intend to marry another woman. I was incorrect in stating that it had to do with Avram’s age. The problem was that his only wife Sara was barren after 10 years of being married and she was old. Do you see what I mean?
What do you mean by “this definition” does not seem to be supportable? Don’t you know that Avraham’s whole purpose in life was to do acts of kindness for people and to teach them about Hashem?
Alan: “ The problem was that his only wife Sara was barren after 10 years of being married and she was old. Do you see what I mean?”
Kavi: Okay, yes, I understand.
However, to say that Genesis 15:6 represents “Tzedakah” as “the performance of benevolence as a duty” is not supportable.
There can be found no Mitzvah, no “deed”, nor “benevolence as a duty”.
_________________________
“Alan: “ The problem was that his only wife Sara was barren after 10 years of being married and she was old. Do you see what I mean?”
Kavi: Okay, yes, I understand.
So you concede the Jewish reading of this verse – that Avraham finally became a believer, but rather that he believed in this almost unbelievable promise from Hashem.
“However, to say that Genesis 15:6 represents “Tzedakah” as “the performance of benevolence as a duty” is not supportable.
There can be found no Mitzvah, no “deed”, nor “benevolence as a duty”.”
No mitzvah? What is this? –
Genesis 18 –
19 For I have known him, to the end that he may COMMAND his children and his household after him, that they may KEEP THE WAY OF HASHEM, TO DO TZEDAKAH and MISHPAT; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.’
In this verse, Hashem testifies about Avraham that Avraham figured out THE WAY OF HASHEM 400 years before the Torah was given. Avraham figured out the principle of tzedakah – that we aren’t kind because we feel like being kind – but even when we don’t feel like it, our fellow creatures have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to SHARE OUR RESOURCES. This verse testifies that Avraham figured it out and he is giving it to his descendants as a COMMAND. Do you see what I’m saying?
Alan: “So you concede the Jewish reading of this verse – that Avraham finally became a believer, but rather that he believed in this almost unbelievable promise from Hashem.”
Kavi: I understand what you meant…but that doesn’t mean it is true.
For in Genesis 16, Sarai in no way indicates she is past child-bearing age… only that G-d has prevented her from giving birth.
Not until she is much older does Scripture explicitly state Sarah could not have children [Genesis 18]
_________________________
…in fact, both Abraham and Sarah scoffed at G-d’s notion that they could have a child when they both were impotent.
…Abraham laughed at God’s Word in Genesis 17 and Sarah laughed in Genesis 18.
…where is Abraham’s “faith”?
…just perhaps we need to rethink what G-d meant by oddly bringing up the subject of “seed” instead of “son”? [Genesis 12 and 13]
…where did we hear G-d pronounce that word “seed” before in context of being something truly important– a magnitude on the order of earth shaking? [Genesis 3]
_________________________
Kavi,
Avraham had faith in Hashem’s promise in ch. 15 because he didn’t know that Hashem was talking about Sara being the mother. I was wrong when I said that the prophecy in ch. 15 has to do with Sara, because it didn’t. When Sara gave Avraham Hagar as a wife, Avraham thought the child from Hagar would be the fulfillment of the prophecy in ch. 15. But in ch. 17 when Avraham laughed, Hashem told him the mother of his heir would be Sara. This was harder for Avraham to believe.
Also, the word “seed” has nothing to do with our discussion of 15:6. Besides, “seed” appears 4 times in ch. 15; once in 16 and 7 times in 17.
So you concede that Avraham believed Hashem’s promise in 15:6 and that tzedakah is an act of “mitzvah-kindess” and that Hashem counted Avraham’s faith in the promise as an act of “mitzvah-kindness”?
I don’t think Abraham laughed in disbelief. In was out of joy that he laughed. If not, G-d would have reprimand him with Sarah. Abraham believed in the promised, whatever way it would happened. He still believed in the promised when he was about to sacrifice Isaac, so he definitively did not laugh in unbelief.
RT,
What you are saying is the rabbinic explanation. And it makes sense as you have shown. Because I am having a discussion with Kavi and we are not allowed to quote rabbinic ideas, I went along with his understanding which is a valid understanding according to the simple meaning of the words, although it does raise the question of why Hashem didn’t rebuke Avraham.
In chapter 15 Avraham didn’t laugh but in chapter 17 he did laugh. What is the difference? The only difference I can see from a simple reading of the text is that it had to do with Sara – in 15, Sara’s name wasn’t mentioned but in 17 it was.
But all of this is a distraction from what I’m trying to discuss with Kavi which is that Avraham’s believing Hashem in chapter 15 did not suffice to turn him into a tzadik, not even according to Tanakh’s definition of tzadik. Kavi wants to say three things that are mistaken-
1. Avraham’s believing in the prophecy turned him into a tzadik.
2. A tzadik is someone who is right and innocent in Hashem’s eyes.
3. The word tzedakah in chapter 15 means that Avraham became a tzadik.
These things are all wrong because they’re based on the fallacy that the word tzedakah means innocence and blamelessness in God’s eyes as well as the fallacy that belief alone can make one a tzadik.
In the meantime, he also fails to prove that what he calls modern rabbinic teshuva theory is not ancient Biblical teshuva practice, that teshuva is not part of the covenant, that the covenant was sealed in blood at Sinai, that salvation in the Hebrew Bible means being saved from your sins, and I don’t remember what other foolishness.
Yes Alan, I understand. Kavi, did Abraham believe G-d before Chapter 15? The answer is yes, without a doubt. He went all the way to the promise land as a foreigner. So really, you whole fluffy theory does not make sense.
Look at chapter 15:
Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring[d] be.”
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
It’s obvious that Abraham believed what G-d said, he did not have a sudden revelation that G-d is real. That’s why I don’t comment anymore, when the obvious is there, you only find excuses to change subject or divert to something else. It’s quite useless to talk to you, as you really don’t want to have a conversation!
RT,
“So really, you whole fluffy theory does not make sense.”
It’s Paul’s “theory”. Kavi got it from Paul molesting God’s Torah.
RT,
I would love to discuss the following verses from Psalm 106 with Paul and Kavi –
28 They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.
29 Thus they provoked Him with their doings, and the plague broke in upon them.
30 Then stood up Phinehas, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.
31 AND THAT WAS COUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS (TZEDAKAH), unto all generations for ever.
See Numbers ch. 25 to see what happened with Baal Peor and what Pinchas.
By making the Torah your plaything like Paul did, we can say that a person is ONLY justified with God if he kills people who are involved in illicit relations. What do you think RT?
Sure, we may also conclude that it was a foreshadow of Jesus sacrifice… I mean, that man involved in that relationship was “sacrifice” to appease G-d’s wrath. Would I be a good Paul, or not?
RT,
I don’t think even Paul would try to sell that one RT. 🙂
Kavi, how could Phinehas be accounted righteous if the only way to be righteous is to believe in Jesus? Kavi, you claim that man must believe in Jesus to be accounted righteous. You claim that there is no exception and that G-d won’t regard anybody righteous for his own merit. To defeat that argument, we only need ONE example in the Tanakh that shows that G-d accounted someone righteous for his own merit. Alan show you the example.
Alan, it’s a fulfilled prophecy, you only have to believe! If a rock in the wilderness is a foreshadow of Jesus, then this must be the proof we needed! Kavi, are you with me?
“You claim that there is no exception and that G-d won’t regard anybody righteous for his own merit. To defeat that argument, we only need ONE example in the Tanakh that shows that G-d accounted someone righteous for his own merit. ”
RT, excellent excellent!!!!
And remember, this is only according to Paul’s reading that “tzedakah” means one is a tzadik
and that tzadik means one is innocent of sin. Both of these things are Paul’s own fabrications nowhere to be found in Tanakh.
Yes, and did you realize that each time someone arrives with a good argument, Kavi suddenly disappears and comes back a few days later and totally ignores what we were saying. Then he said something along the line “Yeshua HaMashiach, is my redeemer and the lamb of G-d and you are too blind to see it”, or such other general statement, and that has been going on, and he has been allowed to ignore all reasonable objection to his savior that we come up with and he is allow to keep on saying his general statement without giving any proofs or substantial evidence for his fluffy claims.
Alan: Yom Kippur reminds us of this and the fact that HASHEM HAS FAITH IN US that we CAN DO IT.
Kavi: Adam/Chava did not find these words to be true.
Instead, G-d cursed Adam/Chava the day they sinned and G-d gave no recourse in themselves to save themselves…
Adam/Chava were cursed for ONE SIN (1)… and now that you have SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN (613), how can you now somehow avoid being cursed?
The L-RD G-D Almighty did not change or diminish His standards of holiness to suit the desires of mankind,
“Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” [Deuteronomy 27]
__________________
Kavi,
There is only one way to avoid being cursed and that is in Psalm 106:
30 Then stood up Phinehas, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.
31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness, unto all generations for ever.
Avrham’s belief was only counted as righteousness temporarily but Pinhas’s righteous was “for all generation forever and ever”!
Kavi,
You must be like Pinhas to be eternally righteous.
Alan, I don’t think Kavi actually killed anyone, so that’s a bit of a problem for him ;).
Dina,
🙂
RT brilliantly pointed out that this verse demolishes Paul’s doctrine that only belief can make one righteous (of course, only if you read this verse the same incorrect way as Paul read his verse).
Alan: “Yes, faith is a necessary part of serving Hashem and of being a tzadik.”
and
Alan: “A tzadik by his faith will live” because he realizes that the foundation of having EMUNAH (faith) is what gives him the strength to serve God, to do His commandments and not to be a rasha (a lawless person).”
Kavi:
[a] The Law condemns all mankind as “rasha” [Deuteronomy 27 and Jeremiah 11 and Psalm 53]
…G-d’s dealings with Adam/Chava and their sin testify to the fact that WE are sinful and G-d is not.
[b] The true basis of Orthodox “faith” is not Habakkuk 2, but rather found in the condemnation of the Law,
“Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the L-RD.” [Leviticus 18]
“‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.'”
Therefore, only the proud [unrighteous] believe their merits of Mitzvot can tip the scales of judgment in their favor to the point where G-d proclaims them righteous.
“Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the Tzaddik will live by his faith.” [Habbakuk 2]
“Living by the Law” reveals a proud, “puffed up”, uncircumcised heart
whereas,
“Living by Faith” in G-d’s redemption through The Promised Redeemer reveals a humble circumcised heart.
_______________________
Why I Will No Longer Talk to Kavi
I am disengaging from dialogue with Kavi because there is no point in talking to liars.
Why? Because if you make an assertion based on the Bible, they will counter with another assertion “based” on the Bible, and provide bogus citations, hoping you won’t look them up. It’s a waste of time.
In his latest post to Alan, Kavi wrote the following outrageous lie: ” The Law condemns all mankind as “rasha” [Deuteronomy 27 and Jeremiah 11 and Psalm 53].”
The word rasha appears nowhere in all three cited chapters; neither does the teaching that the law condemns all mankind as wicked. Psalm 53 is particularly egregious because it opens with the statement, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.” Kavi conveniently ignores the context of “the fool says in his heart.” By his twisted logic, if we pretend the first part of the verse doesn’t exist, then the Bible is saying “There is no God.”
There are many other reasons to seriously doubt Kavi’s honesty. When Alan pointed out the clear definition of tzadik in Tanach, Kavi successfully distracted Alan with a new topic (the definition of tzedakah and the story of Adam and Chava, who preceded the people of Israel by millennia and who are not part of the covenant).
Kavi failed to define what he calls “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” and failed to show how it differs from actual ancient Biblical teshuva practice as I showed him through Biblical citations that are clearly irrefutable.
Kavi fabricated the notion that the covenant was sealed in blood at Sinai.
Kavi lied by claiming that teshuva (as described in Deuteronomy 30) is not part of the covenant between God and the Jewish people.
But what really turns me off from dialogue with Kavi is Kavi’s slander of the God of Israel, a God who chastises us as a father chastises his son (Deuteronomy 8:5, Psalm 3:12), a God Who is a compassionate God, tolerant, full of loving kindness and truth (Exodus 34:6).
In Kavi’s conception, God is cruel and ruthless, demanding a perfect obedience to the law that is impossible and therefore we are all condemned. God is not a loving father but a merciless tyrant. (Christians invented Jesus to save everyone from this imaginary God.)
Kavi’s one-sided reading of the Bible, a contrived reading to support his preconceived beliefs, is twisted, warped, and intellectually dishonest.
Dina: “Psalm 53 is particularly egregious because it opens with the statement, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”
Kavi: Indeed, the fool believes there is no G-d who sees his sin… the fool acts as if all his wicked deeds are hidden from G-d.
“The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.” [Psalm 10]
_______________________
…further, you quote only a part of Psalm 53 and not the whole,
“God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
to see whether there is a man of understanding, who seeks God.
They are all dross;
together they have spoiled;
no one does good, not even one.” [Psalm 53]
Alan once said, “A tzadik is the opposite of a rasha (a lawless person)”
…yet, all mankind is evil. [Psalm 53]
…yet, all mankind is lawless. [Deuteronomy 27 & Jeremiah 11]
______________________
Kavi,
So you think King David teaches in psalm 53 that human beings are incapable of doing good?
“…yet, all mankind is lawless. [Deuteronomy 27 & Jeremiah 11]”
Please show us the verses in Deut. 27 and Jeremiah 27 that say “yet, all mankind is lawless”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
As I said before, the only way to be eternally righteous is to do what Pinhas did, but you are ignoring an open verse in Tanakh. Why are you ignoring this?
Alan, this is the second time he repeated his lie about Deuteronomy 27 and Jeremiah 11. It’s appalling.
Dina,
It is appalling. He is not engaging with me or with you or with RT. I think he’s giving us the message that he is finished on this blog.
Alan: So you think King David teaches in psalm 53 that human beings are incapable of doing good?
Kavi: In Psalm 53, G-d plainly states the condition of mankind…
…the real question is whether you will accept G-d’s judgment and ask, “Yes, Almighty G-d, I have sinned and the Law cannot save me… how then may I be made righteous so that I may do good?”
______________________________
Alan: “As I said before, the only way to be eternally righteous is to do what Pinhas did…”
Kavi:
[a] …sounds kind of like the “scorched earth” approach to the Day of Judgment doesn’t it?
For, if true as you purport, then certainly no adherence to any 613 Mitzvot are going to save you or anyone else from condemnation… and neither is any faith in G-d… and why waste time judging the remnant in Ezekiel 20? etc, etc, etc
…Alan, this stuff you make up is just more mishmash that makes no sense.
Facts are,
[] G-d reckoned this deed as a Tzedakah which led to covenant of peace establishing a “perpetual” priesthood.
[] The deed and G-d’s reckoning of the deed as a Tzedakah was written down in Tanakh as a testimony to future generations…
[b] As to “forever”, how does G-d testify of a new future priesthood?
“The L-RD says to my L-rd:
‘Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’
AND
“The L-RD has sworn and will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.'” [Psalm 110]
This new High Priest is,
…NOT a priest not according to the order of Aaron
…NOT a priesthood in the line of Phinehas.
________________________
Alan: “…yet, all mankind is lawless. [Deuteronomy 27 & Jeremiah 11]”
Please show us the verses in Deut. 27 and Jeremiah 27 that say “yet, all mankind is lawless”. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Kavi: …so, disobeying the Law of Moses makes one “law-abiding”?
Adam/Chava would disagree…
Adam/Chava became lawless for one sin… how then will you claim righteousness by failing to abide by 613 Mitzvot?
So, how do you judge yourself, Alan– are you Tzadik according to the Law?
…Remember, in answering, Yom Kippur is not too far away from today.
______________________________
“Kavi: In Psalm 53, G-d plainly states the condition of mankind…
…the real question is whether you will accept G-d’s judgment and ask, “Yes, Almighty G-d, I have sinned and the Law cannot save me… how then may I be made righteous so that I may do good?”
Kavi,
In Tanakh, we find God telling us to be good –
Deut. 6 –
18 And you SHALL DO that which is RIGHT AND GOOD in the sight of Hashem; that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which Hashem swore to your fathers.
Why would God command the Jews who came out of Egypt to DO GOOD if they were incapable of doing it? God tells us in Tanakh that He is a compassionate father, not a pychopath.
Do you know how many examples of good people there are in Tanakh, Kavi? Many many many. Here are just 3 – the first is a convert, the second a non-Jewish African, and the third a Davidic king of Yehuda –
Ruth 2 –
10 Then she fell on her face, and bowed down to the ground, and said unto him: ‘Why have I found favour in thy sight, that thou shouldest take cognizance of me, seeing I am a foreigner?’ 11 And Boaz answered and said unto her: ‘It hath fully been told me, ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW SINCE THE DEATH OF YOUR HUSBAND; AND HOW YOU HAVE LEFT YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER, AND YOUR THE LAND OF YOUR BIRTH, AND HAVE COME TO A PEOPLE THAT YOU KNEW NOT BEFORE. 12 HASHEM WILL PAY BACK YOUR
W-O-R-K AND YOUR REWARD WILL BE COMPLETE FROM HASHEM, the God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to take refuge.’
Jeremiah 39 –
15 Now the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, while he was shut up in the court of the guard, saying:
16 ‘Go, and speak to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring My words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished before thee in that day.
17 But I will deliver thee in that day, saith the LORD; and thou shalt not be given into the hand of the men of whom thou art afraid.
18 For I will surely deliver thee, and thou shalt not fall by the sword, but thy life shall be for a prey unto thee; BECAUSE YOU HAVE PUT YOUR TRUST IN ME, saith the LORD.’ (HE TRUSTED HASHEM AND SAVED Jeremiah’s life in ch. 38 – HE DIDN’T JUST BECOME A BELIEVER, BUT RISKED HIS OWN LIFE TO SAVE A HELPLESS INNOCENT MAN’S LIFE.)
RUTH AND EVED-MELECH BOTH DID A LOT OF GOOD WITHOUT BELIEVING IN ANY KIND OF MESSIAH OR SACRIFICE, KAVI.
Jeremiah 22 –
15 Shalt thou (Shalum the son of King Yoshiyahu king of Yehuda) reign, because thou strivest to excel in cedar? Did not thy father eat and drink, and DO MISHPAT AND TZEDAKAH? Then it was GOOD with him.
16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was GOOD. ISN’T THIS WHAT IT MEANS TO KNOW ME?, SAYS HASHEM.
The cruel doctrine that people are incapable of good until they first become pure/holy/innocent has been completely demolished.
“Facts are,
[] G-d reckoned this deed as a Tzedakah which led to covenant of peace establishing a “perpetual” priesthood.”
Avraham-
6 And he believed Hashem; and He counted it to him for righteousness (tzaedakah).
Pinhas –
31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness (tzedakah), unto all generations forever.
Kavi, why with Avraham do you translate the word tzedakah one way (sinlessness) and with Pinhas you translate it differently to mean an “act of tzedakah”?
Remember it doesn’t say that Pinhas DID TZEDAKAH, it only says that Hashem CONSIDERED IT AS tzedakah. And remember that tzedakah is benevolence as a duty, and Pinhas didn’t halakhically do such an act of tzedakah by killing the sinners.
Why do you translate the same phrases differently in these two verses? This is dishonest.
Alan: “…yet, all mankind is lawless. [Deuteronomy 27 & Jeremiah 11]”
Kavi: …so, disobeying the Law of Moses makes one “law-abiding”?
Kavi is sticking by his guns and not admitting that he took the liberty of saying that Deut. and Jeremiah state that “all mankind is lawless”.
“Adam/Chava became lawless for one sin… how then will you claim righteousness by failing to abide by 613 Mitzvot?”
They became lawless for one sin, but after they accepted their punishment they didn’t continue to rebel against Hashem. Hashem didn’t destroy them. Hashem still had faith in them and let them have and raise a another child Seth.
“So, how do you judge yourself, Alan– are you Tzadik according to the Law?
…Remember, in answering, Yom Kippur is not too far away from today.”
Before I try to answer this question, I need to know what definition of tzadik you’re using? If your definition of tzadik is “one who is sinless”, then I am not a tzadik. But this is not Tanakh’s definition of tzadik – this is Paul’s definition and remember you and I are only sticking to the text of Tanakh – no explanations from rabbis or from Paul. So please tell me what definition of tzadik do you want to use for your question?
Alan, why do you accept Kavi’s description of Adam and Chava as lawless? Where in Genesis are they described as lawless? They are described neither as righteous, nor wicked, nor lawless.
“Alan, why do you accept Kavi’s description of Adam and Chava as lawless? Where in Genesis are they described as lawless? They are described neither as righteous, nor wicked, nor lawless.”
Dina,
You are right they are not described as any of these things. At the moment they sinned they disregarded the law, so vis-a-vis that one law they were lawless. But we see that they accepted their punishment and they rebelled no more. And Hashem was very kind to them after their sin – He made them clothing (3:21) and gave them a livelihood and a way to support themselves (33:23). So they were only lawless from the time they sinned until they did teshuva. And we know they did teshuva because we don’t see them rebelling again, Hashem has compassion on them and Eve names her son Seth while mentioning God’s name: “25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and she called his name Seth: ‘for God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.'”
Kavi: …so, disobeying the Law of Moses makes one “law-abiding”?
RT: So believing in a dead man makes you? It doesn’t!
If all you need to be righteous is to believe, then Adam and Eve were both righteous, because they both saw G-d and believed he was real!
Eve gave birth to a son and named him Seth, because “God granted me another offspring”
Dina “Why I Will No Longer Talk to Kavi…”
I think I will follow the same way. I am fed up of his Bible Twisting and his unwillingness to listen. It is not the first time that KAVI ruins blog. Look at this comment from JIM D. from this Jewish blog: https://dailyminyan.com/2015/07/14/if-you-believe-in-jesus-you-believe-in-replacement-theology/
“Jim D. permalink
August 16, 2015 4:42 pm
Gene,
Since Kavi began to comment here in April, the blog became more and more dominated by fruitless discussions with him. It has become “Kavi’s Blog”.
I used to see contributors like Sara, CR, Keith, Jeramiahgiehl, Prosistency and others post comments in the past, but they have dropped out of the discussions. I find that trend more than coincidental. Discussions with Kavi are circular, endless and, after the first few, have become pointless. Now with Yehuda dropping away, out of understandable frustration, we are down to just three of us. I think the blog has become a bore to onlookers, many of whom may not even follow it with any interest at this point.
This is just my personal opinion, and it’s your blog. That being said, it’s my opinion that Kavi be limited to at most one post per week, or blocked entirely.”
It may just be his goal to get people tire instead of having useful conversations. I do not like to ban people, but he has been unwilling to see anybody else comments since 2016, and probably even before. I have seen many messianic, and some will really want to see what we believe. This is just not the case for KAVI.
See also Yehuda’s response to Kavi that fits what we are saying:
“P.S. I know Kavi will completely ignore this post”
He has been a plague since then and is always been unwilling to listen to anybody. Seriously, we are just wasting our time!
Thanks, RT! I didn’t know about this.
I’ve made about 3 replies to Kavi today. If I get the same of kind of response that I usually get, I will also stop all discussion with him.
Kavi: “So, how do you judge yourself, Alan– are you Tzadik according to the Law?
Alan: “Before I try to answer this question, I need to know what definition of tzadik you’re using?”
Kavi: As long as it’s clear, please use any definition you feel comfortable with.
__________________________
“Alan: Before I try to answer this question, I need to know what definition of tzadik you’re using?
Kavi: As long as it’s clear, please use any definition you feel comfortable with.”
For the sake of this discussion, I’m comfortable using the anti-Tanakh Christian definition of tzadik, i.e. innocent and sinless before God. So, no, I am not your kind of tzadik.
Alan: “Why would God command the Jews who came out of Egypt to DO GOOD if they were incapable of doing it?”
Kavi: The testimony of The Messiah Redeemer has been announced by G-d since the days of Adam/Chava. [Genesis 3]
And the Word of Faith in Messiah Redeemer was available to all the congregation to circumcise their hearts [Deuteronomy 30]
…Israel could have chosen the Way of Faith– but, as a whole, they did not. [Deuteronomy 31]
__________________________
Alan: “RUTH AND EVED-MELECH BOTH DID A LOT OF GOOD WITHOUT BELIEVING IN ANY KIND OF MESSIAH OR SACRIFICE, KAVI.”
Kavi: Anyone can make statements like these that deny expectation and belief in Messiah– but proof? You would have much difficulty proving such…
Facts are that expectations of Messiah Redeemer stem from the most ancient of days… Messiah Redeemer is the fundamental theme of all Tanakh.
Whereas we find Job speak openly of The Redeemer… others did not.
“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. [Job 19]
__________________________
“Alan: “RUTH AND EVED-MELECH BOTH DID A LOT OF GOOD WITHOUT BELIEVING IN ANY KIND OF MESSIAH OR SACRIFICE, KAVI.”
Kavi: Anyone can make statements like these that deny expectation and belief in Messiah– but proof? You would have much difficulty proving such…”
So you’re saying that Ruth the Moabite and Eved-Melech the African both believed in Jesus or else in the future messiah’s atoning death and that’s why they were able to do something good?
Alan: “Kavi, why with Avraham do you translate the word tzedakah one way (sinlessness) and with Pinhas you translate it differently to mean an “act of tzedakah”?”
Kavi: Perhaps I misunderstand you, but in review of my writings, I did not find any such connection…
As to Abram, I previously wrote,
…Apart from the Mitzvot,
“Trust” in G-d and His Promised Redeemer
makes a person righteous
AND
that “Trust” is reckoned by G-d as a “deed of faith” [Tzedakah].
________________________________
“that “Trust” is reckoned by G-d as a ‘deed of faith’ [Tzedakah].”
“deed of faith” – now that’s a novel definition of tzedakah.
I wonder what it means for God to do “a deed of faith” –
Jeremiah 9 –
23 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me, that I am Hashem who DOES kindness, mishpat and tzedakah in the earth; for in these things I desire says Hashem.”
Dina,
From what I read, you do not plan to respond… which doesn’t bother me, but for the sake of others who may view this blog, let’s take a look at your supposed “answers”…
___________________
Kavi: How many levels of rabbinic teshuva did Moses prescribe in his writings?
Dina: “Why do you need a number of levels and is there a Biblical basis for this line of questioning? What is the definition of rabbinic teshuva? Moses taught about teshuva as we understand it; please see Deuteronomy 30. Also, why are the words of Solomon (1 Kings 8:46-52) and Ezekiel (18 and 33) irrelevant?”
Kavi: Well, that’s a lot of “why’s” without actually answering my question… and I’ve read all those Chapters plenty of times and still do not find any modern rabbinic teshuva levels described anywhere.
So, the question is plain enough– How many levels of modern rabbinic teshuva did Moses prescribe in his writings?
And, just as plain– How many levels of modern rabbinic teshuva did Ezekiel or Solomon prescribe in their writings?
___________________
Kavi: “In Exodus, at Mt. Sinai, where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern rabbinic teshuva theory?”
Dina: “When at Mount Sinai did God make a covenant in blood confirming anything? You repeated the above question although I have already asked you this. Furthermore, I pointed out, in an earlier response to this question, that Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 30 are part of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Tell me, are the Jewish dietary laws part of the covenant? Why or why not? How do you make this determination?
Kavi: You had no response to when I pointed out the blood covenant in Exodus 24… and plainly, the words received by Moses on Mt. Sinai were written down at Mt. Sinai– and neither the words nor writings at Mt. Sinai said anything about modern rabbinic teshuva.
___________________
Kavi: “Isn’t rabbinic teshuva at its fundamental ‘uncircumcised’ heart, not much different than the Egyptians (Ma’at) and many other nations who believe their “good deeds” can outweigh their “bad deeds” on Judgment Day?”
Dina: “I have no idea what you’re talking about. How about you stop making things up about the rabbis and let’s just look at what God says in the Torah?”
Kavi: Making things up? In what way?
On the contrary, the Orthodox have idolized a modern theory of rabbinic teshuva that substitutes G-d’s Word for the words of mere men whose false teachings were prophesied to stand condemned in the eyes of G-d [Isaiah 28 & 29]
Shouldn’t it give one pause that the Prophets do not have a lot of complementary words for the “guides” of Israel who lead the people astray?
___________________
Kavi: “Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?”
Dina: “Where do you see God demanding sacrifices from Adam and Chava? Why is this story even relevant to our discussion? They are not part of the covenant between God and Israel.”
Kavi: My question is not difficult to understand… and you have not made any attempt to answer it.
___________________
Alan: “[Adam/Chava] became lawless for one sin, but after they accepted their punishment they didn’t continue to rebel against Hashem. Hashem didn’t destroy them…
…So they were only lawless from the time they sinned until they did teshuva.”
Kavi: Bringing in the notion of “teshuva” represents a lot of eisegesis, but I will put that aside for the moment.
The L-RD G-D Almighty is Perfectly HOLY and made it crystal clear to mankind that,
[] Every sin is rebellion against G-d [Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 27]
[] Sin separated us from G-d [Genesis 2 & 3 and Isaiah 59]
After sinning, Adam/Chava ceased from their “state of righteousness” and fell into a “state of lawlessness”.
“You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore G-d, your G-d, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” [Psalm 45]
…as such, there was, and is, and never will be, an “in between” state of being… one is either righteous or lawless.
…Is G-d unjust in condemning Adam/Chava for one sin?
…Is there ANY shade of darkness in G-d?
“Come, descendants of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the L-RD. [Isaiah 2]
______________________________
Fundamentally, Orthodox theologians cannot accept a G-d who demands full, complete holiness from mankind at the Judgment Day…
…as such, they essentially adopted the ways of the gods of Egypt and the gods of many other faiths who believe the fate of a person’s afterlife will be decided upon whether their “good” deeds outweigh their “bad” deeds.
However, G-d of the Scripture made it clear He is not like those other gods… HE IS HOLY…
AND, G-d gave mankind hope for their eternal souls to be made by Him– holy like Him…
G-d, without violating any of His characteristics, made a gracious way to judicially make mankind’s eternal soul righteous.
This re-birthed “state of being” of the soul is exactly what L-RD Yeshua graciously did on behalf of mankind when He fulfilled eternal Yom Kippur.
…The L-RD Yeshua freely yielded Himself up to die… so very much like a parent who does the same for their children…
______________________________
BTW> I can already hear mankind’s protests and appeals to their own concept of “fairness” vs the Ways of G-d…
…. for which I am reminded,
“Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?” [Job 40]
______________________________
______________________________
Alan “But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me, that I am Hashem who DOES kindness, mishpat and tzedakah in the earth; for in these things I desire says Hashem.”
Yes, but don’t forget that Kavi believes (without proof or any Biblical basis) that Jesus is the L-RD, and he translates it as “But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me (JESUS), that I (JESUS) am Hashem who DOES kindness, mishpat and tzedakah in the earth; for in these things I desire says Hashem (god the father)””
RT,
The verse says “Hashem (the Father) does tzedakah”. The Father can’t do a deed for people out of faith in the Father.
Any verse with HaShem, Kavi can decide it’s the Father, the son, the HS, the three of them. That’s how he twists the scriptures. That’s how he can ignore all the warnings to worship foreign gods… For example, he renders this verse like that:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant (Jesus) whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me (Jesus), and understand that I am he (Hashem): before me (Jesus) there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I (Jesus), even I, am the Lord (HaShem); and beside me (Jesus) there is no saviour.
tada… trinity 101 🙂
RT,
So Kavi has to say that Hashem in this verse is Jesus who does deeds for people out of his faith in the Father?But when this verse was said, Jesus wasn’t even a man yet, so how could he have faith in the Father? Faith only applies when there is a lack of knowledge. If Jesus knows the Father (especially before he became a man) then there is no room for faith.
Yes, but Kavi will claim that all the “believers” in the OLD testament understood in the future messiah/man god, who is also referred to in this verse…
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant (the future man-god messiah who is also me) whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me (the incarnation of myself), and understand that I am he (Hashem): before me (Virgin birth, hello!) there was no God formed (the future messiah from from the HS), neither shall there be after me (Joseph smith, your not the one!). I, the future man/god messiah, even I, am the Lord (HaShem); and beside me (the incarnated god) there is no saviour.
“But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me (the future G-d that incarnated himself in the flesh), that I (the messiah-lamb of god-EMANUEL!) am Hashem who DOES kindness, mishpat and tzedakah in the earth; for in these things I desire says Hashem (god the father)””
And of course, DAVID understood those verses just like KAVI understand them, and all people that had faith in the future messiah understood them properly! It’s you and me, Alan, who cannot understand them.
P.S. I have special understanding, as I once understood the truth, but followed Satan and rebelled against baby Jesus 😉
RT, that is breathtaking. I especially enjoyed your postscript.
RT,
I get it. But…if tzedakah means “a deed of faith in God”, how can anyone from the trinity do a deed of faith in God? I’m trying to show the absurdity of Kavi’s brand new definition of tzedakah.
I agree with k-vi on this one Alan! Jesus had faith in god the father, because the father is not The SON and the SON is not the father, but he is still ECHAD, because if not Moses would have used the word Yachid! I am right, and will never change my mind and go in useless debates. Adam understood it too, he had faith in the Showbread/turtledove of god. remember Genesis 1:26, US, yes, US, Adam understood and put his trust in the redeemer sacrifice, the scapegoat of god, the bright and morning star, He understood that G-d was three in one but distinct! Distinct, As Elo”HIM”, and that god would provide and incarnate himself as the Kinsman redeemer and that GENESIS 3 represented that Faith in Jesus, that Jesus will have faith in g-d/part of himself (in essence only). Keep on with your rabbinical interpretation of the Bible, I will keep up with the true interpretation, the one revealed by the third and elusive part of elo”HIM”!
Ok, RT. I can’t argue with “divine” perspiration.
As you acknowledge that I hold the truth and there is no way I can be wrong, are you ready to pray and accept Jesus in your heart? It only takes two second and you would be one of US! Mouahahah!
RT, you are hilarious.
Alan, faith in the Christian sense is to fill in a lack of knowledge. Emunah is based on what you see. Therefore, Hashem said:
“And the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud, in order that the people hear when I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever.” And Moses relayed the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:9).
The word believe in this verse has the same root as the word for faith.
Unlike the NT’s exhortation that blessed are those who believe without seeing, the Torah teaches that seeing is believing.
Deuteronomy 4:35 also comes to mind.
Dina,
The way I understand it is that “seeing is knowing” and the knowing leads to believing even when there is no knowing. The people knew that Moses was a reliable prophet because every person both saw and heard God speaking to Moses. The whole nation witnessed the same thing, that Moses was a reliable prophet. So going forward (from Mt. Sinai) they would be able to always believe any instructions Moses would relay to them from Hashem even though they themselves had no direct knowledge of Hashem’s discussions with Moses.
Alan: “that “Trust” is reckoned by G-d as a ‘deed of faith’ [Tzedakah].”
“deed of faith” – now that’s a novel definition of tzedakah.
I wonder what it means for God to do “a deed of faith” –
Kavi: You shouldn’t wonder too much…for Neither Scripture nor I ever said G-d did Tzedakah in Genesis 15…
…On the contrary, G-d reckoned that Abram did a “a deed of faith” [Tzedakah].
…as plainly stated in the text,
“Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
______________________
You once said that Apostle Paul gave an “ignorant” Torah lesson… yet you have not been able to prove your assertion.
So, let me repeat the lesson very briefly,
Within the 613 Mitzvot, there is not one that says, “Trust in the L-rd alone for salvation.”
…Nothing in the 613 Mitzvot on the order of,
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
AND,
“Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
Therefore, “Faith” in G-d and His Promised Anointed Redeemer result in:
[a] …G-d adjudicates one’s soul as righteous, AND
[b] …G-d reckons “faith” as a Deed of Tzedakah by the individualapart from deeds of Mitzvot, AND
[c] …G-d then enables His righteous ones to live “by faith” to freely do righteous deeds without fear of the condemnation of the Law.
___________________
KAVI Can you please explain why your argument is any better than the serpent’s?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
There is no verse or passage in all of Tanakh that teaches that God judges one’s soul as sinless merely because of one’s faith without keeping the mitzvot. Please show me the verse or passage.
Paul invented this doctrine. Paul tries to prove this doctrine one way and it appears you have a different way of proving it.
Alan: “For the sake of this discussion, I’m comfortable using the anti-Tanakh Christian definition of tzadik, i.e. innocent and sinless before God. So, no, I am not your kind of tzadik.
Kavi: Very well… what you confirm before G-d is that your soul has not been made eternally sinless by G-d through L-RD Yeshua’s accomplishment of eternal Yom Kippur.
…I accept your answer.
…nor will I dispute your desire to be proclaimed Tzadik through your “good” deeds exceeding your “bad” deeds on the Day of Judgment before the Almighty Judge. Amen.
___________________
KAVI You have given so much testimony about the content of your faith – do you feel you need to give more? By the way – do you feel that you are actually interacting with those who addressed you in their comments? Did you read the comment policy on this blog?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
I have a guarantee from Hashem that my soul will indeed be eternally sinless. But this is not my biggest worry or concern in life. It is not the focus of Judaism unlike Christianity which is obsessed with it. This is what Christianity is all about.
R.Blumenthal: “KAVI Can you please explain why your argument is any better than the serpent’s?”
Kavi: I do not recall the serpent’s joy in finding out that The Promised Redeemer would crush his head. [Genesis 3]
___________________
KAVI The text doesn’t say it but he was certainly looking forward to it – you can’t prove me wrong. In any case my point was that your argument – just like the serpent’s was that God’s law is a burden and that there is a better way – so what exactly is the difference?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R.Blumenthal: “KAVI You have given so much testimony about the content of your faith – do you feel you need to give more? By the way – do you feel that you are actually interacting with those who addressed you in their comments? Did you read the comment policy on this blog?”
Kavi: I simply try to answer questions directed my way by attempting to repeat the testimony of Moses and the Prophets…
Nonetheless, you are correct… it is not necessary for me to continue providing even more testimony of Moses and the Prophets…
…but what happens should someone ask me a specific question?
Alan asked me many specific questions…
We also have your questions and questions from others…
What am I to do?
___________________
…Alan once kindly chastised me for not responding in a timely manner… and now that I respond on an almost daily basis… it appears I now am chastised for responding too much?
…there is even an “Open Letter to Kavi” which I have not addressed… what do I do with that issue?
…and what of Psalm 41?
…and what of “Nikola” who recently joined the conversation?
___________________
Given the questions directed towards me, it is difficult to know quite what you expect on your open blog.
___________________
KAVI I expect simply that you give to others what you want from them – namely a listening ear – hearing their arguments instead of seeing them as springboards from which to launch your prepackaged sermons. For example did you “hear” my question on the serpent? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R.Blumenthal: “KAVI The text doesn’t say it but he was certainly looking forward to it – you can’t prove me wrong.”
Kavi: Yes, perhaps you are correct and your statement cannot be proven wrong…but is it reasonable to think that the serpent looked forward to that event?
___________________
R.Blumenthal: In any case my point was that your argument – just like the serpent’s was that God’s law is a burden and that there is a better way – so what exactly is the difference?
Kavi: If you desire to so interpret as you have written. Amen.
However, neither G-d nor L-RD Yeshua nor Messianics claim the Law is evil or purposeless…
___________________
KAVI but both you and the serpent point to a “better way” and you identify God’s law as a way that brings no blessing 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
R.Blumenthal: “[Y]our argument – just like the serpent’s was that God’s law is a burden and that there is a better way.”
Kavi: To more specifically address this statement a bit more…
[a] I am unable to find in BC/NT where the Law of Moses was described as a “burden”.
… perhaps the burden of onerous rabbinic legalisms? Yes.
… perhaps the burden of sin? Yes.
… the burden of the Law of Moses? No.
[b] Instead, we do find in BC/NT a continuation of Tanakh that the Law condemns those who fail to live by it. [Deuteronomy 27 & Leviticus 18]
…the serpent made no reference to G-d’s condemnation for disobedience.
…the serpent provided no remedy for G-d’s condemnation.
___________________
KAVI Stop nitpicking on the word “burden” – you, Paul, and the serpent all see God’s law of life as a lesser path and you attempt to persuade us to walk a different path. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I will not answer Kavi, but feel compel to clarify. Genesis 3 was NOT fulfilled by Yeshua (the seed of the woman) crushing the serpent (Satan), as Romans 16:20 says “The God of peace will SOON crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.”
Here Paul got it totally wrong by claiming that God will crush satan, not the seed of the woman AKA YESHU. Furthermore, he said clearly that it DID NOT happen YET (SOON being a future event). So long for Genesis 3’s hope of the Virgin Birth. Finally, the word seed has nothing mystical and Hagar had a seed too. Not only man have seed in the Bible, as most Christians want to portray!
Actually, Kavi’s way is worst than the serpent!
The Serpent said “You shall not die if you disobey G-d’s commandment.”
Kavi and Paul said “If you keep the commandment, you will die!” “You cannot keep it and G-d will judge you for it!” “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse”
For Both Kavi and Paul, the first 5 book of Moses only brings a curse. He think that any Jew who keeps G-d’s words is under a curse.
Kavi – Very well… what you confirm before G-d is that your soul has not been made eternally sinless by G-d through L-RD Yeshua’s accomplishment of eternal Yom Kippur.
Kavi confirms that he believes that G-d gave his commandments, and ordinance as a mean to curse people. The god of Kavi is so wicked that all his “good” commandments were for the only purpose of condemning people. It would be like sending a 4 year old on an electrical chair for stealing a candy! Kavi has no idea of what Justice means. His freaking god (Jesus) is not JUST, he is the worst. Even worst his the father, who is willing to kill an innocent person (Jesus) for the sins of other. This god is actually so wicked and cannot show compassion.
Look at his own word “R.B: just like the serpent’s was that God’s law is a burden and that there is a better way. Kavi: If you desire to so interpret as you have written. Amen.” By doing so, he actually agreed that he acted in the same way as the serpent! He pretty much said “You don’t have to keep the commandment, there is a better way (Jesus). Give it up KAVI, you are a SATAN (adversary) to G-d! You are not representing David, he would never have cursed the Torah or G-d’s words for another g-d (Jesus).
RT: “I will not answer Kavi, but feel compel to clarify. Genesis 3 was NOT fulfilled by Yeshua (the seed of the woman) crushing the serpent (Satan), as Romans 16:20 says “The God of peace will SOON crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.”
RT: Your analysis fails because you fail to recognize this text obviously speaks of the Redeemed, not the Anointed Redeemer…
The Messiah Redeemer has already triumphed over satan and his power over the flesh…
______________________________
Alan: I wrote: “Kavi, in Tanakh there is no way to say ‘Abraham believed Hashem’”, i.e. Tanakh only ever says “to believe IN Hashem”.
I was wrong. I found this in Deut. 9 – “And when the Hashem sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying: ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you’; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the Hashem your God, and YOU BELIEVED HIM NOT nor hearkened to His voice.” The Hebrew says “believed him” not “believed IN him”.
Kavi: I would think the more critical thought would be to understand that G-d has revealed in Tanakh, from its roots in Genesis and throughout, both G-d’s Being and His forgiveness of sins through His Messiah Redeemer.
…that understanding is something that took the L-RD several attempts to get Abram to finally perceive.
And once Abram finally understood that G-d’s promised “Seed” Redeemer was Truth and that this Messiah Redeemer would come through a child of his to bless the nations– Abram trusted G-d…. and G-d both justified Abram and reckoned that trust as Tzedakah apart from any known law. [Genesis 15]
Abram, like Job, could look forward to the future day when the suffering Messiah Redeemer would triumph over the evil one. [Genesis 3]
“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, And that He will witness at the last upon the dust” [Job 19]
_______________________
Kavi, it is as pointless talking to you as it is talking to Bibs, but for the sake of the audience I feel compelled to point out that the “modern rabbinic teshuva theory” is neither modern, rabbinic, nor theory but taught openly in Hebrew Scripture.
See Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18 and 33; 1 Kings 8:46-52; Hosea 14:2
In contrast, nowhere does the Torah teach that the blood of a righteous man is required for eternal forgiveness (whatever that means–I mean, let’s face it, Christians also sin). In fact, human sacrifice is unequivocally forbidden.
Folks, who’s making more sense here, Kavi or the Jewish people?
On the contrary, David understood Moses and his writings about the future, suffering Kinsman Redeemer.
Where could David see the suffering Kinsman Redeemer? Point me one scripture that shows that, that David could have used! Only one, but remember that Isaiah was written way after David.
Good luck!
RT,
I have already spoken quite a bit about the Scripture which you and others can certainly argue against, but cannot “prove” to be false.
Since you seek and are pleased with the modern Rabbinic theory of teshuva– then by all means go and live it out… I will not deny you your prerogative!
But for those who are seeking an eternal G-d and His Way of eternal righteousness, they can find it in G-d’s eternal Yom Kippur fulfilled by L-RD Yeshua.
The very real concepts of blood and redemption and faith are all rooted in the opening pages of Tanakh…
On the other hand, as to my questions…
[1] Where did G-d make a covenant in blood confirming this modern teshuva theory at Mt. Sinai?
[2] Where is the logic, any logic, for instituting a sacrificial system if teshuva was what G-d wanted Adam/Chava to do?
…until you find an Orthodox answer based on Tanakh… you have nothing.
______________________
KAVI Psalm 103 clearly describes David’s understanding of forgiveness from sin and God’s eternal kindness. David forgot to mention anything about a sacrifice, I wonder why? Psalm 44 also makes clear that human beings can observe God’s covenant and no human being is perfect.
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi,
The Torah is not your plaything. It is not right for you to misrepresent its teachings the way you do. It is not right for you to substitute your own teachings for those of HaShem. It is not right that you push into the text what cannot be found there and to brazenly insist that your own doctrines are those of the Most High. Such shamelessness!
You write, for example, that God established blood sacrifices from the days of Adam and Chava. This is just not true. The first blood sacrifice does not appear in Genesis 3 as you assert, either. No sacrifice whatever appears in Genesis 3. Moreover, in the whole of Genesis, I do not believe that one sacrifice was brought in response to sin. Nor was one commanded.
Perhaps you would assert that Gen. 3:21 is a sacrifice. I have heard other Christians assert this. But, of course, this is not true. The verse gives no indication of a sacrifice. It does not even mention that most important ingredient of Christian sacrifice: blood. It reads: “And the Lord God made garments of skin for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.” The Christian that makes this out to be a sacrifice is giving an egregious example of eisegesis. Or do you have a different verse in mind when you write that the first blood sacrifice appears in Genesis 3? As I look over the chapter, I see no such verse. Not a sacrifice. Not a command to bring a sacrifice.
And no kinsman redeemer. You force that upon the passage, too. What is clear when you assert that something is in this passage or that passage, and it does not exist, is that you have no clear statements teaching Church doctrine. If you did, you would merely refer us to those passages. You would not look for a verse where, if one squints hard enough and makes up his mind to see a teaching in the passage, then he will be able to put it in there. You would not rely upon types and shadows; you would rely upon something solid.
This is made clear when you make the mere assertion that David placed his faith in a suffering redeemer. You do not present a teaching from him on this matter. To the contrary, you reach back to your misrepresentation of Genesis 3 and pretend to us that this was David’s understanding as well. But of course, in Psalm 32, he gives no such indication. When he writes, “Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, etc.” he does not go on to discuss that the reason for such forgiveness is the sacrifice of a kinsman redeemer or man-god or any such thing. He says nothing of the human Yom Kippur sacrifice that you assert is his belief. What he does write is that one must acknowledge his wrongdoing. Strangely, you do not find it relevant when he writes: “Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin” (Ps. 32:5). Nevermind; it is not that strange after all. It does not fit your doctrine.
When you attempt to make David’s hope to be in Jesus, you have to hunt carefully through the scriptures to find a hint. You have to take a verse here, out of context, and a verse there, misrepresented, and impose a new meaning upon them. One reason for this is because the Christian expectation of a dying Messiah in anachronistic when applied to David. Jesus’ disciples found the idea shocking. Christians admit that Jews were looking for a king, not a human sacrifice. The concept was foreign to the Jewish world at the time of Jesus. It certainly was not the view of the Jewish world hundreds of years before. It was not David’s view. Please stop putting your words into the mouths of others.
Jim
Good Point!
Jim,
Adam/Chava decided to make their own way back to righteousness and covered the shame of their sin by sewing together fig leaves.
G-d was not impressed…instead, an animal’s blood was spilled as an example of the sacrifice necessary to come before the Almighty.
____________________
Abel faithfully obeyed G-d by preparing a sacrifice where blood was shed.
Abel’s sacrifice was accepted…
Cain did not obey G-d’s pattern and shed no blood in preparing his sacrifice [much like the “fig leaves” of his parents].
Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted by G-d…
____________________
Kavi,
Do you think you are a tzadik?
Alan,
Before shabbos today, I will provide a response to your question regarding “tzadik gamur” that was posed yesterday.
______________________
Proverbs 21-
3 TO DO righteousness and justice is choicer to the LORD than sacrifice.
15 TO DO justly is joy to the righteous, but ruin to the workers of iniquity.
DOING RIGHTEOUSNESS KAVI IS THE MAIN THING.
Kavi, if you don’t believe Alan that to do good is choicier to G-d, then listen to Paul.
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The Jews and the Law
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”b
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
When Paul condemned “works of the law” it was not the commandments themselves that he was condemning.
“works of the law” for Paul means the identity markers of covenant membership and a given groups stringency of observance which these groups regard as essential.
For instance, Sadducees observed the Torah’s commands according to their interpretation, and they boasted of their superiority to the Pharisees (who also observed the commands in accord with their interpretation.)
Both groups boasted against each other that their interpretation of how to carry out a given command was superior to the other.
IE a Sadducee might say to a Pharisee
“my kosher slaughter is better and more stringent than yours.”
A Pharisee might say
“my method of calculating the calendar is superior to yours.”
The dead sea sectarians in the scroll 4QMMT taught “our works of the law about how to perform sacrifices are better and more stringent than yours.”
All these groups might say to a gentile G-d fearer that “our service is better than yours because we observe more commands than you do.”
Paul of Tarsus tried (and through the later Church failed) to teach that G-d loves Jew and gentile equally from where they are (at their level) in their service of G-d.
1 Corinthians 7:18-19 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Paul does not teach not to do, he teaches that doing is not grounds to boast.
Kavi: Anyone can make statements like these that deny expectation and belief in Messiah– but proof?
Proof, we don’t need proof, you are the one who needs them! You have no proof that all the people in the Tanakh hoped in a future dying messiah. You have no proof of anything. I am fed up of your preaching KAVI! You are not interested in any conversation, nor will ever be. You are here to evangelize and not to have a dialogue. We have been patient enough to explain why Jesus was not a sacrifice, why he did not fulfill any prophecy, why he was not righteous, why he was not a prophet, why he was not the messiah; and you keep on with the same talking about “we are blind and find excuses to refuse your blessed savior”. We gave plenty of reason, proof and rebuke to your faulty reasoning and you just keep on ignoring it. Before you post on anything else, can I ask you why you are her? It’s definitively not to have a conversation, not to listen to our point of view, or to gain knowledge. This is NOT an evangelizing website Kavi. If you want to evangelize, go to Jews-for-Jesus, were a nice t-shirt and go on a corner. Or go to their website and propose to answer those who are interested in your religion. There’s plenty of choice for you to go, chosen people ministry, FOY, etc, here is not. You are doing the equivalent of going to a Synagogue and try to convince the people there that they should accept Jesus. This is totally inappropriate! You are not doing the “great commission” by doing that! You are actually giving a bad name to your religion! This is shameful, but what to except, Paul was doing the same! When I go to my “messianic” congregation, I don’t go and tell everybody that they are wrong, I stand on my ground only if they try to engage me, and I usually try to avoid them if they do. So please give yourself a favor and seek somewhere else to evangelize.
RT wrote: “Alan, I doubt that is how Kavi think. He might say it like that, but his ways are craftier than that.. You and I are doomed to hell. We CANNOT be tzadick or righteous. He think that your good deeds and righteousness are like filthy rags. The only one that are righteous are the follower of Jesus and those who trusted that the messiah would come and die for their sins.”
I agree 100% with your entire post. I saw through the language as well. You nailed it.
Wow.
I wonder why Christians like Kavi think God is loving and just. He sounds like a petty, vindictive and truly insane god according to their rendition.
Imagine a father who says to his child, “If you do exactly and perfectly as you’re told all the time, I will take to a ball game and dinner. If you make one wrong move, I will beat you black and blue and break every bone in your body.”
You would call social services on such a father because he’s deranged and dysfunctional! Yet basically this is how Christians see the God of the Hebrew Bible. They see him telling us that if we keep all his laws perfectly we will be rewarded, but if we make one false move, we will receive the worst possible punishment.
And because this God that they picture is so deranged, they had to invent a savior to save people from him, basically.
It’s even worse than that. Imagine if a father were to tell his child, “If you do exactly and perfectly as you’re told all the time, it makes no difference because everything you do is worthless and disgusting. But since I’m a nice father, I will reward you and I I will take to a ball game and dinner. But if you make one wrong move, I will beat you black and blue and break every bone in your body.”
A parable:
In Whatahatchee, TN, a fat camp called Ohbee City runs every year for adults. The participants are weighed twice, once at the beginning of camp and once at the end, at which time a prize is awarded to the camper that lost the most weight, a trip to New York. One year, saw two men of different temperaments arrive.
John was less interested in the trip to New York than he was about improving his life. He realized it was unhealthy for him to maintain the diet of fatty and sugary foods he enjoyed so much and to go without exercise. He realized also that it was intemperate of him to live a life devoted to his appetite. He came to Ohbee City with a desire to make new habits, ready to reform both his diet and lifestyle.
Paul, on the other hand, was extremely focused on winning the trip to New York. He knew that his lifestyle contributed to his being overweight, but he also believed that this was part of his nature. He believed it was more important to have a good attitude than to change one’s habits. It was more important for him to feel skinny than to give up doughnuts and take up jogging. He devoted himself to reading the book “Skinny on the Inside” by the Fat Guru.
Over the course of the month, Paul tried to teach John the teachings of the Fat Guru. He told John that it was more important to feel fit than be fit. He spoke of how his heart had been changed by the teachings of the Fat Guru, and that even though he still ate too many doughnuts and exercised too infrequently, he knew the judges would award him the trip to New York. He told John that one could never change his nature, except through the aid of the Fat Guru, and that John would always be overweight and unhealthy.
But John was not interested in the teachings of Paul. He knew what he had done to contribute to his condition. And he knew what he needed to change to live a healthier life. He studied dietary books to determine which foods contributed best to his health. He exercised and changed his diet.
As the date of the final weigh-in came closer, John was nervous. He wondered if he’d done enough to see real results. He wondered if he could not have worked a little harder. What if he had not lost any weight? He did not wish to appear foolish before the camp staff.
Paul, on the other hand, just laughed at John. He said that John’s problem was that he thought he could become fit by changing his lifestyle. Paul was certain that his devotion to the Fat Guru would carry him through the day. He knew that he would win the prize, because his fitness was not based on his own hard work or merit. He had a sure knowledge that he was skinny on the inside.
When the final day came, Paul found himself sorely disappointed. His assertions that he could be fit without the necessary work proved to be unfounded. He had hardly lost anything. His certitude that he was skinny on the inside had no effect on the scale. John on the other hand, though nervous when he stepped on the scale, was pleasantly surprised to see that he had lost more than he realized. On top of that, he was going to New York.
Jim
A masterful analogy from the Master of Analogies!
–Member, MAS
Ah! Now that’s a parable if there ever was one! This is so geshmak Jim! (people can google if they want)
Psalm 23:4-
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
Psalm 27:14 –
Hope to Hashem; be strong, and let your heart take courage; and hope to Hashem.
Psalm 121 –
5 Hashem is your keeper; Hashem is your shade upon your right hand.
6 The sun shall not smite you by day, nor the moon by night.
7 Hashem shall keep you from all evil; He shall keep your soul.
8 Hashem shall guard your going out and your coming in, from this time forth and for ever.
Jim,
You must never have been to NY before! Paul should go to NY which is similar to a very hot Lake if you know what I mean. And John should go to Colorado or Maine.
Thank you Dina and Alan. You are right, Alan. I have never been to New York. Ha.
Jim
Ha! I am from New York. Not the city but a suburb.
Dina,
I from Nebraska but Live in CA.
am*
I am truly interested and would like to ask any of you believers in Jesus to tell me if there is any law or regulation that you are required to exercise, besides faith in Jesus?
Well, it would highly depend on who you ask. 95% of Jesus follower would say that is by faith alone and you don’t need any requirements. Some would say you are actually not saved if you follow Torah and under a curse. Now, many “messianic” would disagree with that and keep partially the law, as per their own liking and interpretation of the Torah. Almost all will tell you that they don’t have to do it and G-d would still accept those who don’t follow Torah (as faith in Jesus is really the only prerequisite).
Nikola,
[] G-d has always required mankind to have faith/belief/trust in Him,
“In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1]
[] G-d plainly instructed us of the consequence of not believing Him and His Word,
“The L-RD God commanded the man, saying,
‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,
for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.’” [Genesis 2]
[] Messianics believe in a G-d who is consistently faithful to His Promise from the beginning,
“And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman,
and between your seed and between her seed.
He will crush your head,
and you will bite his heel.” [Genesis 3]
G-d’s path to holy righteousness requires no sophisticated logic,
[] G-d made mankind perfect and we lived perfectly before His face
[] Mankind did not believe G-d’s Word and sinned
[] G-d judged mankind unrighteous and cast them out of Gan Eden as evil
[] G-d gave mankind no Mitzvot to regain Gan Eden… G-d gave us no remedy in ourselves to make us holy again.
[] Instead, G-d graciously made a promise of a future Redeemer who would triumph over the evil through suffering…
And, similar to Gan Eden,
[] We can either trust in G-d’s Promise and have faith in Him and His way to holiness through His Anointed Redeemer…
[] …. or, not believe.
____________________
Kavi,
does that mean that a Messianic person can just wake up each day and do whatever he/she wants or are there some things that such a person should not do and some things that such a person is required to do?
If there are rules, could you please point me to the source text for those rules.
If there are no rules, then I have to say that such a religion is very odd. I get that there is some “higher state of mind” that you can put yourself in, but if that’s the only thing you are relying on, than such a religion is no different than many other cults that have very little substance.
Even the “perfect man” as you stated had rules by which he had to live. God did not tell Adam to just believe in Him and do whatever he wants. He actually prohibited Adam from eating of certain fruit. That’s the first Law and the first Covenant between God and humankind. There is no “zeroth” time at which Adam existed without the Law.
Also, I am not aware of the decree of God by which He abolished all the rules and the Law and said “just have faith in me”. Where do you get such an idea?
Nikola,
One day an expert in the law stood up to test Yeshua.
“Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Yeshua replied, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Yeshua said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.”
[excerpt from Luke 10]
…There are your “rules” Nikola.
Does it sound to either of us like Yeshua abolished “all the rules”?
Do you think mankind can live by the first command let alone the second?
Adam/Chava were condemned for one sin… [Genesis 2 & 3]
_______________________________
The comment that Messianics can do whatever they please is a charge that’s been made for 2,000 years… as Apostle Paul writes,
“Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, “Let us do evil that good may result?” Their condemnation is deserved!” [Romans 3]
Facts are, Yeshua put to death mankind’s hopeless attempts for justification and righteousness by the Law in order that mankind may be enabled to freely serve G-d without fearing that the crushing condemnation written in the Law.
…as to justification before G-d, faith in G-d’s Messiah for redemption causes Messianics to inherit eternal life as adopted sons and daughters of G-d who cannot be condemned– but sons and daughters can certainly can be punished.
…as to works before G-d, Messianics can in a way be likened to “bondslaves” that obey with a willing heart based on G-d’s mercy.
_______________________________
If you hunger and thirst for righteousness based on obedience to the Law, you will only find condemnation… [Deuteronomy 27, etc]
If you hunger and thirst for righteousness from G-d apart from 613 Mitzvot, you will find it in Messiah Yeshua… [Genesis 15, Isaiah 12, etc]
_______________________________
KAVI Your “advice” to thirst for “righteousness” apart from God’s explicit command is the very same “advice” offered to Adam and Chava by the serpent – forget God’s commandments said the serpent, here is a “better” path to escape your human state 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Thanks Kavi for the precise answer, it is my understanding that the 2 commandments you specify are part of the 613 that you keep mentioning. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18).
However I think that there are a couple more commandments you omitted, and correct me if I’m wrong but in Luke 18:20, and again in Matthew 19:18 Jesus teaches that you should obey 5 more commandments (the so called “second tablet of Moses”). That would bring the grand total to 7 commandments. Is this correct?
P.S. While we can lead a philosophical discussion here, I’m more interested in practical aspects of the religion. If you were to go to a secluded part of the globe where people are living as savages, would you first try to teach them to stop killing each other and do not steal, rape etc. or would you jump right into trying to persuade them to “give their heart” to Jesus? In the end, if only the ones who God chooses (without their free will) come to Jesus, then what is the purpose of a missionary, or “spreading the good word”?! Wouldn’t God do that himself? Or is that the 8th commandment that a believer in Jesus have to do?
Kavi, Jesus did not say that for that man to follow this rule. He showed this rules saying “Look at you, outwardly “righteous” Pharisee, you think you can please G-d, follow that without ever once failing and you will be right with G-d. And then he goes and say the parable of the good Samaritan. Don’t twist things around for your own convenience!
RT,
Was the GOOD Samaritan good? Did he DO good? Does the NT say he believed in Jesus before he did his good deed?
It’s a parable, so he can be good without previous knowledge of Jesus because he does not exist. In theory, a good Samaritan would still be thrown in hell because of the commandments he broke. Many Jews today give to hospitals and help others, but this would not be enough for the new testament. (or maybe it teaches that Jews are unable to be “good” as the Samaritan?)
RT, good deeds can’t save you from hell, only belief in Jesus. So the Nazis who confessed in Jesus get to go to heaven while their Jewish victims go to hell.
Nikola, if you ever go to a messianic congregation, they teach only one thing. Every week they teach why Jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament and that you have to BELEIVE in him to have your sins forgiven. That’s all. What is important for them is for you to believe in Jesus, not for you to keep any commandments…
“RT, good deeds can’t save you from hell, only belief in Jesus. So the Nazis who confessed in Jesus get to go to heaven while their Jewish victims go to hell.”
Dina, this is not what I believe, but what Jesus thought. In theory yes, evangelical would argue that those Nazis were not honest on their commitment to Jesus, which is impossible to verify. How could the HS abides on someone who did those atrocities? The same holds for Luther, most believe he repented for what he said. That’s why many messianic still quote him, and don’t even feel bad about it…
I know, the whole thing makes no sense.
It would make sense if the follower of Jesus would all be genuinely good and following Torah. And all non-follower of Jesus all genuinely bad and not caring about G-d or his Torah. This is just not the case and a serious issue:
Hebrews 8:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second… because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them,… None of them (BELIEVERS) shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me.
RT,
Paul or one of his students molested this verse from Jeremiah 31:31 –
“and I disregarded them” is actually וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם–נְאֻם-יְהוָה which means “AND I WAS A HUSBAND TO THEM”! It doesn’t say “and I disregarded them”!
The chutzpah! The disregard for Hashem and His Torah!
I know… and I thought Satan was the father of lies!
Nikola: “[I]t is my understanding that the 2 commandments you specify are part of the 613 that you keep mentioning…However I think that there are a couple more commandments you omitted….Luke 18:20….Matthew 19:18….Jesus teaches that you should obey 5 more commandments…. That would bring the grand total to 7 commandments. Is this correct?”
Kavi:
Nikola,
An expert in the law tested Yeshua with a question: “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
Yeshua declared,
“Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
[excerpt from Matthew 22]
___________________________
Although Yeshua never denied the validity of the Law, yet He only described “one” work that had any practical validity for accomplishing the Law… i.e., circumcision of the heart. [Deuteronomy 10; Luke 22]
Jesus said,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, G-d, has set His seal.
Therefore the crowd said, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of G-d?”
Jesus answered,
“This is the work of G-d, that you believe into Him whom He has sent.”
[excerpt from John 6]
___________________________
Nikola,
I am sorry, but I pushed the “post reply” button too quickly without a summary.
So, Here is my note again.
_________________________
_________________________
Nikola: “[I]t is my understanding that the 2 commandments you specify are part of the 613 that you keep mentioning…However I think that there are a couple more commandments you omitted….Luke 18:20….Matthew 19:18….Jesus teaches that you should obey 5 more commandments…. That would bring the grand total to 7 commandments. Is this correct?”
Kavi:
Nikola,
An expert in the law tested Yeshua with a question: “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
Yeshua declared,
“Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
[excerpt from Matthew 22]
___________________________
Although Yeshua never denied the validity of the Law, yet He only described “one” work that had any practical validity for accomplishing the Law… i.e., circumcision of the heart. [Deuteronomy 10; Luke 22]
Jesus said,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, G-d, has set His seal.
Therefore the crowd said, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of G-d?”
Jesus answered,
“This is the work of G-d, that you believe into Him whom He has sent.”
[excerpt from John 6]
___________________________
Thus the L-RD G-d made all things practical,
By faith into the Truth of L-RD Yeshua, a person can freely obey the Law to Love the L-rd G-d and Love Your Neighbor without fear that the soul will be condemned according to the requirements of the Law…
___________________________
KAVI, I see, so some of the sayings of Jesus are less important than others, if not completely unimportant. Did he say those things in Luke 18:20, and Matthew 19:18 to intentionally deceive poor guy who asked him what to do?
What is your position on the Shabbat? Should we observe it or it’s not that important?
Nikola: KAVI, I see, so some of the sayings of Jesus are less important than others, if not completely unimportant. Did he say those things in Luke 18:20, and Matthew 19:18 to intentionally deceive poor guy who asked him what to do?
Kavi: Are not the commands quoted to the rich ruler included in the two upon which the whole law hangs?
And, in reading the whole account, was there perhaps a purpose for Yeshua to delineate the commands the way as He did?
… No matter how reasonable G-d may testify to a given matter… if someone desires to find G-d deceptive, it will be as they desire… yet, if someone desires to find truth, G-d just might enable them to find the truth.
…Israel found ways to dispute with Moses… even desiring to kill him… so why should L-RD Yeshua be exempt from the same treatment? [Exodus 17 and Deuteronomy 18]
_______________________________
Nikola: What is your position on the Shabbat? Should we observe it or it’s not that important?
Eternal Rest? [read Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4]
_______________________________
What does Psalm 95 have to do with the Shabbat?
“I will sing praise to your name.”
They do that n the synagogue. 🙂
The last verse of psalm 95 – Kavi is taking it out of context and saying it means the Jews are eternally cursed and damned to hell. In context, it’s referring to the sin of the spies and those adults would die in the wilderness but their children, the next generation would enter the Land.
I am sick of Kavi’s lies.
Actually, K-vi dodged your question. You were not asking if you will have eternal rest, but if it’s important to keep Shabbat or not. You CANNOT have a conversation with him. I would suggest to ask any other Christians in this blog to answer that question. If by mistake you answer him, he will put another verse that will also be elusive for your question or comment while still preaching to you. K-vi has ruined other blogs before with his useless conversation, and it might actually be his objective to do that! To keep talking with him will only give him more fire for his evangelism and will only harm this blog!
RT, I understand your position regarding KAVI, it’s certainly reasonable when you take into account many comments on this blog. However, he was the only one who answered my original question, so I’ll keep conversing with him. I don’t worry that the truth can be clouded by someones interpretation, so I’ll try to stick to the precise topics as long as possible.
KAVI, I’m looking forward to your explanation of how Psalm 95 is related to Shabbat. I read Hebrews 4 as well, and see that the author of that chapter made the same connection. I don’t see any logical or linguistic connection, so I’ll need your clarification. Please let’s be precise and succinct.
P.S. KAVI, the reason I think your position regarding Shabbat is important is because some Messianics claim that it should be kept and some claim that it’s obsolete. So, as with many other things there is no consensus among Christians and among Messianics regarding this.
Nikola: “KAVI, I’m looking forward to your explanation of how Psalm 95 is related to Shabbat. I read Hebrews 4 as well, and see that the author of that chapter made the same connection. I don’t see any logical or linguistic connection, so I’ll need your clarification. Please let’s be precise and succinct.”
Kavi:
“These are the words which the L-RD hath commanded, that ye should do them: ‘Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest to the L-RD; whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death.'” [Exodus 35]
…Sabbath was to be a day of complete rest with no work
…so much so that breaking the command brought the condemnation of death.
So, what’s the point?
Like Yom Kippur, Sabbath was also meant to teach of something greater…something meant to be eternal…for G-d is eternal.
G-d demanded Israel perform no “work” on the Sabbath… likewise, G-d teaches us that His Eternal Rest demands we perform no Mitzvot, but rather enter His Rest through an un-hardened heart [i.e., a circumcised heart of trust in Him found apart from Mitzvot].
…but Israel hardened their hearts against G-d and rejected His True Sabbath Rest and therefore G-d swore an oath of eternal condemnation, “They shall never enter My rest.” [Psalm 95]
______________________________
Therefore, in the New Covenant, the Redeemed are free to Love the L-rd G-d and Love his neighbor on Sabbath and every other day of the week without fear of condemnation.
As to the Sabbath of Exodus?
…Is the body which is passing away be more important than the soul that lives forever?
No, but nevertheless, for the sake of conscience, some Messianics do “keep” Sabbath to a greater degree than others… but it has nothing to do with their redemption in Messiah.
______________________________
BTW> You are correct to note linguistically the word “Sabbath” found in Exodus is not found in Psalm 95… Exactly! G-d’s True “Sabbath Rest” for the Redeemed is not a Mitzvot, but something of faith found apart from the Law.
…like G-d reckoning the faith of Abram to be a Tzedakah. [Genesis 15]
______________________________
A certain Jew was walking through the park one day. Noticing it was getting late in the afternoon and that he must prepare for the Sabbath, he began to hurry.
Now, the Christian was craftier than any of the religions than man had made. He said to the Jew, “Do you really serve God only one day of the week?” The Jew said to the Christian, “We serve God every day of the week, but we honor God especially on the Sabbath and refrain from all work. And if we do not do this, then we are to die.” The Christian said, “You will not die, for God knows that the true Sabbath is an eternal rest, and when you stop keeping the laws of the Sabbath your eyes will be opened to the Eternal Rest.”
Jim
Jim, ha! Good one!
Hebrews takes the word “menuhati” in the last verse of psalm 95 and says it means “Eternal Rest/Eternal Sabbath”. How can Hebrews say this? – because it says in the Torah that Hashem “rested/VA-YANAH” on the 7th day which has the same root as MENUHATI. But MENUHATI really means the resting place of Hashem’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The word Menuhati appears only 2 other times in Tanakh –
Psalms Chapter 132
ז נָבוֹאָה לְמִשְׁכְּנוֹתָיו; נִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, לַהֲדֹם רַגְלָיו. 7 Let us go into His dwelling-place; let us worship at His footstool.
ח קוּמָה יְהוָה, לִמְנוּחָתֶךָ: אַתָּה, וַאֲרוֹן עֻזֶּךָ. 8 Arise, O LORD, unto Thy resting-place (MENUHATEKHA – YOUR RESTING PLACE); Thou, and the ark of Thy strength.
יג כִּי-בָחַר יְהוָה בְּצִיּוֹן; אִוָּהּ, לְמוֹשָׁב לוֹ. 13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation:
יד זֹאת-מְנוּחָתִי עֲדֵי-עַד: פֹּה-אֵשֵׁב, כִּי אִוִּתִיהָ. 14 ‘This is My resting-place (MENUHATI – MY RESTING PLACE) for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
Isaiah Chapter 66
א כֹּה, אָמַר יְהוָה, הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי, וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי; אֵי-זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ-לִי, וְאֵי-זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי. 1 Thus saith the LORD: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; where is the house that ye may build unto Me? And where is the place that may be My resting-place (MENUHATI)?
Good one, Jim!
KAVI, thank you for the honest, straightforward answer. Unfortunately, you are leading not only yourself but also people around you into condemnation and blasphemy. It is so clear that Shabbat is to be observed and observed eternally.
Please stop blaspheming against God and God’s words. Read Isaiah 56, the whole chapter. It is a love letter and a promise from God to goyim. Not only are members of Israel required to keep Shabbat, but also goyim.
“And the foreigners who join themselves to Adonai
to serve him, to love the name of Adonai,
and to be his workers,
all who keep Shabbat and do not profane it,
and hold fast to my covenant,
I will bring them to my holy mountain
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all peoples.” [Isaiah 56:6-7, CJB]
This is a prophecy about end times, how can you say that Shabbat and sacrifices are abolished by Jesus? Are you that blind or just evil that you want to change God’s words?!
(Note that I’m using “Messianics translation, CJB”, so that there is no confusion about translation).
And how does the book of Isaiah closes? What are the most important verses that seal the prophecy for end times:
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making will continue in my presence,” says Adonai, “so will your descendants and your name continue.
“Every month on Rosh-Hodesh
and every week on Shabbat,
everyone living will come
to worship in my presence,” says Adonai.
“As they leave, they will look on the corpses
of the people who rebelled against me.
For their worm will never die,
and their fire will never be quenched;
but they will be abhorrent
to all humanity.” [Isaiah 66:22-24, CJB]
These are the new heavens and new earth – to faithfully observe Shabbat and God’s commandments. Not some made-up story about fake messiah. Stop spreading deception and lies, when the things are so clear. Stop rebelling against God, or you will end up like it’s prophesied in those verses.
P.S. As others pointed out the word or phrase used for the “eternal rest” is clearly referring to God’s eternal place on which he rests, which is Zion/Jerusalem. Only out of ignorance or malice the author of Hebrews 4 could make a connection between the place of rest and day of rest. I would bet that it wasn’t ignorance.
NIkola,
Wow. Thanks for saying what I have wanted to say.
The “foreigners who join themselves to Hashem” and keep the Sabbath are converts. Non-Jews are not allowed to keep the Sabbath exactly the way Jews keep it unless they have converted.
“And the foreigners who join themselves to Adonai
to serve him, to love the name of Adonai,
and to be his workers,” –
To me this sounds like it could be referring to non-Jews but I am not sure if this is what Isaiah meant.
“all who keep Shabbat and do not profane it,” –
This must be referring to converts.
Following…
Alan,
The point is not so much about who is required to keep Shabbat, as it is to emphasize the eternal covenant between God and humankind (or if you want, Israel).
Once we realize how clearly it is stated in Tanakh that God did not abolish Torah and commandments, and we reject the notion that Jesus is messiah, it is easy to agree on other details.
My only explanation as to why people are blind to the clear statements in Tanakh is that God is confusing them because of their evil inclination. There is no logical explanation for millions and billions of people who subscribe to the teaching of “New Testament” which clearly misquotes, twists, and (in case of “Paul’s” writings) lies about Tanakh.
I’m fine with people declaring a new religion that does not have anything to do with Tanakh. But to declare that your religion has support in Tanakh while at the same time ignoring glaring discrepancies – you would have to be schizophrenic or evil.
I’m sorry, but that is my only conclusion after studying those things.
And just to be clear, in the formal sense I am not a Jew.
…just to be clear, when I said that God is confusing them – I did not mean all the believers in Jesus. Many of them are unfortunately misguided and seduced. I directed that statement towards the people who spread the “good news” (of course, excluding ones who are materially motivated to do it).
I was raised Orthodox Christian, and had no idea about the real truth until I sat down and read Tanakh by myself. Several times. Then it was all clear as day!
Unfortunately, I can say from my own experience that not more than a couple of percent of Christians actually read the whole Bible. That laziness and ignorance unfortunately leads to being easily seduced by a false doctrine.
Nikola,
I don’t think God is confusing them. Their parents and churches are confusing them.
Well, at least God is allowing their confusion. As with anything else in life you can’t be lazy about your faith, not read the book that you swear on, and expect God to help you be closer to Him. It’s easier to watch a preacher on a TV, YouTube or read blogs, than it is to diligently read and study Tanakh. But the price for such laziness is too high in this case.
It’s easy to “confess” some hypothetical allegiance to Jesus, whatever that means (and it doesn’t mean much, it has no substance or repercussions in daily life). Basically, there are no rules, because their messiah Jesus took care of that. It’s a bit harder to study Torah, day and night, and try to do what God is directly asking you to do.
Nikola,
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote. I would just like to add that it’s not God’s fault if a person uses their freewill to close their own mind to reason and logic. At the same time, a person can be captive to all kinds of strong emotional currents and peer pressure that can impair their reason. So most of the time it’s impossible for us to pass judgment on them or on God.
Alan,
of course, far be it from us to accuse God of anything. That’s the blessing and perils of having free will. God did enough by giving his clear words to everyone to read. I agree that many people are seduced so much that they cannot break out of the dogma, but for a majority of people it’s their choice to disregard God’s words and believe someone else.
“I agree that many people are seduced so much that they cannot break out of the dogma,”
We don’t know that they will never break out. Maybe because someone reached out to them along the way, at some point in their lives, maybe even with their last breath, they will have regret or a thought of teshuvah in their hearts. This is a kind of breaking out.
“but for a majority of people it’s their choice to disregard God’s words and believe someone else.”
I think it’s more complicated than that for the majority of people and even for the majority of sincere born-again Christians.
I agree, Alan. I do believe that there are large numbers of well-meaning and sincere Christians who are worshiping God to the best of their ability, simply not knowing better.
And Hashem has and will have compassion for them as it says-
Jeremiah 16 –
19 O LORD, my strength, and my stronghold, and my refuge, in the day of affliction, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: ‘Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.’
Hopefully more people will break out and gain understanding by themselves.
Nikola: “Once we realize how clearly it is stated in Tanakh that God did not abolish Torah and commandments, and we reject the notion that Jesus is messiah, it is easy to agree on other details.”
Kavi: Nikola,
…”abolish” or “fulfill”?
L-RD Yeshua says quite plainly,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” [Matthew 5]
… the answer then, is “fulfill”.
_______________________________
I keep hearing the phrase “fulfilled the Law”. That’s nonsense. How can you fulfill the Law?! Can anyone fulfill the Constitution of the US?
Law can only be established or abolished. Or it can be obeyed or disobeyed. Please stop with that NT nonsense.
One can fulfill the prophecy. But Jesus did not do that.
NT clashes not only with Tanakh but with the common sense and logic as well.
Nikola
Great point!!
Nikola, I am going to use this :).
Nikola: These are the new heavens and new earth – to faithfully observe Shabbat and God’s commandments. Not some made-up story about fake messiah. [referencing Isaiah 66]
Kavi: …and what of the fact that there is no sun or moon in the new heavens and earth?
“No longer will you have the sun for light by day,
Nor for brightness will the moon give you light;
But you will have the LORD for an everlasting light,
And your God for your glory.
“Your sun will no longer set,
Nor will your moon wane;
For you will have the LORD for an everlasting light,
And the days of your mourning will be over.
Are you sure your interpretation is correct?
________________
…and what of eternal condemnation?
“Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” [Isaiah 66, see also Daniel 12]
Are you in agreement with Rabbi Tovia Singer concerning the eternal condemnation of the enemies of G-d?
________________
…and what do you think a “sign” is meant to convey?
Does a sign to mankind represent physical reality or something greater that G-d intends to teach…something eternal?
________________
…and as to a “fake” Messiah, it appears your concept of Messiah is unknown to Adam/Chava, and all those who lived after them who bore the “seed” of truth regarding Messiah Redeemer.
…in fact, your concept of Messiah is very limited to the physical world… just like your concept of Sabbaths and circumcision.
________________
KAVI Again – like the serpent you lie – who “taught” you what we believe about the Sabbath and circumcision? And you did not answer – is YOUR heart circumcised? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi: The Sabbath was a “sign”… Circumcision was a “sign”.
…so, why draw the line at Sabbath? Why exclude all the other commands of G-d?
Did not the G-d who spoke through Isaiah also command the people to do many other Mitzvot lest they be cursed according to the Law? [Deuteronomy 27 and Leviticus 18]
__________________________
Tanakh is quite straightforward,
[a] Both circumcision and Sabbath were “signs” that G-d gave to teach Israel about His True Eternal Ways…
[b] Israel turned these “signs” into mere halacha upon halacha upon halacha rather than Turning to G-d and understanding His True Life-giving Ways.
[c] Circumcision was a sign that G-d meant to teach of Eternal Circumcision of the Heart. [Deuteronomy 10]
[d] Sabbath was a sign that G-d meant to teach of Eternal Sabbath Rest. [Psalm 95]
However, because Israel wanted to trust in themselves and their own degree obedience to the Law in order to “earn” G-d’s favor rather than trusting in the L-rd for True Salvation through faith in Messiah Redeemer… G-d openly condemns them by the Law. [Deuteronomy 27 & Psalm 95]
So, Nikola,
“G-d looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
to see whether there is a man of understanding, who seeks G-d.
They are all dross;
together they have spoiled;
no one does good, not even one.” [Psalm 53]
…how did you escape the eyes of the Almighty Judge?
…can those condemned by the Law truly believe they can please G-d if they continue to reject His circumcision of the heart and His Sabbath Rest?
…can those lesser things that condemn invalidate the greater things which G-d states lead to eternal life?
__________________________
KAVI
Do yo believe your heart is fully circumcised? Do you love God with all of your heart (Deuteronomy 30:6)? Do you observe all of the commandments that God gave us through Moses (Deuteronomy 30:10)?
https://judaismresources.net/2015/05/07/circumcise-your-heart/
Kavi, did you totally ignored everything Alan, Dina and Jim said about righteousness since the last two months? Do you even read what they post?
RT It seems that he wants to show us an example of an uncircumcised heart – this is pretty extreme though 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Kavi considers the observing of the Sabbath as nothing more than legalism, all form and no substance. Though I am the least capable of writing about Shabbat, I would like to address his view on the matter. (I am least capable, because, as a ben Noach, I do not keep Shabbat.) I plan to write a few pieces on this, hopefully today. This first will be a parable.
Kavi considers the laws of Shabbat to be empty. He writes disdainfully of those that keep halacha, while praising himself for having the true message of the Sabbath. Those that observe the Torah are self-righteous, but not Kavi, because he is above the law.
He is like a certain man who did not believe that the laws of the road need be followed. He realized that the laws were generally designed for safety, and he concluded that all that was required was to drive safely.
One day, as he came into a school zone, he was stopped by a police officer. The man rolled his eyes, wondering for what nonsense he would be harassed. After all, he had not hit anybody or anything with his vehicle. When the police officer approached the vehicle, he was informed that he was doing 35 mph, that he had turned without signaling, that he had not stopped at a stop sign, and that he did not have his seatbelt on, all of which are traffic violations. The man replied that he knows all that. But even though he was in a school zone, the children were far enough from the road that he deemed 35 mph to be a safe speed. When he turned without signaling, he could see that other traffic was far enough away that it would have made no difference to them, which was also the reason he did not stop at the stop sign. And as for the seatbelt, he felt safe enough without it.
As one might expect, the police officer was surprised by this response. He tried to explain that the man was correct that one should be safety-minded but that these laws were meant to promote not just an attitude of safety but safety itself. He tried to explain also that laws are not accepted individually but apply to a community. When each member of the community follows the same rules of the road, they know what to expect from one another and harmony is promoted. The man was unmoved by the police officer’s response.
“Legalist!” the motorist shouted. “All you care about is your own self-righteousness! You disgust me!”
Lest the reader be wondering if the officer let him off with a warning: the driver received a ticket.
Jim
Ah, geshmahk !!!
Alan, in case you’re wondering what MAS stands for:
Jim coined this term in response to Paul’s expressing his irritation at our habit of congratulating each other on our excellent arguments. It stands for Mutual Admiration Society.
I didn’t know. I love it!
I wish I had a book of his parables that I could read on shabbos.
Larry is compiling the book. I’m going to edit it, and someone’s gonna publish it. 🙂 🙂 🙂
I’ll be the first to buy it.
We’ve been talking about this for forever :).
This is not a joke. It’s very necessary to publish it.
All right then! Join the team!
Hurray! Another great analogy!
From the MAS
Dina and Alan,
Thank you for your very kind words. If I have written anything correctly, it is only because of what I have learned from others, including yourselves. I am only a child who is fortunate to be propped up on the shoulders of others.
Jim
You are very precocious Jim! I thought you were a teenager. I also thought CR was a lady.
Very funny, Alan. Teenager indeed.
Jim
Kavi sees in the observance of the Sabbath blind legalism. He bristles at the “halacha upon halacha upon halacha.” What he does not know that attention to detail is not paid merely to earn God’s favor, as he would have it, but this care is an expression of love.
Anyone that has been married surely know the details are important. A married man, in order to show his affection for his wife, learns what she likes and does not like. To show that he cares for her, he does things for her, according to her desires.
An example: Frequently, women like flowers. But an individual woman prefers different flowers. One man’s wife prefers roses. Another, carnations. Another, daffodils (as does my wife.) One can take the attitude that the actual flowers do not matter, but in this, he shows little care for his wife. He will buy his wife any old flowers, telling himself: “It’s the thought that counts.” But a man that truly loves his wife and wishes to show it, he will buy her the flowers that she likes. This attention to detail reflects his devotion to his wife.
Halacha is like this. The attention to detail is an expression that one cares to perform God’s expressed will out of devotion. Granted, it will not be so for everyone. Some people have a crass view of the law. Such people are like a husband that does something for his wife hoping to be repaid in some fashion. But for many people, attention to detail is an act of love.
One cannot give HaShem anything. He is complete. The only way to show one’s devotion to HaShem is to obey Him. And to be truly devoted, this cannot be done haphazardly. One must know the details of His mitzvot and keep them before one’s mind constantly. He must submit his own desires to that of his God at all times. In so doing, he expresses his love for HaShem, his devotion to HaShem.
The one that scoffs at keeping the halacha of Shabbat is like the husband who cares nothing for his wife’s actual preferences. He is like the man that tells himself: “It is the thought that counts.” He buys flowers for a woman that does not like them, or never exerts himself to find out what flowers she likes or knowing that she likes a particular flower buys her flowers but never her favorites. Then he mocks the man that exerts himself for his wife, driving to several shops to find the right flowers. He believes that such a man only does this to avoid being “nagged” by his wife. He shows that he does not know the nature of devotion, that his is a weak love, devoid of exertion.
Jim
Jim,
Thank you for this! As someone who has been living a halachic life for over 25 years, I can tell you this is how it is for me. Also, for someone who starts later in life, they can’t do it all at once, they have to approach it as a ladder – one rung at a time – and it could be over a very long period of moving from one rung to the next in terms of adding mitzvot. The Torah commandments and prohibitions should take precedence over the rabbinic enactments when deciding which mitzvot to take on. This is the way children are trained in the commandments.
I also feel that even though Hashem is complete, in a certain sense He is not complete without us. He wants a relationship with us very badly and He wants very badly for us to think, say and do certain things that He knows are very important for our own well-being. He cares infinitely. So in this sense I think we can give Him something and we can also withhold something from Him. This something is not physical or even spiritual. Only Hashem knows what this something really is. But I do think this something exists. Hashem doesn’t only care about us, He cares about all of creation and this is why the commandments deal with and actually “fix” every aspect of creation, the physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual. He cares about it all. And the commandments show that all aspects of creation are valuable and important.
Jim: “[Kavi} writes disdainfully of those that keep halacha, while praising himself for having the true message of the Sabbath.
Kavi: Do I write disdainfully about Apostle Peter who kept kashrut?
Do I write disdainfully about Apostle Paul who, when living among his Jewish brethren whom he dearly loved, attempted to avoid offending his Jewish brethren in matters of halacha?
Neither…
…and neither did Apostle Paul or Apostle Peter trust in their own merits for salvation, but trusted in G-d and His Way of salvation through Messiah.
_________________________
Dear KAVI, I think we reached the point in the discussion where continuing it would be colossal waste of time.
We established that Psalm 95 doesn’t have to do anything with Shabbat, yet you keep quoting it. I wonder is you are some kind of robot, and I guess you are. Whatever are your motivations you are programmed to regurgitate same misconceptions and lies over and over again.
Why are you asking me how I escaped the eyes of God? How did you escape the eyes of God? Or are you wicked even after “accepting Jesus”?
Your question is nonsensical. Same like 90% of your posts.
To conclude this debate about law and righteousness I’ll just leave two quotes here. One is from last week’s Torah parsha, and the other is from your own NT.
Deuteronomy 6:20-25:
20 “Some day your child will ask you, ‘What is the meaning of the instructions, laws and rulings which Adonai our God has laid down for you?’ 21 Then you will tell your child, ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and Adonai brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand. 22 Adonai worked great and terrible signs and wonders against Egypt, Pharaoh and all his household, before our very eyes. 23 He brought us out from there in order to bring us to the land he had sworn to our ancestors that he would give us. 24 Adonai ordered us to observe all these laws, to fear Adonai our God, always for our own good, so that he might keep us alive, as we are today. 25 It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to obey all these mitzvot before Adonai our God, just as he ordered us to do.’”
and again:
25 It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to obey all these mitzvot before Adonai our God, just as he ordered us to do.’”
There’s your definition of righteousness. For all the generations, for ever.
Even your own book says following:
Luke 1:5,6:
5 In the days of Herod, King of Y’hudah, there was a cohen named Z’kharyah who belonged to the Aviyah division. His wife was a descendant of Aharon, and her name was Elisheva. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, observing all the mitzvot and ordinances of Adonai blamelessly.
No mention of “faith”, or any other esoteric mumbo-jumbo that was developed later by Paul and the gang.
Nikola: “We established that Psalm 95 doesn’t have to do anything with Shabbat, yet you keep quoting it. I wonder is you are some kind of robot, and I guess you are.
Kavi: Actually, you have not addressed Psalm 95 at all… nor have you proven false anything said by the writers of Hebrews.
…hence, I must conclude you wish to end the debate because you have no answer to G-d’s two “signs” of circumcision and sabbath.
________________
Nikola: To conclude this debate about law and righteousness I’ll just leave two quotes here. One is from last week’s Torah parsha, and the other is from your own NT.
…”It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to obey all these mitzvot before Adonai our God, just as he ordered us to do.’” [Deuteronomy 6]
Kavi: Nikola, naturally you left out Tanakh that fundamentally says you are cursed for not keeping the Law…
“Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.'” [Deuteronomy 27]
AND
“Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the L-RD.” [Leviticus 18]
…you will never be able to circumvent the Law’s curse.
…and it seems you don’t like the Law that proclaims you to be an accursed child [actually, who does?]
… but your persistence indicates you likewise have failed to understand the Holiness of G-d and His ultimate demands for obedience.
…you also fail to understand G-d’s mercy in providing His Holy Messiah Redeemer to atone for sins.
______________
Israel failed to teach their children that obedience to the Law was not possible and that the children should look to faith in the original “seed” of promise… The one revealed over time as the Anointed Kinsman Redeemer.
Israel failed to teach their children about Abram, who while uncircumcised according to the Law, G-d justified by faith in His “Seed” Redeemer of Promise and reckoned that faith Tzedakah apart from the Mitzvot.
…yes, Israel failed to teach obedience to the eternal G-d and His eternal Way through trust in Him apart from the Law.
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
AND
“Then Abram believed in the L-RD; and He reckoned it to him as Tzedakah.” [Genesis 15]
________________
Nikola: And you mention also,
“In the days of Herod, King of Y’hudah, there was a cohen named Z’kharyah who belonged to the Aviyah division. His wife was a descendant of Aharon, and her name was Elisheva. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, observing all the mitzvot and ordinances of Adonai blamelessly.”
Kavi: Exactly! And how does one observe all the mitzvot and ordinances blamelessly and NOT be cursed by the Law?
….by trusting in Messiah Redeemer who established the New Covenant of,
[] circumcision of the heart,
[] and, thus, eternal sabbath with G-d… eternal rest.
…L-RD Yeshua brought all things together– G-d’s Original Promise, the Signs, the Law, the New Covenant… all established at the crucifixion and resurrection.
…all that is left is the final establishment of His Eternal Kingdom… the Sovereign L-RD who is patient and Holy beyond what mankind can conceive.
________________
Rabbi B., I was just thinking it might be helpful to ask Christians one question before beginning any discussion.
The question is: In your own words, can you explain the Jewish position of Jesus from the Jewish perspective?
I think this might be clarifying.
Oops, I meant to write on Jesus instead of of Jesus.
Kavi,
In your mind, a Jew is either all cursed or all blessed, all condemned or all justified. To you, there is no gray, it’s all black and white. Your conception of blessing and curse and of the God of the Jews is inhumane. Not only is it not Godly, it’s not even humane. Your conception of the God of the Jews is Kim Jong Un. I of course might be wrong, but I suspect you were the victim of a super strict, cruel and abusive father. I hope it’s not true. But if it is true, it’s very hard for such a person to trust God, the Father. It’s difficult but still possible for a victim of this to develop trust in the Father. Maybe your distorted image of the Father doesn’t have to do with this. But it’s hard for me to believe that someone who always had a healthy relationship with his father would view the God of the Hebrew scriptures as a Kim Jong Un.
Alan: “Kavi,
In your mind, a Jew is either all cursed or all blessed, all condemned or all justified. To you, there is no gray, it’s all black and white.”
Kavi: Only the Jew? What of the Gentile?
….Adam/Chava were cursed for one sin!
…and G-d gave Adam/Chava no chance for Teshuva or Sacrifice to make themselves holy again.
…is that “fair”?
G-d has no darkness at all in Him… He is sinless and He could not tolerate mankind’s sin… He is utterly Holy beyond our knowledge…
So, let us leave far behind the Jew vs Gentile distinction,
G-d pronounces the condemnation of ALL MANKIND…
“G-d has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is anyone who understands, Who seeks after G-d.
Every one of them has turned aside;
together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
not even one.” [Psalm 53]
_______________________
Yet, in mercy, ALL MANKIND IS BLESSED through salvation wrought by G-d in His Messiah Redeemer.
G-d’s plan for forgiveness of sins involved a work that mankind could not achieve on their own… a work that involves trust in Him and His Ways…
…that’s a mercy both Jews and Gentiles desperately need.
_______________________
_______________________
You think the Jew is condemned because of the Law and the Gentile just because he’s a human being. There are so many examples of good people in Tanakh. Stop misrepresenting David’s words. I am waiting for you to be blocked from this blog so I don’t have to keep engaging with you. You are a closed-minded preacher.
Alan, you don’t have to engage with him. You can stop talking to him, as I did. I don’t debate liars.
Alan
I haven’t blocked him because he demonstrates to one and all what Christianity could lead to
Rabbi B.,
I understand. I’ll respond to him once in a while without getting into a long discussion.
Alan There is no need to respond to him at all – he is serving his purpose without our help
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Rabbi Blumenthal: “KAVI Again – like the serpent you lie – who “taught” you what we believe about the Sabbath and circumcision?”
Kavi: The serpent’s lie was that G-d is a liar.
What do the Orthodox faithful believe?
…that somehow the Law of Moses does not proclaim them as accursed!
[contrary to Deuteronomy 27 and Leviticus 18]
…thus, the Orthodox believe a lie that G-d is a liar.
_______________________
Rabbi Blumenthal: And you did not answer – is YOUR heart circumcised?
Kavi: Is physical circumcision of man partial… or complete?
Complete… therefore G-d’s ‘sign’ His eternal circumcision of the heart is an act that is fully complete.
According to the completeness of the New Covenant, G-d completely circumcised my heart in Messiah Redeemer… it is His gracious Salvation wrought by Himself just as He Promised from the very beginnings of His Words in Genesis.
…so yes, because of G-d’s Promise in His revealed Word, the forgiveness and protection for MY eternal soul is complete ONLY because of G-d’s grace through my trust in Him and His Messiah Redeemer.
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
_______________________
Note> L-RD Yeshua once said,
“The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me, because I testify that its works are evil.” [John 7]
_______________________
Kavi wrote:
“MY eternal soul is complete ONLY because of G-d’s grace through my trust in Him and His Messiah Redeemer.”
Kavi also cited:
“Behold, G-d is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; For G-D, the L-RD is my strength and song; And He is become my salvation.” [Isaiah 12]
Kavi are you too blind to see the problem here?
That’s why I used term “believers in Jesus”. I didn’t want to say “Christians”, because I know there are vast differences between different sects.
So, please, any of you guys (KAVI, Bible, ..). This is not a trick question, I’m really interested in your faith and practices.
The Jewish people knows that Hashem is a patient, understanding and loving Father to everyone – both to His nation and to all people. Perhaps the main foundation of Christianity is the slandering of both the Father and His first-born son. If not for this slander, Jesus wouldn’t have any customers. Here is a small sampling of verses from Tanakh that describe our compassionate Father:
Exodus 34
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: ‘Hashem, Hashem, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;
Exodus 22
26 for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin; wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto Me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
Joel 2
12 Yet even now, saith the LORD, turn ye unto Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with lamentation;
13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God; for He is gracious and compassionate, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy, and repenteth Him of the evil.
Jonah 4
2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said: ‘I pray Thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in mine own country? Therefore I fled beforehand unto Tarshish; for I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and compassionate, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy, and repentest Thee of the evil.
Micah 7
18 Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy.
Psalm 145
8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
9 HASHEM IS GOOD TO ALL; AND HIS TENDER MERCIES ARE UPON ALL OF HIS HANDIWORK.
Psalm 103
8 The LORD is full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
9 He will not always contend; neither will He keep His anger for ever.
10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor requited us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward them that fear Him.
12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.
13 Like as a father hath compassion upon his children, so hath the LORD compassion upon them that fear Him.
14 For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust.
15 As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof knoweth it no more.
and His righteousness unto children’s children;
17 But the kindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him,
18 To such as keep His covenant, and to those that remember His precepts to do them.
Here are some more verses about Hashem’s love and compassion for anyone who wants to look them up. There are still many more verses that I haven’t listed:
psalms 86
nehemiah 9
numbers 14
psalm 112:4
psalm 145
psalm 116
2 Chronicles 30
Isaiah 30:19
psalms 109
hoshea 6:6
psalms 52:10
psalm 33:5 and 18
psalms 32:10
jeremiah 32
jeremiah 9
Kavi wrote: “The Messiah Redeemer has already triumphed over satan and his power over the flesh…”
What does this mean? Satan had “power over the flesh”? What evidence is there that would indicate:
a- That the satan ever had this power
b- If this power has been triumphed over, then what is the evidence of such?
Are we back to Hebrews and the guarantee of perfect obedience for believers in Jesus by the “power of the blood”?
We must be if you claim that the satan’s “power over the flesh” is the cause of sin and that this power has been vanquished. However, if the satan’s “power over the flesh” is not the cause of sin, then what did this invisible “victory over the satan’s power over the flesh” accomplish?